Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think of this for a moment, these kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in this Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government ``for the children'' we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today's youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing. These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government! It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3557. At the same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, the work of Cardinal O'Connor. Cardinal O'Connor is a true hero as he labors tirelessly on behalf of the most needy and vulnerable in our society; promotes racial and religious harmony; advocates the best education for all children regardless of race, religion, or financial status; ministers to the poor, sick, and disabled; all the while standing up for that which he believes even in the face of hostility. I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Cardinal O'Connor because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Cardinal O'Connor who dedicates his life to voluntary and charitable work, particularly humanitarian. Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, several of my colleagues felt compelled to personally challenge me as to whether, on this issue, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution--a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath. In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for the work of Cardinal O'Connor, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to the well-deserving Cardinal O'Connor. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather than that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to the work of Cardinal O'Connor as they have consistently done in the past. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer's money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions and generosity. It is, of course, very easy to be generous with other people's money.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record and highly recommend to all of my colleagues Bill Evers' ``Secretary Riley Reignites the Math Wars,'' which recently appeared in the Weekly Standard. Mr. Evers' provides an excellent overview of the controversy created by the Department of Education's endorsement of ten ``discovery-learning'' programs (also known as ``new, new math'' or ``fuzzy math''). Concerns have been raised that ``fuzzy math'' de-emphasizes traditional mathematics in favor of encouraging children to ``discover'' math without the guidance of a teacher. Under some ``new, new math'' programs traditional teaching is discouraged on the grounds that teachers may harm a child's self-esteem by, for example, correcting a child's ``discovery'' that 2+2 equals 5. Obviously, this type of ``education'' diminishes a child's future prospects, after all, few employers value high self-esteem more than the ability to add! Mr. Evers' article points out that the federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate or even recommend to local schools what type of mathematics curriculum they should adopt. Instead, all curriculum decisions are solely under the control of states, local communities, teachers, and parents. I would remind my colleagues that outrages like ``new math'' did not infiltrate the classroom until the federal government seized control of education, allowing Washington-DC based bureaucrats to use our children as guinea pigs for their politically correct experiments. The solution to America's education crisis lies in returning to the Constitution and restoring parental control. In order to restore true parental control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). This bill would give parents a $3,000 per year tax credit for each child's education related expenses. Unlike other so-called ``reform'' proposals, my bill would allow parents considerably more freedom in determining how to educate their children. It would also be free of guidelines and restrictions that only dilute the actual number of dollars spent directly on a child. The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with the means to make sure their children are getting a quality education that meets their child's special needs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that thirty years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to read Mr. Evers' article on the dangers of the federal endorsement of ``fuzzy math'' and support my efforts to improve education by giving dollars and authority to parents, teachers and local school districts by cosponsoring the Family Education Freedom Act. Williamson Evers is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, an adjunct professor of political science at Santa Clara University, a research fellow at the Independent Institute and an adjunct fellow of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Mr. Evers has served on the California State Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards and he is currently a member of the California State Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessment system's Content Review Panels for history and mathematics as well as the Advisory Board of the Californian History-Social Science Project. Mr. Evers is the editor of What's Gone Wrong in America's Classrooms (Hoover Institution Press, 1998). Mr. Evers has been published in numerous scholarly and popular periodicals, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the Christian Science Monitor. Secretary Riley Reignites the Math Wars (By Bill Evers) Bill Evers is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of Hoover's Koret Task Force on K-12 Education. In early 1998, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley called for a ``cease-fire'' in the math wars between the proponents of solid content and the proponents of discovery- learning methods. He said he was ``very troubled'' by ``the increasing polarization and fighting'' about how and which mathematics should be taught from kindergarten through high school. Despite this call for a cease-fire, the U.S. Department of Education endorsed ten discovery-learning programs in October 1999. This federal imprimatur should not be allowed to disguise the fact that content (such as dividing fractions and multiplying multidigit numbers) is missing from these federally approved programs and that there is no good evidence that they are effective. Discovery-learning math is often called by its critics ``fuzzy math'' or ``no-correct- answer math.'' In response to the Department of Education, about two hundred mathematicians and scientists signed an open letter to Secretary Riley, which was published in the Washington Post on November 18, 1999 (see letter at www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm.) The signers, who included Nobel laureates and some of the country's most eminent mathematicians, didn't like the Department of Education's new equation: Federal Math=Fuzzy Math. The letter asked Riley to withdraw the federal endorsements. The news stories that followed got at the essence of the debate. Steve Leinward of the Connecticut Department of Education was on the U.S. Department of Education's panel that picked the math programs that would receive federal approval. In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Leinward defended the approved programs as the least common denominator--``a common core of math that all students can master.'' Leinward is not saying that the federally approved programs cover the material taught in too-performing countries such as Japan or Hungary or that the programs contain complete coverage of elementary and secondary school math. What he and his fellow panelists want is a watered-down program that all American students--as currently trained--can master. Mathematics professor David Klein of California State University at Northridge is a proponent of solid content. He is quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education as saying that algebra is the key course for students, the gateway to success in mathematics and to success in college in general. Leinward says that Klein's algebra-for-all position is elitist. Here we have the central difference between the two sides. The rigorous curriculum side says that, like Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore, we can have algebra for all, preparing students for technical careers and college-level work. The water-it-down side says U.S. teachers and students aren't capable of teaching and learning algebra. These federal recommendations are for kindergarten through high school, which has serious consequences. In essence, the U.S. Department of Education, by making these endorsements, is closing the gate on going to college or even on technical blue-collar jobs for many students. And it is closing that gate as early as kindergarten.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation. The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation's seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet, the Federal Government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits and limits senior citizens' ability to earn additional income by reducing Social Security benefits if a senior exceeds the ``earnings limitation.'' Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending. Mr. Speaker, I do wish to clarify that this tax credit is intended to supplement the efforts to reform and strengthen the Medicare system to ensure seniors have the ability to use Medicare funds to purchase prescription drugs. I am a strong supporter of strengthening the Medicare system to allow for more choice and consumer control, including structural reforms that will allow seniors to use Medicare funds to cover the costs of prescription drugs. In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs. The Pharmaceutical Freedom Act also protects consumers' access to affordable prescription drugs by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state- licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible by lowering taxes on senior citizens, removing barriers to the importation of pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from needless regulation by cosponsoring the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I took a special order to discuss the importance of the American Republic and why it should be preserved. Today, I will continue with that special order. When it comes to executive orders, it has gotten completely out of hand. Executive orders may legitimately be used by a President to carry out his constitutionally authorized duties, but that would require far fewer orders than modern day Presidents have issued as the 20th century comes to a close, we find the executive branch willfully and arrogantly using the executive order to deliberately circumvent the legislative body, and bragging about it. Although nearly 100,000 American battle deaths have occurred since World War II and both big and small wars have been fought almost continuously, there has not been a congressional declaration of war since 1941. Our Presidents now fight wars not only without explicit congressional approval but also in the name of the United Nations, with our troops now serving under foreign commanders. Our Presidents have assured us that U.N. authorization is all that is needed to send our troops into battle. The 1973 War Powers Resolution meant to restrict presidential war powers has either been ignored by our Presidents or used to justify war up to 90 days. The Congress and the people too often have chosen to ignore this problem, saying little about the recent bombing in Serbia. The continual bombing of Iraq which has now been going on for over 9 years is virtually ignored. If a President can decide on the issue of war without a vote of the Congress, a representative republic does not exist. Our President should not have the authority to declare national emergencies and they certainly should not have authority to declare martial law, a power the Congress has already granted to any future emergency. Economic and political crises can develop quickly and overly aggressive Presidents are only too willing to enhance their own power in dealing with them. Congress sadly throughout this century has been only too willing to grant authority to our Presidents at the sacrifice of its own. The idea of separate but equal branches of government has been forgotten and the Congress bears much of the responsibility for this trend. Executive powers in the past 100 years have grown steadily with the creation of agencies that write and enforce their own regulations and with Congress allowing the President to use executive orders without restraint. But in addition, there have been various other special vehicles that our Presidents use without congressional oversight. For example, the exchange stabilization fund set up during the depression has over $34 billion available to be used at the President's discretion without congressional approval. This slush fund grows each year as it is paid interest on the securities it holds. It was instrumental in the $50 billion Mexican bailout in 1995. The CIA is so secretive that even those Congressmen privy to its operation have little knowledge of what this secret government actually does around the world. We know, of course, it has been involved in the past 50 years in assassinations and government overthrows on frequent occasions. The Federal Reserve operation, which works hand in hand with the administration, is not subject to congressional oversight. The Fed manipulates currency exchange rates, controls short-term interest rates, and fixes the gold price, all behind closed doors. Bailing out foreign governments, financial corporations and huge banks can all be achieved without congressional approval. One hundred years ago when we had a gold standard, credit could not be created out of thin air, and, because a much more limited government philosophy prevailed, this could not have been possible. Today it is hard to even document what goes on, let alone expect Congress to control it. The people should be able to closely monitor the Government, but as our government grows in size and scope, it, the Government, seeks to monitor our every move. Attacks on our privacy are an incessant and always justified by citing so-called legitimate needs of the State, efficiency and law enforcement. Plans are laid for numerous data banks to record everyone's activities. A national ID card using our Social Security number is the goal of many, and even though we achieved a significant delivery in delaying its final approval last year, the promoters will surely persist in their efforts. Plans are made for a medical data bank to be kept and used against our wishes. Job banks and details of all our lending activities continue to be of interest to all our national policy agencies, to make sure they know exactly where the drug dealers, the illegal aliens, and tax dodgers are and what they are doing, it is argued. For national security purposes, the Echelon system of monitoring all overseas phone calls has been introduced, yet the details of this program are not available to any inquiring Member of Congress. The Government knew very little about each individual American citizen in 1900. But, starting with World War I, there has been a systematic growth of Government surveillance of everyone's activities, with multiple records being kept. Today, true privacy is essentially a thing of the past. The FBI and the IRS have been used by various administrations to snoop and harass political opponents, and there has been little effort by Congress to end this abuse. A free society, that is, a constitutional republic, cannot be maintained if privacy is not highly cherished and protected by the Government, rather than abused by it. We can expect it to get worse. Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen was recently quoted as saying, ``Terrorism is escalating to the point that U.S. citizens may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive forms of protection.'' This is all in the name of taking care of us. As far as I am concerned, we could all do with a lot less Government protection and security. The offer of Government benevolence is the worst reason to sacrifice liberty, but we have seen a lot of that during the 20th century. Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds, if not for thousands, of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973, abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American rejection of abortion at the beginning of the century compared to today's casual acceptance is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal, living entity, deserving protection of the law. Ironically, the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad. This loss of respect for human life in the latter half of the 20th century has yet to have its full impact on our society. Without a deep concern for life and with the casual disposing of living human fetuses, respect for liberty is greatly diminished. This has allowed a subtle but real justification for those who commit violent acts against fellow human beings. It should surprise no one that a teenager delivering a term newborn is capable of throwing the child away in a garbage dumpster. The new mother in this circumstance is acting consistently, knowing that if an abortion is done just before a delivery, it is legally justified and the abortionist is paid to kill the child. Sale of fetal parts to tax- supported institutions is now an accepted practice. This moral dilemma that our society has encountered over the past 40 years, if not resolved in the favor of life, will make it impossible for a system of laws to protect the life and liberty of any citizen. We can expect senseless violence to continue as the sense of worth is undermined. Children know that mothers and sisters, when distraught, have abortions to solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Distraught teenagers in coping with this behavior are now prone to use violence against others or themselves when provoked or confused. This tendency is made worse because they see in this age of abortion their own lives as having less value, thus destroying self-esteem. The prime reason government is organized in a free society is to protect life, not to protect those who take life. Today, not only do we protect the abortionist, we take taxpayers' funds to pay for abortions domestically as well as overseas. This egregious policy will continue to plague us well into the 21st century. A free society designed to protect life and liberty is incompatible with Government sanctions and financing abortion on demand. It should not be a surprise to anyone that as abortion became more acceptable, our society became more violent and less free. The irony is that Roe v. Wade justified abortion using the privacy argument, conveniently forgetting that not protecting the innocent unborn is the most serious violation of privacy possible. If the location of the fetus is the justification for legalized killing, the privacy of our homes would permit the killing of the newborn, the deformed and the elderly, a direction, unfortunately, in which we find ourselves going. As government-financed medical care increases, we will hear more economic arguments for euthanasia, that is, mercy killing, for the benefit of the budget planners. Already we hear these economic arguments for killing the elderly and terminally ill. Last year the House made a serious error by trying to federalize the crime of killing a fetus occurring in an act of violence. The stated goal was to emphasize that the fetus deserved legal protection under the law, and, indeed, it should and does at the State level. Federalizing any act of violence is unconstitutional. Essentially, all violent acts should be dealt with by the States, and, because we have allowed the courts and Congress to federalize such laws, we find more good State laws are overridden than good Federal laws written. Roe v. Wade federalized State abortion laws and ushered in the age of abortion. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, if passed into law, will do great harm by explicitly excluding the abortionist, thus codifying for the first time the Roe v. Wade concept and giving even greater legal protection to the abortionist. The responsibility of Congress is twofold: first, we should never fund abortions. Nothing could be more heinous than forcing those with strong right-to-life beliefs to pay for abortions. Second, Roe v. Wade must be replaced by limiting jurisdiction, which can be done through legislation, a constitutional option. If we as a Nation do not once again show respect and protect the life of the unborn, we can expect the factions that have emerged on each side of this issue to become more vocal and violent. A Nation that can casually toss away its smallest and most vulnerable members and call it a ``right'' cannot continue to protect the lives or rights of its other citizens. Much has changed over the past 100 years, where technology has improved our living standards. We find that our Government has significantly changed from one of limited scope to that of pervasive intervention. One hundred years ago it was generally conceded that one extremely important function of government was to enforce contracts made voluntarily in the marketplace. Today, government notoriously interferes with almost every voluntary economic transaction. Consumerism, labor laws, wage standards, hiring and firing regulations, political correctness, affirmative action, the Americans with Disability Act, the Tax Code, and others place a burden on the two parties struggling to transact business. The EPA, OSHA and government-generated litigation also interferes with voluntary contracts. At times, it seems a miracle that our society adapts and continues to perform reasonably well in spite of the many bureaucratic dictates. As the 20th century comes to a close, we see a dramatic change from a government that once served an important function by emphasizing the value of voluntary contracts to one that excessively interferes with them. Although the interference is greater in economic associations than in social, the principle is the same. Already we see the political correctness movement interfering with social and religious associations. Data banks are set up to keep records on everyone, especially groups with strong religious views and anybody to be so bold as to call himself a patriot. The notion that there is a difference between murder and murder driven by hate has established the principles of a thought crime, a dangerous trend indeed. When the business cycle turns down, all the regulations and laws that interfere with economic and personal transactions will not be as well tolerated, and then the true cost will become apparent. It is under the conditions of a weak economy that such government interference generates a reaction to the anger over the rules that have been suppressed. To the statist, the idea that average people can and should take care of themselves by making their own decisions and that they do not need Big Brother to protect them in everything they do is anathema to the way they think. The bureaucratic mindset is convinced that without the politicians' effort, no one would be protected from anything, rejecting the idea of a free market economy out of ignorance or arrogance. This change in the 20th century has significantly contributed to the dependency of our poor on Government handouts, the recipients being convinced that they are entitled to help and that they are incapable of taking care of themselves. A serious loss of self-esteem and unhappiness results, even if the system in the short run seems to help them get by. There were no Federal laws at the end of the 19th century dealing with drugs or guns. Gun violence was rare and abuse of addictive substances was only a minor problem. Now, after 100 years of progressive Government intervention in dealing with guns and drugs, with thousands of laws and regulations, we have more gun violence and a huge drug problem. Before the social authoritarians decided to reform the gun and drug culture, they amended the Constitution enacting alcohol prohibition. Prohibition failed to reduce alcohol usage and a crime wave resulted. After 14 years, the American people demanded repeal of this social engineering amendment, and got it. Prohibition prompted the production of poor quality alcohol with serious health consequences, while respect for the law was lost as it was flagrantly violated. At least at that time the American people believed the Constitution had to be amended to prohibit the use of alcohol, something that is entirely ignored today in the Federal Government's effort to stop drug usage. In spite of the obvious failure of alcohol prohibition, the Federal Government, after its repeal, turned its sights on gun ownership and drug usage. The many Federal anti-gun laws written since 1934, along with the constant threat of outright registration and confiscation, have put the FBI and the BATF at odds with millions of law abiding citizens who believe the Constitution is explicit in granting the right of gun ownership to all nonviolent Americans. Our government pursued alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and confiscation of gold in the 1930s, so it is logical to conclude that our government is quite capable of confiscating all privately-owned firearms. That has not yet occurred; but as we move into the next century, many in Washington advocate just that and would do it if they did not think the American people would revolt, just as they did against alcohol prohibition. Throughout this century, there has been a move toward drug prohibition starting with the Harrison Act of 1912. The first Federal marijuana law was pushed through by FDR in 1938, but the real war on drugs has been fought with intensity for the past 30 years. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and not only is there no evidence of reduced drug usage, we have instead seen a tremendous increase. Many deaths have occurred from overdoses of street drugs since there is no quality control or labeling. Crime as a consequence of drug prohibition has skyrocketed and our prisons are overflowing. Many prisoners are nonviolent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimum sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have nonviolent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers. With drugs and needles illegal, the unintended consequence of the spread of AIDS and hepatitis through dirty needles has put a greater burden on the taxpayers who are forced to care for the victims. This ridiculous system that offers a jail cell for a sick addict rather than treatment has pushed many a young girl into prostitution to pay for the drugs priced hundreds of times higher than they are worth, but the drug dealers love the system and dread a new approach. When we finally decide that drug prohibition has been no more successful than alcohol prohibition, the drug dealers will disappear. The monster drug problem we have created is compounded by moves to tax citizens so government can hand out free needles to drug addicts who are breaking the law in hopes that there will be less spread of hepatitis and AIDS in order to reduce government health care costs. This proposal shows how bankrupt we are at coming to grips with this problem, and it seems we will never learn. Tobacco is about to be categorized as a drug and prohibition of sorts imposed. This will make the drug war seem small if we continue to expand the tobacco war. Talk about insane government policies of the 20th century, tobacco policy wins the prize. First, we subsidize tobacco in response to demands by the special interests, knowing full well even from the beginning that tobacco had many negative health consequences. Then we spend taxpayers' money warning the people of its dangers, without stopping the subsidies. Government then pays for the care of those who choose to smoke, despite the known dangers and warnings. But it does not stop there. The trial lawyers' lobby saw to it that the local government entities could sue tobacco companies for reimbursement of the excess costs that they were bearing in taking care of smoking-related illnesses, and the only way this could be paid for was to place a tax on those people who did not smoke. How could such silliness go on for so long? For one reason. We as a nation have forgotten the basic precept of a free society, that all citizens must be responsible for their own acts. If one smokes and gets sick, that is the problem of the one making the decision to smoke or take any other risk for that matter, not the innocent taxpayers who have already been forced to pay for the tobacco subsidies and government health warning ads. Beneficiaries of this monstrous policy have been tobacco farmers, tobacco manufacturers, politicians, bureaucrats, smokers, health organizations, and physicians, and especially the trial lawyers. Who suffers? The innocent taxpayers that have no choice in the matter and who acted responsibly and chose not to smoke. Think of what it would mean if we followed this simple logic and implemented a Federal social program, similar to the current war on smoking, designed to reduce the spread of AIDS within the gay community. Astoundingly, we have done the opposite by making AIDS a politically correct disease. There was certainly a different attitude a hundred years ago regarding those with sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis compared to the special status given AIDS victims today. It is said that an interventionist economy is needed to make society fair to everyone. We need no more government fairness campaigns. Egalitarianism never works and inevitably penalizes the innocent. Government in a free society is supposed to protect the innocent, encourage self-reliance and impose equal justice while allowing everyone to benefit from their own effort and suffer the consequences of their own acts. A free and independent people need no authoritarian central government dictating eating, drinking, gambling, sexual, or smoking habits. When the rules are required, they should come from the government closest to home as it once did prior to America's ill-fated 20th Century experiment with alcohol prohibition. Let us hope we show more common sense in the 21st Century in these matters than we did in the 20th. A compulsive attitude by politicians to regulate nonviolent behavior may be well intentioned but leads to many unintended consequences. Legislation passed in the second half of the 20th Century dealing with drugs and personal habits has been the driving force behind the unconstitutional seizure and forfeiture laws and the loss of financial privacy. The war on drugs is the most important driving force behind the national police state. The excuse given for calling in the Army helicopters and tanks at the Waco disaster was that the authorities had evidence of an amphetamine lab on the Davidian property. This was never proven, but nevertheless it gave the legal cover but not the proper constitutional authority for escalating the attack on the Davidians which led to the senseless killing of so many innocent people. The attitudes surrounding this entire issue needs to change. We should never turn over the job of dealing with bad habits to our Federal Government. That is a recipe for disaster. America has not only changed technologically in the last 100 years but our social attitudes and personal philosophies have changed as well. We have less respect for life and less love for liberty. We are obsessed with material things, along with rowdy and raucous entertainment. Needs and wants have become rights for both poor and rich. The idea of instant gratification too often guides our actions, and when satisfaction is not forthcoming anger and violence breaks out. Road rage and airline passenger rage are seen more frequently. Regardless of fault, a bad outcome in almost anything, even if beyond human control, will prompt a lawsuit. Too many believe they deserve to win the lottery and a lawsuit helps the odds. Unfortunately, the only winners too often are the lawyers hyping the litigation. Few Americans are convinced anymore that productive effort is the most important factor in economic success and personal satisfaction. One did not get rich in the 1990s investing in companies that had significant or modest earnings. The most successful investors bought companies that had no earnings and the gambling paid off big. This attitude cannot create perpetual wealth and must some day end. Today, financial gurus are obsessed with speculation in the next initial public offering and express no interest in the cause of liberty without which markets cannot exist. Lying and cheating are now acceptable by the majority. This was not true 100 years ago when moral standards were higher. The October 1999 issue of U.S. News and World Report reveals that 84 percent of college students believe cheating is necessary to get ahead in today's world, and 90 percent are convinced there is no price to pay for the cheating. Not surprisingly, 90 percent of college students do not believe politicians, and an equal number of percentage believes the media cheats as well. There is no way to know if this problem is this bad in the general population, but these statistics indicate our young people do not trust our politicians or media. Trust has been replaced with a satisfaction in the materialism that speculative stock markets, borrowing money, and a spendthrift government can generate. What happens to our society if the material abundance which we enjoy is ephemeral and human trust is lost? Social disorder will surely result and there will be a clamor for a more authoritarian government. This scenario may indeed threaten the stability of our social order and significantly undermine all our constitutional protections, but there is no law or ethics committee that will solve this problem of diminishing trust and honesty. That is a problem of the heart, mind and character to be dealt with by each individual citizen. The importance of the family unit today has been greatly diminished compared to the close of the 19th Century. Now, fewer people get married, more divorces occur and the number of children born out of wedlock continues to rise. Tax penalties are placed on married couples. Illegitimacy and single parenthood are rewarded by government subsidies, and we find many authoritarians arguing that the definition of marriage should change in order to allow non-husband and -wife couples to qualify for welfare handouts. The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and heterophobia. Freedom of speech is still cherished in America but the political correctness movement has seriously undermined dissent on our university campuses. A conservative or libertarian black intellectual is clearly not treated with the same respect afforded an authoritarian black spokesman. We now hear of individuals being sent to psychiatrists when personal and social views are crude or out of the ordinary. It was commonplace in the Soviet system to incarcerate political dissenters in so-called mental institutions. Those who received a Soviet government designation of socially undesirable elements were stripped of their rights. Will this be the way we treat political dissent in the future? We hear of people losing their jobs because of socially undesirable thoughts or for telling off-color jokes. Today, sensitivity courses are routinely required in America to mold social thinking for the simplest of infractions. The thought police are all around us. It is a bad sign. Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti- Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is ever even permitted, without derision by the media, the university intellectuals and the politicians, to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them while ushering in a 45-year saber-rattling, dangerous Cold War period. Free speech is permitted in our universities for those who do not threaten the status quo of welfarism, globalism, corporatism, and a financial system that provides great benefit to the powerful special interests. If a university professor does not follow the party line, he does not receive tenure. We find ourselves at the close of this century realizing all our standards have been undermined. A monetary standard for our money is gone. The dollar is whatever the government tells us it is. There is no definition and no promise to pay anything for the notes issued ad infinitum by the government. Standards for education are continually lowered, deemphasizing excellence. Relative ethics are promoted and moral absolutes are ridiculed. The influence of religion on our standards is frowned upon and replaced by secular humanistic standards. The work ethic has been replaced by a welfare ethic based on need, not effort. Strict standards required for an elite military force are gone and our lack of readiness reflects this. Standards of behavior of our professional athletes seem to reflect the rules followed in the ring by the professional wrestlers where anything goes. Managed medical care driven by government decrees has reduced its quality and virtually ruined the doctor-patient relationship. Movie and TV standards are so low that our young people's senses are totally numbed by them. Standards of courtesy on highways, airplanes, and shops are seriously compromised and at times leads to senseless violence. With the acceptance of abortion, our standards for life have become totally arbitrary as they have become for liberty. Endorsing the arbitrary use of force by our government morally justifies the direct use of force by disgruntled groups not satisfied with the slower government process. The standards for honesty and truth have certainly deteriorated during the past 100 years. Property ownership has been undermined through environmental regulations and excessive taxation. True ownership of property no longer exists. There has been a systematic undermining of legal and constitutional principles once followed and respected for the protection of individual liberty. A society cannot continue in a state of moral anarchy. Moral anarchy will lead to political anarchy. A society without clearly understood standards of conduct cannot remain stable any more than an architect can design and build a sturdy skyscraper with measuring instruments that change in value each day. We recently lost a NASA space probe because someone failed to convert inches to centimeters, a simple but deadly mistake in measuring physical standards. If we as a people debase our moral standards, the American Republic will meet a similar fate. Many Americans agree that this country is facing a moral crisis that has been especially manifested in the closing decade of the 21st century. Our President's personal conduct, the characters of our politicians in general, the caliber of the arts, movies, and television, and our legal system have reflected this crisis. The personal conduct of many of our professional athletes and movie stars has been less than praiseworthy. Some politicians, sensing this, have pushed hard to write and strictly enforce numerous laws regarding personal nonviolent behavior with the hope that the people will become more moral. This has not happened, but has filled our prisons. This year it will cost more than $40 billion to run our prison system. The prison population, nearing 2 million, is up 70 percent in the last decade, and two-thirds of the inmates did not commit an act of violence. Mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws have been instrumental in this trend. Laws clearly cannot alter moral behavior, and if it is attempted, it creates bigger problems. Only individuals with moral convictions can make society moral. But the law does reflect the general consensus of the people regarding force and aggression, which is a moral issue. Government can be directed to restrain and punish violent aggressive citizens, or it can use aggressive force to rule the people, redistribute wealth, and make citizens follow certain moral standards, and force them to practice certain personal habits. Once government is permitted to do the latter, even in a limited sense, the guiding principle of an authoritarian government is established, and its power and influence over the people will steadily grow, at the expense of personal liberty. No matter how well- intentioned, the authoritarian government always abuses its powers. In its effort to achieve an egalitarian society, the principle of inequality that freedom recognizes and protects is lost. Government, then, instead of being an obstruction to violence, becomes the biggest perpetrator. This invites all the special interests to manipulate the monopoly and evil use of government power. Twenty thousand lobbyists currently swarm Washington seeking special advantage. That is where we find ourselves today. Although government cannot and should not try to make people better in the personal, moral sense, proper law should have a moral, nonaggressive basis to it: no lying, cheating, stealing, killing, injuring, or threatening. Government then would be limited to protecting contracts, people, and property, while guaranteeing all personal nonviolent behavior, even the controversial. Although there are degrees in various authoritarian societies as to how much power a government may wield, once government is given the authority to wield power, it does so in an ever-increasing manner. The pressure to use government authority to run the economy in our lives depends on several factors. These include a basic understanding of personal liberty, respect for a constitutional republic, economic myths, ignorance, and misplaced good intentions. In every society there are always those waiting in the wings for an opportunity to show how brilliant they are as they lust for power, convinced that they know what is best for everyone. But the defenders of liberty know that what is best for everyone is to be left alone, with a government limited to stopping aggressive behavior. The 20th century has produced socialist dictators the world over, from Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to Pol Pot, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh. More than 200 million people died as a result of bad ideas of these evil men. Each and every one of these dictators despised the principle of private property ownership, which then undermined all the other liberties cherished by the people. It is argued that the United States and now the world have learned a third way, something between extreme socialism and mean-spirited capitalism. But this is a dream. The so-called friendly third way endorses 100 percent the principle that government authority can be used to direct our lives and the economy. Once this is accepted, the principle that man alone is responsible for his salvation and his life on Earth, which serves as the foundation for free market capitalism, is rejected. The third way of friendly welfarism or soft fascism, where government and businesses are seen as partners, undermines and sets the stage for authoritarian socialism. Personal liberty cannot be preserved if we remain on the course at which we find ourselves at the close of the 20th century. In our early history, it was understood that a free society embraced both personal civil liberties and economic liberties. During the 20th century this unified concept of freedom has been undermined. Today we have one group talking about economic freedom while interfering with our personal liberty, and the other group condemning economic liberty while preaching the need to protect personal civil liberties. Both groups reject liberty 50 percent of the time. That leaves very few who defend liberty all the time. Sadly, there are too few in this country who today understand and defend liberty in both areas. A common debate that we hear occurs over how we can write laws protecting normal speech and at the same time limiting commercial speech, as if they were two entirely different things. Many Americans wonder why Congress pays so little attention to the Constitution and are bewildered as to how so much inappropriate legislation gets passed. But the Constitution is not entirely ignored. It is used correctly at times when it is convenient and satisfies a particular goal, but never consistently across-the-board on all legislation. Two, the Constitution is all too frequently made to say exactly what the authors of special legislation want it to say. That is the modern way language can be made relative to our times, but without a precise understanding and respect for the supreme law of the land, that is, the Constitution, it no longer serves as the guide for the rule of law. In its place, we have substituted the rule of man and the special interests. That is how we have arrived at the close of this century without a clear understanding or belief in the cardinal principles of the Constitution: the separation of powers and the principle of Federalism. Instead, we are rushing toward a powerful executive, centralized control, and a Congress greatly diminished in importance. Executive orders, agency regulations, Federal court rulings, unratified international agreements, direct government, economy, and foreign policy. Congress has truly been reduced in status and importance over the past 100 years. When the people's voices are heard, it is done indirectly through polling, allowing our leaders to decide how far they can go without stirring up the people. But this is opposite to what the Constitution was supposed to do. It was meant to protect the rights of the minority from the dictates of the majority. The majority vote of the powerful and influential was never meant to rule the people. We may not have a king telling us which trees we can cut down today, but we do have a government bureaucracy and a pervasive threat of litigation by radical environmentalists who keep us from cutting our own trees, digging a drainage ditch, or filling a puddle, all at the expense of private property ownership. The key element in a free society is that individuals should wield control of their lives, receiving the benefits and suffering the consequences of all their acts. Once the individual becomes a pawn of the state, whether a monarch- or a majority-ruled state, a free society can no longer endure. We are dangerously close to that happening in America, even in the midst of plenty and with the appearance of contentment. If individual liberty is carelessly snuffed out, the creative energy needed for productive pursuits will dissipate. Government produces nothing, and in its effort to redistribute wealth, can only destroy it. Freedom too often is rejected, especially in the midst of plenty, when there is a belief that government largesse will last forever. This is true because it is tough to accept personal responsibility, practice the work ethic, and follow the rules of peaceful coexistence with our fellow man. Continuous vigilance against the would-be tyrants who promise security at minimum cost must be maintained. The temptation is great to accept the notion that everyone can be a beneficiary of the caring state and a winner of the lottery or a class action lawsuit. But history has proven there is never a shortage of authoritarians, benevolent, of course, quite willing to tell others how to live for their own good. A little sacrifice of personal liberty is a small price to pay for long-time security, it is too often argued. I have good friends who are in basic agreement with my analysis of the current state of the American republic, but argue it is a waste of time and effort to try and change the direction in which we are going. No one will listen, they argue. Besides, the development of a strong, centralized, authoritarian government is too far along to reverse the trends of the 20th century. Why waste time in Congress when so few people care about liberty, they ask? The masses, they point out, are interested only in being taken care of, and the elite want to keep receiving the special benefits allotted to them through special interest legislation. I understand the odds, and I am not naive enough to believe the effort to preserve liberty is a cake walk. I am very much aware of my own limitations in achieving this goal. But ideas based on sound and moral principles do have consequences, and powerful ideas can make major consequences beyond our wildest dreams. Our Founders clearly understood this, and they knew they would be successful, even against the overwhelming odds they faced. They described this steady confidence they shared with each other when hopes were dim as ``divine Providence.'' Good ideas can have good results, and we must remember, bad ideas can have bad results. It is crucial to understand that vague and confusing idealism produces mediocre results, especially when it is up against a determined effort to promote an authoritarian system that is sold to the people as conciliatory and nonconfrontational, a compromise, they say, between the two extremes. But it must be remembered that no matter how it is portrayed, when big government systematically and steadily undermines individual rights and economic liberty, it is still a powerful but negative idea and it will not fade away easily. Ideas of liberty are a great threat to those who enjoy planning the economy and running other peoples' lives. The good news is that our numbers are growing. More Americans than ever before are very much aware of what is going on in Washington and how, on a daily basis, their liberties are being undermined. There are more intellectual think tanks than ever before promoting the market economy, private property ownership, and personal liberty. The large majority of Americans are sick and tired of being overtaxed, and despise the income tax and the inheritance tax. The majority of Americans know government programs fail to achieve their goals and waste huge sums of money. A smoldering resentment against the unfairness of government and efforts to force equality on us can inspire violence, but instead, it should be used to encourage an honest system of equal justice based on individual, not collective, rights. Sentiment is moving in the direction of challenging the status quo of the welfare and international warfare state. The Internet has given hope to millions who have felt their voices were not being heard, and this influence is just beginning. The three major networks and conventional government propaganda no longer control the information now available to everyone with a computer. The only way the supporters of big government can stop the Internet will be to tax, regulate, and monitor it. Although it is a major undertaking, plans are already being laid to do precisely that. Big government proponents are anxious to make the tax on the Internet an international tax, as advocated by the United Nations, apply the Eschelon principle used to monitor all overseas phone calls to the Internet, and prevent the development of private encryption that would guarantee privacy on the Internet. These battles have just begun. If the civil libertarians and free market proponents do not win this fight to keep the Internet free and private, the tools for undermining authoritarian government will be greatly reduced. Victory for liberty will probably elude us for decades. The excuse they will give for controlling the Internet will be to stop pornography, catch drug dealers, monitor child molesters, and do many other so-called good things. We should not be deceived. We have faced tough odds, but to avoid battle or believe there is a place to escape to, someplace else in the world, would concede victory to those who endorse authoritarian government. The grand experiment in human liberty must not be abandoned. A renewed hope and understanding of liberty is what we need as we move into the 21st century. A perfectly free society we know cannot be achieved, and the ideal perfect socialism is an oxymoron. Pursuing that goal throughout the 20th century has already caused untold suffering. The clear goal of a free society must be understood and sought, or the vision of the authoritarians will face little resistance and will easily fill the void. There are precise goals Congress should work for, even under today's difficult circumstances. It must preserve in the best manner possible voluntary options to failed government programs. We must legalize freedom to the maximum extent possible. 1. Complete police protection is impossible; therefore, we must preserve the right to own weapons in self-defense. 2. In order to maintain economic protection against Government debasement of the currency, gold ownership must be preserved, something taken away from the American people during the Depression. 3. Adequate retirement protection by the Government is limited, if not ultimately impossible. We must allow every citizen the opportunity to control all of his or her retirement funds. 4. Government education has clearly failed. We must guarantee the right of families to home school or send their kids to private schools and help them with tax credits. 5. Government snoops must be stopped. We must work to protect all privacy, especially on the Internet, prevent the national ID card, and stop the development of all Government data banks. 6. Federal police functions are unconstitutional and increasingly abusive. We should disarm all Federal bureaucrats and return the police function to local authorities. 7. The Army was never meant to be used in local policing activities. We must firmly prevent our Presidents from using the military in local law enforcement operations, which is now being planned for under the guise of fighting terrorism. 8. Foreign military intervention by our Presidents in recent years to police the American empire is a costly failure. Foreign military intervention should not be permitted without explicit congressional approval. 9. Competition in all elections should be guaranteed, and the monopoly powers gained by the two major parties through unfair signature requirements, high fees, and campaign donation controls should be removed. Competitive parties should be allowed in all government-sponsored debate. 10. We must do whatever is possible to help instill a spirit of love for freedom and recognize that our liberties depend on responsible individuals, not the group or the collective or the society as a whole. The individual is the building block of a free and prosperous social order. The Founders knew full well that the concept of liberty was fragile and could easily be undermined. They worried about the dangers that lay ahead. As we move into the new century, it is an appropriate time to rethink the principles upon which a free society rest. Jefferson, concerned about the future wrote, ``Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic, but will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.'' ``They,'' that he refers to are ``we.'' And the future is now. Freedom, Jefferson knew, would produce plenty, and with material abundance it is easy to forget the responsibility the citizens of a free society must assume if freedom and prosperity are to continue. The key element for the Republic's survival for Jefferson was the character of the people, something no set of laws can instill. The question today is not that of abundance, but of character, respect for others, and their liberty and their property. It is the character of the people that determines the proper role for government in a free society. Samuel Adams, likewise, warned future generations. He referred to ``good manners'' as the vital ingredient that a free society needs to survive. Adams said, ``Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.'' The message is clear. If we lose our love of liberty and our manners become corrupt, character is lost and so is the Republic. But character is determined by free will and personal choice by each of us individually. Character can be restored or cast aside at a whim. The choice is ours alone, and our leaders should show the way. Some who are every bit as concerned as I am about our future and the pervasive corrupt influence in our Government in every aspect of our lives offer other solutions. Some say to solve the problem all we have to do is write more detailed laws dealing with campaign finance reform, ignoring how this might undermine the principles of liberty. Similarly, others argue that what is needed is merely to place tighter restrictions on the lobbyists in order to minimize their influence. But they fail to realize this undermines our constitutional right to petition our Government for redress of grievances. And there are others with equally good intentions that insist on writing even more laws and regulations punishing nonviolent behavior in order to teach good manners and instill character. But they fail to see that tolerating nonviolent behavior, even when stupid and dangerous to one's own self, is the same as our freedom to express unpopular political and offensive ideas and to promote and practice religion in any way one chooses. Resorting to writing more laws with the intent of instilling good character and good manners in the people is anathema to liberty. The love of liberty can come only from within and is dependent on a stable family and a society that seeks the brotherhood of man through voluntary and charitable means. And there are others who believe that government force is legitimate in promoting what they call ``fair redistribution.'' The proponents of this course have failed to read history and instead adhere to economic myths. They ignore the evidence that these efforts to help their fellow man will inevitably fail. Instead, it will do the opposite and lead to the impoverishment of many. But more importantly, if left unchecked, this approach will destroy liberty by undermining the concept of private property ownership and free markets, the bedrock of economic prosperity. None of these alternatives will work. Character and good manners are not a government problem. They reflect individual attitudes that can only be changed by individuals themselves. Freedom allows virtue and excellence to blossom. When government takes on the role of promoting virtue, illegitimate government force is used and tyrants quickly appear on the scene to do the job. Virtue and excellence become illusive, and we find instead that the government officials become corrupt and freedom is lost, the very ingredient required for promoting virtue, harmony, and the brotherhood of man. Let us hope and pray that our political focus will soon shift toward preserving liberty and individual responsibility and away from authoritarianism. The future of the American Republic depends on it. Let us not forget that the American dream depends on keeping alive the spirit of liberty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the members of the 1999-2000 Southwest Texas State University All-Girl Cheerleading Squad. They recently won first place in the All-Girl Cheer Division at the Universal Cheerleading Association's 2000 College Cheerleading and Dance Team National Championship. The competition was held during the Universal Cheerleading Association's 2000 Championship at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida, on January 7, 2000. Located in the Texas Hill Country city of San Marcos, Southwest Texas State University is justifiably proud of their award winning All-Girl Cheerleading Squad; Karla Brown, Charissa Canuelle, Lexi Chaleff, Alexandrea Collie, Krystal Davis, Patricia Goolsby, Ashley Harmon, Robyn Kyrish, Sara Martinez, Shavaun Moynahan, Aimee Moyers, Nicki O'Riley, Kristi Oberpriller, April Rheinlaender, Jennifer Rogers, and Brandi Wilkie. These talented young women received outstanding leadership and support from their coach, Jason Anderson, and the team's trainer, Scott Chambers. On January 25, 2000, a ceremony was held at the Texas State Capitol Building in Austin, Texas, in honor of the squad. At one o'clock, in the historic chambers of the Texas House of Representatives, State Representative Rick Green presented each of the young champions a copy of a resolution congratulating them on their achievement. A Texas flag flown at the request of Representative Green and a flag of the United States flown at my request were presented to the team. These flags, flown in recognition of their victory, now frame the young women's trophy proudly displayed at their university. The squad's hard work and dedication to purpose reflects the will that built the great State of Texas and our nation. By continuing this same dedication and work ethic throughout their lives, these young women will succeed in all of their future endeavors. It is my pleasure to be able to congratulate and recognize these fine young Texans in their achievement.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our nation yet another step closer to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime to include amongst the list of controlled substances that of GHB, a nutrient used for 25 years with beneficial effects for those suffering from cataplexy, insomnia, narcolepsy, depression, alcoholism, opiate addiction and numerous other conditions. 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 limitation by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as being soft on drugs or rape, irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their overzealous approach. 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 tenth 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.'' 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 our federal system.'' Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to ``appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.'' Even if GHB is as potentially dangerous as the bill's advocates suggest, punishing possession of a useful substance because it potentially could be used in a harmful manner is as inconsistent with liberty as criminalizing the possession of handguns and cars. Moreover, this bill empowers Health and Human Services to engage in a national propaganda campaign on the dangers of GHB, creates a special unit with the Drug Enforcement Agency to assess abuse and trafficking in GHB, and authorizes the Justice Department to issue taxpayer-funded grants for the development of police officer field-test equipment. Aside from being further abuses of enumerated powers doctrine, the substantive questions raised by this legislation make these usurpations of state government authority even more reprehensible. Additionally, this Act undermines the recently enacted Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act (DSHEA) at the expense of thousands of consumers who have safely used these natural metabolites of the amino acid GABA. According to practicing physician Ward Dean, West Point graduate and former Delta Force flight surgeon, HR 2130 appears to be a case of pharmaceutical-company-protectionism. Because the substances restricted under this act are natural, and hence, non- patentable, the pharmaceutical concerns lose market-share in areas for which GHB is a safer and less expensive means of treating numerous ailments. In a recent letter from Dr. Dean, he states: I have extensive experience in the clinical use of gamma hyudroxy butyric acid (GHB) . . . I have used these substances for over ten years on hundreds of patients (and have advised thousands through my books and articles on the subject). I have not had one instance reported to me of adverse effects in my patients. GHB is the safest, most non- toxic sleep inducing substance known. It has a wide range of other therapeutic uses. The therapeutic threshold for GHB is greater than almost any known pharmaceutical substance (the LD50 is 40-100 times greater than the sleep-inducing therapeutic dose of 3-6 grams!). It is incongruous, to me, that a substance with such a wide range of documented benefits that is so overwhelmingly safe, can simultaneously be both a Schedule I and a Schedule III substance. GHB is a naturally occurring substance, present in all mammalian tissue as well as many foods. Consequently, everyone is in ``possession'' of this ``controlled substance``--and every grocery store that sells meat is in ``possession with intent to distribute.'' These are not frivolous statements. In states where GHB is a Schedule I substance, there have been several instances where the charges have been dropped by the prosecution upon receipt of documentation that GHB is in beef from the state in question. I believe alleged violations of this proposed federal law will be equally difficult to successfully prosecute. Although GHB has been claimed to have been responsible for a small number of deaths, many of these cases are questionable. This is due to the fact that GHB is produced in significant quantities by the body post mortem, and is readily detectable in 96 out of 100 deceased persons even when no GHB has been consumed. For each of the aforementioned procedural and substantive reasons, I must again oppose H.R. 2130, the Hillory J. Farias Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this special order this evening to discuss the importance of the American Republic and why it should be preserved. Mr. Speaker, the dawn of a new century and millennium is upon us and prompts many of us to reflect on our past and prepare for the future. Our Nation, divinely blessed, has much to be thankful for. The blessings of liberty resulting from the Republic our forefathers designed have far surpassed the wildest dreams of all previous generations. The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American revolutionaries. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, ``Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?'' ``A republic, if you can keep it,'' responded Franklin. The term ``republic'' had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question. The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights. Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several States, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the State and the people. Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty. The American Revolutionaries clearly chose liberty over security for their economic security and their very lives were threatened by undertaking the job of forming a new and limited government. Most would have been a lot richer and safer by sticking with the King. Economic needs or desires were not the driving force behind the early American patriotic effort. The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man's action, the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not simply to be a cog in a wheel or a single cell of an organism or a branch of a tree but an individual with free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life's dreams and assume one's responsibilities. If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man's highest and noblest goals, so should man's mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind. Minimizing government authority over the people was critical to this endeavor. Just as the individual was key to salvation, individual effort was the key to worldly endeavors. Little doubt existed that material abundance and sustenance came from work and effort, family, friends, church, and voluntary community action, as long as government did not obstruct. No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator. And if government could not grant rights to individuals, it certainly should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general. Our constitutional Republic, according to our founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature. It was clearly recognized that equal justice and protection of the minority was not egalitarianism. Socialism and welfarism were never considered. The colonists wanted to be free of the King's oppressive high taxes and burdensome regulations. It annoyed them that even their trees on their own property could not be cut without the King's permission. The King kept the best trees for himself and his shipbuilding industry. This violation of property ownership prompted the colonists to use the pine tree on an early revolutionary flag to symbolize the freedom they sought. The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive, nonviolent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America's great achievements. It was a great plan. We should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this Nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed. The founders often spoke of divine providence and that God willed us this great Nation. It has been a grand experiment, but it is important that the fundamental moral premises that underpin this Nation are understood and maintained. We, as Members of Congress, have that responsibility. This is a good year to address this subject, the beginning of a new century and millennium provides a wonderful opportunity for all of us to dedicate ourselves to studying and preserving these important principles of liberty. One would have to conclude from history as well as current conditions that the American Republic has been extremely successful. It certainly has allowed the creation of great wealth with a large middle-class and many very wealthy corporations and individuals. Although the poor are still among us, compared to other parts of the world, even the poor in this country have done quite well. We still can freely move about from town to town, State to State, and job to job. Free education is available to everyone, even for those who do not want it or care about it. But the capable and the incapable are offered a government education. We can attend the church of our choice, start a newspaper, use the Internet and meet in private when we choose. Food is plentiful throughout the country and oftentimes even wasted. Medical technology has dramatically advanced and increased life expectancy for both men and women. Government statistics are continuously reaffirming our great prosperity with evidence of high and rising wages, no inflation, and high consumer confidence and spending. The U.S. Government still enjoys good credit and a strong currency in relationship to most other currencies of the world. We have no trouble financing our public nor private debt. Housing markets are booming and interest rates remain reasonable by modern day standards. Unemployment is low. Recreational spending and time spent at leisure are at historic highs. Stock market profits are benefiting more families than ever in our history. Income, payroll, and capital gains taxes have been a windfall for politicians who lack no creative skills in figuring out how to keep the tax-and-spend policies in full gear. The American people accept the status quo and hold no grudges against our President. The nature of a republic and the current status of our own are of little concern to the American people in general. Yet there is a small minority ignored by political, academic, and media personnel who do spend time thinking about the importance of what the proper role for government should be. The comparison of today's government to the one established by our Constitution is the subject of deep discussion for those who concern themselves with the future and look beyond the fall election. The benefits we enjoy are a result of the Constitution our founding fathers had the wisdom to write. However, understanding the principles that were used to establish our Nation is crucial to its preservation and something we cannot neglect. Unbelievable changes have occurred in the 20th century. We went from the horse and buggy age to the space age. Computer technology and the Internet have dramatically changed the way we live. All kinds of information and opinions on any subject are now available by clicking a few buttons. Technology offers an opportunity for everyone who seeks to the truth to find it, yet at the same time it enhances the ability of government to monitor our every physical, communicative, and financial move. Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt. For the true believers in big government, they see this technology as a great advantage for their cause. We are currently witnessing an ongoing effort by our government to develop a national ID card, a medical data bank, a work data bank, ``Know Your Customer'' regulations on banking activity, a national security agent all-pervasive telephone snooping system called Echelon, and many other programs. There are good reasons to understand the many ramifications of the many technological advancements we have seen over the century to make sure that the good technology is not used by the government to do bad things. The 20th century has truly been a century of unbelievable technological advancement. We should be cognizant of what this technology has done to the size and nature of our own Government. It could easily be argued that, with greater technological advances, the need for government ought to decline and private alternatives be enhanced. But there is not much evidence for that argument. In 1902, the cost of Government activities at all levels came to 7.7 percent of GDP. Today it is more than 50 percent. Government officials oversee everything we do, from regulating the amount of water in our commodes to placing airbags in our cars, safety locks on our guns, and using our own land. Almost every daily activity we engage in is monitored or regulated by some Government agency. If one attempts to just avoid Government harassment, one finds himself in deep trouble with the law. Yes, we can be grateful that the technological developments in the marketplace over the last 100 years have made our lives more prosperous and enjoyable. But any observant person must be annoyed by the ever- present Big Brother that watches and records our every move. The idea that we are responsible for our own actions has been seriously undermined. And it would be grossly misleading to argue that the huge growth in the size of government has been helpful and necessary in raising the standard of living of so many Americans. Since government cannot create anything, it can only resort to using force to redistribute the goods that energetic citizens produce. The old-fashioned term for this is ``theft.'' It is clear that our great prosperity has come in spite of the obstacles that big government places in our way and not because of it. And besides, our current prosperity may well not be as permanent as many believe. Quite a few major changes in public policy have occurred in this century. These changes in policy reflect our current attitude toward the American Republic and the Constitution and help us to understand what to expect in the future. Economic prosperity seems to have prevailed. But the appropriate question asked by too few Americans is, have our personal liberties be undermined? Taxes: Taxes are certainly higher. A federal income tax of 35 to 40 percent is something many middle-class Americans must pay, while, on average, they work for the Government more than half the year. In passing on our estates from one generation to the next, our partner, the U.S. Government, decides on its share before the next generation can take over. The estate tax certainly verifies the saying about the inevitability of death and taxes. At the turn of the century, we had neither. And in spite of a continuous outcry against both, there is no sign that either will soon be eliminated. Accepting the principle behind both the income and the estate tax concedes the statist notion that the Government owns the fruits of our labor as well as our savings and we are permitted by the politicians' generosity to keep a certain percentage. Every tax cut proposal in Washington now is considered a cost to Government, not the return of something rightfully belonging to a productive citizen. This principle is true whether it is a 1 percent or 70 percent income tax. Concern for this principle has been rarely expressed in a serious manner over the past 50 years. The withholding process has permitted many to believe that a tax rebate at the end of the year comes as a gift from Government. Because of this, the real cost of Government to the taxpayer is obscured. The income tax has grown to such an extent and the Government is so dependent on it that any talk of eliminating the income tax is just that, talk. A casual acceptance of the principle behind high taxation with an income tax and an inheritance tax is incompatible with the principle belief in a true republic. It is impossible to maintain a high tax system without the sacrifice of liberty and an undermining of property ownership. If kept in place, such a system will undermine prosperity regardless of how well off we may presently be. In truth, the amount of taxes we now pay compared to 100 years ago is shocking. There is little philosophic condemnation by the intellectual community, the political leaders, or the media of this immoral system. This should be a warning sign to all of us that even in less prosperous times we can expect high taxes and that our productive economic system will come under attack. Not only have we seen little resistance to the current high tax system, it has become an acceptable notion that this system is moral and is a justified requirement to finance the welfare/warfare state. Propaganda polls are continuously cited claiming that the American people do not want tax reductions. High taxes, except for only short periods of time, are incompatible with liberty and prosperity. We will, I am sure, be given the opportunity in the early part of the next century to make a choice between the two. I am certain of my preference. Welfare: There was no welfare state in 1900. In the year 2000, we have a huge welfare state which continues to grow each year. Not that special interest legislation did not exist in the 19th century. But for the most part, it was limited and directed toward the monied interest, the most egregious example being the railroads. The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Federal Government is now involved in providing healthcare, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special interest group. Welfare is now a part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a right, something one is entitled to. Calling it an entitlement makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today, it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide. The acceptance of the welfare ethic and rejection of the work ethic as the process for improving one's economic condition are now ingrained in our political institutions. This process was started in earnest in the 1930s, received a big boost in the 1960s, and has continued a steady growth even through the 1990s despite some rhetoric in opposition. This public acceptance has occurred in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that welfare is a true help in assisting the needy. Its abject failure around the world where welfarism took the next step into socialism has even a worse record. The transition in the past hundred years from essentially no welfare to an all encompassing welfare state represents a major change in attitude in the United States. Along with the acceptance, the promoters have dramatically reinterpreted the Constitution in the way it had been for our first 150 years. Where the General Welfare clause once had a clear general meaning, which was intended to prohibit special interest welfare and was something they detested and revolted against under King George, it is now used to justify any demand of any group as long as a majority in the Congress votes for it. But the history is clear and the words in the Constitution are precise. Madison and Jefferson, in explaining the General Welfare clause, left no doubt as to its meaning. Madison said, ``With respect to the words `general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution and to a character which there is a host of proof not contemplated by its creators.'' Madison argued that there would be no purpose whatsoever for the enumeration of the particular powers if the General Welfare clause was to be broadly interpreted. The Constitution granted authority to the Federal Government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefits of the general welfare of all the people. This understanding of the Constitution, as described by the Father of the Constitution, has been lost in this century. Jefferson was just as clear, writing in 1798 when he said, ``Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.'' With the modern-day interpretation of the General Welfare clause, the principle of individual liberty in the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers have been made meaningless. The goal of strictly limiting the power of our national Government as was intended by the Constitution is impossible to achieve as long as it is acceptable for Congress to redistribute wealth in an egalitarian welfare state. There is no way that personal liberty will not suffer with every effort to expand or make the welfare state efficient. And the sad part is that the sincere effort to help people do better economically through welfare programs always fails. Dependency replaces self- reliance, while the sense of self-worth of the recipient suffers, making for an angry, unhappy and dissatisfied society. The cost in dollar terms is high, but the cost in terms of liberty is even greater but generally ignored; and, in the long run, there is nothing to show for this sacrifice. Today there is no serious effort to challenge welfare as a way of life, and its uncontrolled growth in the next economic downturn is to be expected. Too many citizens now believe they are entitled to the monetary assistance from the Government anytime they need it and they expect it. Even in times of plenty, the direction has been to continue expanding education, welfare, and retirement benefits. No one asked where the Government gets the money to finance the welfare state. Is it morally right to do so? Is it authorized in the Constitution? Does it help anyone in the long run? Who suffers from the policy? Until these questions are seriously asked and correctly answered, we cannot expect the march toward a pervasive welfare state to stop and we can expect our liberties to be continuously compromised. The concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers was picked away at in the latter part of the 19th century over strong objection by many constitutionalists. But it was not until the drumbeat of fear coming from the Roosevelt administration during the Great Depression that the courts virtually rewrote the Constitution by reinterpretation of the General Welfare clause. In 1936, the New Deal Supreme Court told Congress and the American people that the Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to limits being placed on congressional spending. In a ruling justifying the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Court pronounced, ``The power of Congress to authorize appropriations of public money for public purposes is not limited by the grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.'' With the stroke of a pen, the courts amended the Constitution in such a sweeping manner that it literally legalized the entire welfare state, which, not surprisingly, has grown by leaps and bounds ever since. Since this ruling, we have rarely heard the true explanation of the General Welfare clause as being a restriction of government power, not a grant of unlimited power. We cannot ignore corporate welfare, which is part of the problem. Most people think the welfare state involves only giving something to the unfortunate poor. This is generally true. But once the principle established that special benefits are legitimate, the monied interests see the advantages and influences the legislative process. Our system, which pays lip service to free enterprise and private property ownership, is drifting towards a form of fascism or corporatism rather than conventional socialism. And where the poor never seem to benefit under welfare, corporations become richer. But it should have been expected that once the principle of favoritism was established, the contest would be over who has the greatest clout in Washington. No wonder lobbyists are willing to spend $125 million per month influencing Congress; it is a good investment. No amount of campaign finance reform or regulation of lobbyists can deal with this problem. The problem lies in the now accepted role for our Government. Government has too much control over people and the market, making the temptation and incentive to influence government irresistible and, to a degree, necessary. Curtailing how people spend their own money or their right to petition their government will do nothing to this influence peddling. Treating the symptoms and not the disease only further undermines the principles of freedom and property ownership. Any serious reforms or effort to break away from the welfare state must be directed as much at corporate welfare as routine welfare. Since there is no serious effort to reject welfare on principle, the real conflict over how to divide what Government plunders will continue. Once it is clear that it is not nearly as wealthy as it appears, this will become a serious problem and it will get the attention it deserves, even here in the Congress. Preserving liberty and restoring constitutional precepts are impossible as long as the welfare mentality prevails, and that will not likely change until we have run out of money. But it will become clear as we move into the next century that perpetual wealth and the so- called balanced budget, along with an expanding welfare state, cannot continue indefinitely. Any effort to perpetuate it will only occur with the further erosion of liberty. The role of the U.S. Government in public education has changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Most of the major changes have occurred in the second half of this century. In the 19th century, the closest the Federal Government got to public education was the land grant college program. In the last 40 years, the Federal Government has essentially taken charge of the entire system. It is involved in education at every level through loans, grants, court directives, regulations and curriculum manipulation. In 1900, it was of no concern to the Federal Government how local schools were run at any level. After hundreds of billions of dollars, we have yet to see a shred of evidence that the drift toward central control over education has helped. By all measurements, the quality of education is down. There are more drugs and violence in the public schools than ever before. Discipline is impossible out of fear of lawsuits or charges of civil rights violations. Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th century did not experience this kind of propaganda. The one good result coming from our failed educational system has been the limited, but important, revival of the notion that parents are responsible for their children's education, not the state. We have seen literally millions of children taken from the public school system and taught at home or in private institutions in spite of the additional expense. This has helped many students and has also served to pressure the government schools into doing a better job. And the statistics show that middle-income and low-income families are the most eager to seek an alternative to the public school system. There is no doubt that the way schools are run, how the teachers teach and how the bills are paid is dramatically different from 100 years ago. And even though some that go through public schools do exceptionally well, there is clear evidence that the average high school graduate today is far less educated than his counterpart was in the early part of this century. Due to the poor preparation of our high school graduates, college expects very little from their students since nearly everyone gets to go to college who wants to. Public school is compulsory and college is available to almost everyone, regardless of qualifications. In 1914, English composition was required in 98 percent of our colleges. Today, it is about one-third. Only 12 percent of today's colleges require mathematics be taught where in 1914, 82 percent did. No college now requires literature courses, but rest assured plenty of social babble courses are required as we continue to dumb down our Nation. Federal funding for education grows every year, hitting $38 billion this year, $1 billion more than requested by the administration and 7 percent more than last year. Great congressional debates occur over the size of the classroom, student and teacher testing, bilingual education, teacher salaries, school violence and drug usage. And it is politically incorrect to point out that all these problems are not present in the private schools. Every year, there is less effort at the Federal level to return education to the people, the parents and the local school officials. For 20 years at least, some of our presidential candidates advocated the abolishing of the Department of Education and for the Federal Government to get completely out of public education. This year, we will hear no more of that. The President got more money for education than he asked for and it is considered not only bad manners but also political suicide to argue the case for stopping all Federal Government education programs. Talk of returning some control of Federal programs to the States is not the same as keeping the Federal Government out of education as directed by the Constitution. Of the 20 congressionally authorized functions granted by the Constitution, education is not one of them. That should be enough of a reason not to be involved. There is no evidence of any benefit and statistics show that great harm has resulted. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, yet we continue the inexorable march toward total domination of our educational system by Washington bureaucrats and politicians. It makes no sense. It is argued that if the Federal funding for education did not continue, education would suffer even more. Yet we see poor and middle-class families educating their children at home or at private school at a fraction of the cost of a government school education, with results fantastically better, and all done in the absence of violence and drugs. A case can be made that there would be more money available for education if we just left the money in the States to begin with and never brought it to Washington for the bureaucrats and the politicians to waste. But it looks like Congress will not soon learn this lesson, so the process will continue and the results will get worse. The best thing we could do now is pass a bill to give parents a $3,000 tax credit for each child they educate. This would encourage competition and allow a lot more choice for parents struggling to help their children get a decent education. The practice of medicine is now a government managed care system and very few Americans are happy with it. Not only is there little effort to extricate the Federal Government from the medical care business but the process of expanding the government's role continues unabated. At the turn of the 19th century, it was not even considered a possibility that medical care was the responsibility of the Federal Government. Since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs of the 1960s, the role of the Federal Government in delivering medical care has grown exponentially. Today the Federal Government pays more than 60 percent of all the medical bills and regulates all of it. The demands continue for more free care at the same time complaints about the shortcomings of managed care multiply. Yet it is natural to assume that government planning and financing will sacrifice quality care. It is now accepted that people who need care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment. There is no indication that the trend toward government medicine will be reversed. Our problems are related to the direct takeover of medical care in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. But it has also been the interference in the free market through ERISA mandates related to HMOs and other managed care organizations, as well as our tax code, that have undermined the private insurance aspect of paying for medical care. True medical insurance is not available. The government dictates all the terms. In the early stages, patients, doctors and hospitals welcomed these programs. Generous care was available with more than adequate reimbursement. It led to what one would expect, abuse, overcharges and overuse. When costs rose, it was necessary through government rulemaking and bureaucratic management to cut reimbursement and limit the procedures available and personal choice of physicians. We do not have socialized medicine but we do have bureaucratic medicine, mismanaged by the government and select corporations who usurp the decision-making power from the physician. The way medical care is delivered today in the United States is a perfect example of the evils of corporatism and an artificial system that only politicians, responding to the special interests, could create. There is no reason to believe the market cannot deliver medical care in an efficient manner as it does computers, automobiles and televisions. But the confidence is gone and everyone assumes, just as in education, that only a Federal bureaucracy is capable of solving the problems of maximizing the number of people, including the poor, who receive the best medical care available. In an effort to help the poor, the quality of care has gone down for everyone else and the costs have skyrocketed. Making generous medical savings accounts available is about the only program talked about today that offers an alternative to government mismanaged care. If something of this sort is not soon implemented, we can expect more pervasive government involvement in the practice of medicine. With a continual deterioration of its quality, the private practice of medicine will soon be gone. Government housing programs are no more successful than the Federal Government's medical and education programs. In the early part of this century, government housing was virtually unheard of. Now the HUD budget commands over $30 billion each year and increases every year. Finances of mortgages through the Federal Home Loan Bank, the largest Federal Government borrower, is the key financial institution pumping in hundreds of billions of dollars of credit into the housing market, making things worse. The Federal Reserve has now started to use home mortgage securities for monetizing debt. Public housing has a reputation for being a refuge for drugs, crimes and filth, with the projects being torn down as routinely as they are built. There is every indication that this entitlement will continue to expand in size regardless of its failures. Token local control over these expenditures will do nothing to solve the problem. Recently, the Secretary of HUD, using public funds to sue gun manufacturers, claimed this is necessary to solve the problems of crime which government housing perpetuates. If a government agency, which was never meant to exist in the first place under the Constitution, can expand their role into the legislative and legal matters without the consent of the Congress, we indeed have a serious problem on our hands. The programs are bad enough in themselves but the abuse of the rule of law and ignoring the separation of powers makes these expanding programs that much more dangerous to our entire political system and is a direct attack on personal liberty. If one cares about providing the maximum best housing for the maximum number of people, one must consider a free market approach in association with a sound, nondepreciating currency. We have been operating a public housing program directly opposite to this and along with steady inflation and government promotion of housing since the 1960s, the housing market has been grossly distorted. We can soon expect a major downward correction in the housing industry prompted by rising interest rates. Our attitude toward foreign policy has dramatically changed since the beginning of the century. From George Washington through Grover Cleveland, the accepted policy was to avoid entangling alliances. Although we spread our wings westward and southward as part of our manifest destiny in the 19th century, we accepted the Monroe Doctrine notion that European and Asians should stay out of our affairs in this hemisphere and we theirs. McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and the Spanish American war changed all that. Our intellectual and political leaders at the turn of the last century brought into vogue the interventionist doctrine setting the stage for the past 100 years of global military activism. From a country that once minded its own business, we now find ourselves with military personnel in more than 130 different countries protecting our modern day American empire. Not only do we have troops spread to the four corners of the Earth, we find Coast Guard cutters in the Mediterranean and around the world, our FBI in any country we choose, and the CIA in places Congress does not even know about. It is a truism that the state grows and freedom is diminished in times of war. Almost perpetual war in the 20th century has significantly contributed to steadily undermining our liberties while glorifying the state. In addition to the military wars, liberty has also suffered from the domestic wars on poverty, literacy, drugs, homelessness privacy and many others. We have in the last 100 years gone from the accepted and cherished notion of a sovereign Nation to one of a globalist new world order. As we once had three separate branches of our government, the United Nations proudly uses its three branches, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organization to work their will in this new era of globalism. Because the U.S. is by far the strongest military industrial power, it can dictate the terms of these international institutions, protecting what we see as our various interests such as oil, along with satisfying our military industrial complex. Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate. This allows for subsidized profits while the taxpayers are forced to protect huge corporations against any losses from overseas investments. The argument that we go about the world out of humanitarian concerns for those suffering, which was the excuse for bombing Serbia, is a farce. As bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed, and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state. But even with the apparent success of our foreign policy and the military might we still have, the actual truth is that we have spread ourselves too thinly and may well have difficulty defending ourselves if we are ever threatened by any significant force around the world. At the close of this century, we find our military preparedness and morale at an all-time low. It will become more obvious as we move into the 21st century that the cost of maintaining this worldwide presence is too high and cutbacks will be necessary. The costs in terms of liberty lost and the unnecessary exposure to terrorism are difficult to determine but in time it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens but instead is a threat to our liberties. Throughout our early history and up to World War I, our wars were fought with volunteers. There was no military draft except for a failed attempt by Lincoln in the Civil War which ended with justified riots and rebellion against it. The attitudes toward the draft definitely changed over the past century. Draftees were said to be necessary to fight in World War I and World War II, Korea and Vietnam. This change in attitude has definitely satisfied those who believe that we have an obligation to police the world. The idiocy of Vietnam served as a catalyst for an antidraft attitude which is still alive today. Fortunately we have not had a draft for over 25 years, but Congress refuses to address this matter in a principled fashion by abolishing once and for all the useless selective service system. Too many authoritarians in Congress still believe that in times of need, an army of teenage draftees will be needed to defend our commercial interests throughout the world. A return to the spirit of the republic would mean that a draft would never be used and all able-bodied persons would be willing to volunteer in defense of their liberty. Without the willingness to do so, liberty cannot be saved. A conscripted army can never substitute for the willingness of freedom-loving Americans to defend their country out of their love for liberty. The U.S. monetary system. The U.S. monetary system during the 20th Century has dramatically changed from the one authorized by the Constitution. Only silver and gold were to be used in payment of debt, and no paper money was to be issued. In one of the few restrictions on the states, the Constitution prohibited them from issuing their own money, and they were to use only gold and silver in payment of debt. No Central Bank was authorized. The authors of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of inflation, having seen the harm associated with the destruction of the Continental currency. They never wanted to see another system that ended with the slogan, ``it's not worth a Continental.'' They much preferred sound as a dollar, or as good as gold, as a description of our currency. Unfortunately, their concerns as they were reflected in the Constitution have been ignored and as this century closes we do not have a sound dollar as good as gold. The changes to our monetary system are by far the most significant economic events of the 20th Century. The gold dollar of 1900 is now nothing more than a Federal Reserve note with a promise by untrustworthy politicians and the central bankers to pay nothing for it. No longer is there silver or gold available to protect the value of a steadily depreciating currency. This is a fraud of the worst kind and the type of a crime that would put a private citizen behind bars. But there have been too many special interests benefitting by our fiat currency, too much ignorance and too much apathy regarding the nature of money. We will surely pay the price for this negligence. The relative soundness of our currency that we enjoy as we move into the 21st Century will not persist. The instability in world currency market because of the dollar's acceptance for so many years as the world's currency, will cause devastating adjustments that Congress will eventually be forced to address. A transition from sound money to paper money did not occur instantaneously. It occurred over a 58 year period between 1913 and 1971, and the mischief continues today. Our Central Bank, the Federal Reserve System, established in 1913 after two failed efforts in the 19th Century, has been the driving force behind the development of our current fiat system. Since the turn of the century, we have seen our dollar lose 95 percent of its purchasing power, and it continues to depreciate. This is nothing less than theft, and those responsible should be held accountable. The record of the Federal Reserve is abysmal, yet at the close of the 20th Century, its chairman is held in extremely high esteem, with almost zero calls for study of sound money with the intent to once again have the dollar linked to gold. Ironically, the government and politicians are held in very low esteem, yet the significant trust in them to maintain the value of the currency is not questioned. But it should be. The reasons for rejecting gold and promoting paper are not mysterious, since quite a few special interests benefit. Deficit financing is much more difficult when there is no Central Bank available to monetize government debt. This gives license to politicians to spend lavishly on the projects that are most likely to get them reelected. War is more difficult to pursue if government has to borrow or tax the people for its financing. The Federal Reserve's ability to create credit out of thin air to pay the bills run up by Congress establishes a symbiosis that is easy for the politician to love. It is also advantageous for the politicians to ignore the negative effects from such a monetary arrangement, since they tend to be hidden and disseminated. A paper money system attracts support from various economic groups. Bankers benefit from the float that they get with the fractional reserve banking that accompanies a fiat monetary system. Giant corporations who get to borrow large funds at below market interest rates enjoy the system and consistently call for more inflation and artificially low interest rates. Even the general public seems to benefit from the artificial booms brought about by credit creation, with lower interest rates allowing major purchases like homes and cars. The naive and uninformed fully endorse the current system because the benefits are readily available, while the disadvantages are hidden, delayed or not understood. The politicians, central bankers, commercial banks, big business borrowers, all believe their needs justify such a system. But the costs are many and the dangers are real. Because of easy credit throughout this century we have found out that financing war was easier than if taxes had to be raised. The many wars we have fought and the continuous military confrontations in smaller wars since Vietnam have made the 20th Century a bloody century. It is most likely that we would have pursued a less militaristic foreign policy if financing it had been more difficult. Likewise, financing the welfare state would have progressed much slower if our deficits could not have been financed by an accommodative Central Bank willing to inflate the money supply at will. There are other real costs as well that few are willing to believe are a direct consequence of Federal Reserve Board policy. Rampant inflation after World War I as well as the 1921 depression were a consequence of monetary policy during and following the war. The stock market speculation of the 1920s, the stock market collapse of 1929 and the depression of the 1930s causing millions to be unemployed, all resulted from Federal Reserve Board monetary mischief. Price inflation of the early 1950s was a consequence of monetary inflation required to fight the Korean War. Wage and price controls used then totally failed, yet the same canard was used during the Vietnam war in the early 1970s to again impose wage and price controls, with even worse results. All the price inflation, all the distortions, all the recessions and unemployment should be laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is an accomplice in promoting all unnecessary war, as well as the useless and harmful welfare programs, with its willingness to cover Congress' profligate spending habits. Even though the Fed did great harm before 1971 after the total elimination of the gold-dollar linkage, the problems of deficit spending, welfare expansion and military-industrial complex influence have gotten much worse. Although many claim the 1990s have been great economic years, Federal Reserve Board action of the past decade has caused problems yet to manifest itself. The inevitable correction will come as the new century begins, and it is likely to be quite serious. The stage has been set. Rampant monetary growth has led to historic high asset inflation, massive speculation, overcapacity, malinvestment, excessive debt, a negative savings rate and a current account deficit of huge proportions. These conditions dictate a painful adjustment, something that would have never occurred under a gold standard. The special benefits of foreigners taking our inflated dollars for low priced goods and then loaning them back to us will eventually end. The dollar must fall, interest rates must rise, price inflation will accelerate, the financial asset bubble will burst, and a dangerous downturn in the economy will follow. There are many reasons to believe the economic slowdown will be worldwide, since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world. An illusion about our dollar's value has allowed us to prop up Europe and Japan in this pass decade during a period of weak growth for them, but when reality sets in, economic conditions will deteriorate. Greater computer speed, which has helped to stimulate the boom of the 1990s, will work in the opposite direction as all of the speculative positions unwind, and that includes the tens of trillions of dollars in derivatives. There was a good reason the Federal Reserve rushed to rescue long- term capital management with a multibillion dollar bailout: It was unadulterated fear that the big correction was about to begin. Up until now, feeding the credit bubble with even more credit has worked, and is the only tool they have to fight the business cycle, but eventually control will be lost. A paper money system is dangerous economically and not constitutionally authorized. It is also immoral for government to counterfeit money, which dilutes the value of the currency and steals values from those who hold the currency and those who do not necessary benefit from its early circulation. Not everyone benefits from the largesse of government spending programs or systematic debasement of the currency. The middle class, those not on welfare and not in the military industrial complex suffer the most from rising prices and job losses in the correction phase of the business cycle. Congress must someday restore sound money to America. It is mandated in the Constitution, it is economically sound to do so, and it is morally right to guarantee a standard of value for the money. Our oath of office obligates all Members of Congress to pay attention to this and participate in this needed reform. Police state. A police state is incompatible with liberty. One hundred years ago the Federal Government was responsible for enforcing very few laws. This has dramatically changed. There are now over 3,000 Federal laws and 10,000 regulations, employing hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats diligently enforcing them, with over 80,000 of the bureaucrats carrying guns. We now have an armed national police state, just as Jefferson complained of King George in the Declaration of Independence. ``He has send hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.'' A lot of political and police power has shifted from the state and local communities to the Federal Government over the past 100 years. If a constitutional republic is desired and individual liberty is cherished, this concentration of power cannot be tolerated. Congress has been derelict in creating the agencies in the first place and ceding to the Executive the power to write regulations and even tax without Congressional approval. These agencies enforce their own laws and supervise their own administrative court system where citizens are considered guilty until proven innocent. The Constitution has been thrown out the window for all practical purposes, and although more Americans every day complain loudly, Congress does nothing to stop it. The promoters of the bureaucratic legislation claim to have good intentions, but they fail to acknowledge the cost, inefficiency or the undermining of individual rights. Worker safety, environmental concerns, drug usage, gun control, welfarism, banking regulations, government insurance, health insurance, insurance against economic and natural disaster, and the regulation of fish and wildlife. Are just a few of the issues that prompts the unlimited use of Federal regulatory and legislative power to deal with perceived problems. But, inevitably, for every attempt to solve one problem, government creates two new ones. National politicians are not likely to volunteer a market or local government solution to a problem, or they will find out how unnecessary they really are. Congress' careless attitude about the Federal bureaucracy and its penchant for incessant legislation have prompted serious abuse of every American citizen. Last year alone there were more than 42,000 civil forfeitures of property occurring without due process of law or conviction of a crime, and oftentimes the owners were not even charged with a crime. Return of illegally ceased property is difficult, and the owner is forced to prove his innocence in order to retrieve it. Even though many innocent Americans have suffered, these laws have done nothing to stop drug usage or change people's attitude toward the IRS. Seizure and forfeitures only make the problems they are trying to solve that much worse. The idea that a police department under Federal law can seize property and receive direct benefit from it is an outrage. The proceeds can be distributed to the various police agencies without going through the budgetary process. This dangerous incentive must end. The national police state mentality has essentially taken over crime investigation throughout the country. Our local sheriffs are intimidated and frequently overruled by the national police. Anything worse than writing traffic tickets prompts swarms of Federal agents to the scene. We frequently see the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, the BATF, Fish and Wildlife, the IRS, Federal marshals and even the Army involved in local law enforcement. They do not come to assist, but to take over. The two most notorious examples of federal abuse of police powers were seen at Ruby Ridge and Waco, where non-aggressive citizens were needlessly provoked and killed by government agents. At Waco, even Army tanks were used to deal with a situation that the local sheriff could have easily handled. These two incidents are well-known, but thousands of other similar abuses routinely occur with little publicity. The Federal police state seen in the action the Ruby Ridge and Waco hopefully is not a sign of things to come, but it could be, if we are not careful. If the steady growth of the Federal police power continues, the American republic cannot survive. The Congresses of the 20th Century have steadily undermined the principle that the government closest to home must deal with law and order, and not the Federal Government. The Federal courts also have significantly contributed to this trend. Hopefully in the new century our support for a national police state will be diminished. We have in this past century not only seen the undermining of the Federalism that the Constitution desperately tried to preserve, but the principles of separation of powers among the three branches of government has been severely compromised as well. The Supreme Court no longer just rules on Constitutionality, but frequently rewrites the laws with attempts at comprehensive social engineering. The most blatant example was the Roe v. Wade ruling. The Federal court should be hearing a lot fewer cases, deferring as often as possible to the states courts. Throughout the 20th Century, with Congress' obsession for writing laws for everything, the Federal courts were quite willing to support the idea of a huge interventionist Federal Government. The fact that the police officers in the Rodney King case were tried twice for the same crime, ignoring the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, was astoundingly condoned by the courts, rather than condemned. It is not an encouraging sign that the concept of equal protection under the law will prevail. Mr. Speaker, I will yield back the few minutes I have left because I plan to complete my special order on this subject on Wednesday evening.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to express my agreement with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 3075, which was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, encouraging the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow home health agencies to use technology to supervise their branch offices. This language also calls on the government to allow home health agencies to determine the adequate level of on-site supervision of their branch offices based on quality outcomes. I need not remind my colleagues that Congress is expecting home health agencies to operate efficiently under greatly reduced Interim Payment System (IPS) and Prospective Payment System (PPS) reimbursement. It is therefore necessary that home health agencies be allowed the flexibility to establish and serve large service areas by utilizing cost efficient branch offices. My district includes many rural areas which are experiencing access problems due to the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA's) home health branch office policies affecting time/distance limitations and on-site supervision requirements. In many cases, these requirements do not recognize technology advances. In order to ensure that senior citizens in rural areas have access to quality home care, it is vital that any regulations on home health care branch offices promulgated by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) evaluate the offices by quality of outcome instead of arbitrary administration requirements and restrictions. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for the report language accompanying H.R. 3075 urging the use of outcome instead of arbitrary requirements and restrictions, to determine a home health care agency's ability to establish and supervise branch offices.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, demonstrators are once again condemning America in a foreign city. This time, it is in Kabul, Afghanistan. Shouting ``Death to America,'' burning our flag, and setting off bombings, the demonstrators express their hatred toward America. The United States has just placed sanctions on yet another country to discipline those who do not obey our commands. The nerve of them. Do they not know we are the most powerful Nation in the world and we have to meet our responsibilities? They should do as we say and obey our CIA directives. This process is not new. It has been going on for 50 years, and it has brought us grief and multiplied our enemies. Can one only imagine what the expression of hatred might be if we were not the most powerful Nation in the world? Our foreign policy of military interventionism has brought us death and destruction to many foreign lands and loss of life for many Americans. From Korea and Vietnam to Serbia, Iran, Iraq and now Afghanistan, we have ventured far from our shores in search of wars to fight. Instead of more free trade with our potential adversaries, we are quick to slap on sanctions that hurt American exports and help to solidify the power of the tyrants, while seriously penalizing innocent civilians in fomenting anti-America hatred. The most current anti-American demonstrations in Kabul were understandable and predictable. Our one-time ally, Osama bin Laden, when he served as a freedom fighter against the Soviets in Afghanistan and when we bombed his Serbian enemies while siding with his friends in Kosovo, has not been fooled and knows that his cause cannot be promoted by our fickle policy. Sanctions are one thing, but seizures of bank assets of any related business to the Taliban government infuriates and incites the radicals to violence. There is no evidence that this policy serves the interests of world peace. It certainly increases the danger to all Americans as we become the number one target of terrorists. Conventional war against the United States is out of the question, but acts of terrorism, whether it is the shooting down of a civilian airliner or bombing a New York City building, are almost impossible to prevent in a reasonably open society. Likewise, the bombings in Islamabad and possibly the U.N. plane crash in Kosovo are directly related to our meddling in the internal affairs of these nations. General Musharraf's successful coup against Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan was in retaliation for America's interference with Sharif's handling of the Pakistan-India border war. The recent bombings in Pakistan are a clear warning to Musharraf that he, too, must not submit to U.S.-CIA directives. I see this as a particularly dangerous time for a U.S. president to be traveling to this troubled region, since so many blame us for the suffering, whether it is the innocent victims in Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is hard for the average citizen of these countries to understand why we must be so involved in their affairs, and resort so readily to bombing and boycotts in countries thousands of miles away from our own. Our foreign policy is deeply flawed and does not serve our national security interest. In the Middle East, it has endangered some of the moderate Arab governments and galvanized Muslim militants. The recent military takeover of Pakistan and the subsequent anti- American demonstration in Islamabad should not be ignored. It is time we in Congress seriously rethink our role in the region and in the world. We ought to do more to promote peace and trade with our potential enemies, rather than resorting to bombing and sanctions.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach. With the economy more fragile than is popularly recognized, we should move cautiously as we initiate reforms. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (in a 1997 speech in Frankfurt, Germany and other times), Kurt Richebacher, Frank Veneroso and others, have questioned the statistical accuracy of the economy's vaunted productivity gains. Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially ``painful'' adjustments--some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values. Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation--keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending. Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average--and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole. The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard. This increased indication of the government's eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn't even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands! Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers' loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by ``opting out'' and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies. The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, by now, the Microsoft antitrust case should have caught every Member's attention. This is a good time for Congress to reassess the antitrust laws. Under current law, collusion, negotiations, or even discussions about markets may be enough to find someone guilty of breaking these laws. Prices in one industry that are too high, too low, or all the same are suspect and could be used as evidence of monopoly practices. We must remember bigness in a free market is only achieved by the vote of consumers, supporting a company that gives them a good product at a low price. It is an economic truism that the only true monopoly is government protected, such as the Post Office or a public utility. There is nothing more annoying than a government bureaucrat or Federal judge gleefully condemning a productive enterprising capitalist for doing a good job. These little men filled with envy are capable of producing nothing and are motivated by their own inadequacies and desires to wield authority against men of talent. In a free market, the consumer is king, not the businessman. The regulators hate both and relish their role of making sure the market is fair according to their biased standards. Antitrust suits are rarely, if ever, pursued by consumers. It is always a little disgruntled competitor, a bureaucrat who needs to justify his own existence. Judge Jackson condemned Microsoft for being a ``vigorous protector of its own self-interests.'' Now this is to be a crime in America. To care for oneself and do what corporations are supposed to do, that is, maximize profits for stockholders by making customers happy, is the great crime committed in the Microsoft case. Blind to the fact that there is no conflict between the self-interest of a capitalist and the consumers' best interests, the trust busters go their merry way without a complaint from the Congress which could change these laws. Only blind resentment drives the economic planners and condemns business success, good products, low prices, and consumer satisfaction while undermining the system that has provided so much for so many. Many big companies have achieved success with government subsidies, contracts, and special interest legislation. This type of bigness must be distinguished from bigness achieved in a free market by providing consumer satisfaction. To help rectify the situation, Congress should first stop all assistance to business, no more corporate welfare, no bailouts like we saw to Lockheed, Chrysler, Long-Term Capital Management and many others. Second, we ought to repeal the archaic and impossible-to-understand antitrust laws. Next, we should crown the consumers king and let them vote with their money on who should succeed and who should fail. We should then suppress the envy which drives the anticapitalist mentality. The Bill Gateses of the world can only invest their money in job- creating projects or donate it to help the needy. The entrepreneurial giants are not a threat to stability or prosperity. Government bureaucrats and Federal judges are. But strict enforcement of all the ill-inspired antitrust laws does not serve the consumer, nor the cause of liberty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This will improve the bill. I am very concerned, as a physician, that this bill will do great harm to the practice of medicine. This is micromanaging the palliative care of the dying. So I strongly support this amendment because it will remove the severe penalties and the threats. Physicians are accustomed to practicing with lawyers over their shoulders. Now we are going to add another DEA agent over our shoulders to watch what we do. It is said, well, there is not going to be any change in law. Well, if there is not, why the bill? Certainly there is a change in law. This bill does not state that it is dealing with euthanasis. It says it is a pain relief promotion act. Generally speaking, I look at the names of bills and sometimes intentionally and sometimes just out of the way things happen here, almost always the opposite happens from the bill that we raise up. So I would call this the pain promotion act. I really sincerely believe, as a physician, that this will not help. Too often physicians are intimidated and frightened about giving the adequate pain medication that is necessary to relieve pain. This amendment will be helpful. This is what we should do. We should not intimidate. The idea of dealing with the issue of euthanasis, euthanasia is killing. It is murder. I am pro-life. I am against abortion. I am absolutely opposed to euthanasis. But euthanasis is killing. Under our Constitution, that is a State issue, not a congressional issue. I strongly urge the passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, today Congress will take a legislative step which is as potentially dangerous to protecting the sanctity of life as was the Court's ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision. The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, would amend Title 21, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting palliative care patients from the scourge of ``assisted'' suicide. However, by preempting what is the province of States--most of which have already enacted laws prohibiting ``assisted suicide''--and expanding its use of the Controlled Substances Act to further define what constitutes proper medical protocol, the federal government moves yet another step closer to both a federal medical bureau and a national police state. 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 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 tenth 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. 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 our federal system.'' Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to ``appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.'' However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of certain drugs--it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be protective of life in this instance, we mustn't forget that the saw (or scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus 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--was quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then, of course, it will be the federal government's role to make the tough choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical care doesn't justify life extension. Current law already prohibits private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they've treated a Medicaid patient within two years. Additionally, this bill empowers the Attorney General to train federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel to discern the difference between palliative care and euthanasia. Most recently, though, it was the Attorney General who specifically exempted the physicians of Oregon from certain provisions of Title 21, the very Title this legislation intends to augment. Under the tutelage of the Attorney General, it would thus become the federal police officer's role to determine at which point deaths from pain medication constitute assisted suicide. To help the health care professionals become familiar with what will become the new federal medical standard, the bill also authorizes $24 million dollars over the next five years for grant programs to health education institutions. This is yet another federal action to be found nowhere amongst the enumerated powers. Like the unborn, protection of the lives of palliative care patients is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states' criminal justice systems and state medical licensing boards. We have seen what a mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected both the unborn and palliative care patients against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government's unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe versus Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2260 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, ignores the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I would like to make a couple of comments about why I do not think we should support this bill. I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that. I disagree with the Oregon law. If I were in Oregon, I would vote against that law. But I believe the approach here is a legislative slippery slope. What we are doing is applying this same principle of Roe versus Wade by nationalizing law and, therefore, doing the wrong thing. This bill should be opposed. I think it will backfire. If we can come here in the Congress and decide that the Oregon law is bad, what says we cannot go to Texas and get rid of the Texas law that protects life and prohibits euthanasia. That is the main problem with this bill. Also, I believe it will indeed dampen the ability of doctors to treat dying patients. I know this bill has made an effort to prevent that, compared to last year, but it does not. The Attorney General and a DEA agent will decide who has given too much medication. If a patient is dying and they get too much medicine, and they die, the doctor could be in big trouble. They could have criminal charges filed against them. They could lose their license or go to jail. Just recently, I had a member of my family pass away with a serious illness and required a lot of medication. But nurses were reluctant to give the medicine prescribed by the doctor for fear of lawsuit and fear of charges that something illegal was being done. With a law like this, it is going to make this problem much, much worse. Another thing is this sets up a new agency. For those conservative colleagues of mine who do not like the nationalization of medical care, what my colleagues are looking at here is a new agency of government setting up protocols, educating doctors and hospitals, and saying this is the way palliative care must be administered. My colleagues will have to answer with reports to the Federal Government. As bad as the Oregon law is, this is not the way we should deal with the problem. This bill applies the same principle as Roe versus Wade. I maintain that this bill is deeply flawed. I believe that nobody can be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal with life and makes a difficult situation much worse. Mr. Speaker, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) is designed for one purpose. It is to repeal the state of Oregon's law dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia. Being strongly pro-life, I'm convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment. However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it's even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty. H.R. 2260 makes an effort to delineate the prescribing of narcotics for alleviating pain from that of intentionally killing the patient. There is no way medically, legally, or morally to tell the difference. This law will serve to curtail the generous use of narcotics in a legitimate manner in caring for the dying. Claiming that this law will not hinder the legitimate use of drugs for medical purposes but not for an intentional death is wishful thinking. In fear that a doctor will be charged for intentionally killing a patient, even though the patient may have died coincidentally with an injection, this bill will provide a great barrier to the adequate treatment of our sick and dying who are suffering and are in intense pain. The loss of a narcotic's license, as this bill would dictate as punishment, is essentially denying a medical license to all doctors practicing medicine. Criminal penalties can be invoked as well. I would like to call attention to my colleagues that this bill is a lot more than changing the Controlled Substance Act. It is involved with educational and training programs to dictate to all physicians providing palliative care and how it should be managed. An entirely new program is set up with an administrator that ``shall'' carry out a program to accomplish the developing and the advancing of scientific understanding of palliative care and to disseminate protocols and evidence-based practices regarding palliative care. All physicians should be concerned about a federal government agency setting up protocols for medical care recognizing that many patients need a variation in providing care and a single protocol cannot be construed as being ``correct''. This program is designed to instruct public and private health care programs throughout the nation as well as medical schools, hospices and the general public. Once these standards are set and if any variation occurs and a subsequent death coincidentally occurs that physician will be under the gun from the DEA. Charges will be made and the doctor will have to defend himself and may end up losing his license. It will with certainty dampen the enthusiasm of the physician caring for the critically ill. Under this bill a new program of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts to help professional schools and other medical agencies will be used to educate and train health care professionals in palliative care. It is not explicit but one can expect that if the rules are not followed and an institution is receiving federal money they will be denied these funds unless they follow the universal protocols set up by the federal government. The bill states clearly that any special award under this new program can only be given if the applicant agrees that the program carried out with the award will follow the government guidelines. These new programs will be through the health professional schools, i.e. the medical schools' residency training programs and other graduate programs in the health professions. It will be a carrot and stick approach and in time the medical profession will become very frustrated with the mandates and the threat that funds will be withheld. The Secretary of Health and Human Services in charge of these programs are required to evaluate all the programs which means more reports to be filled out by the institutions for bureaucrats in Washington to study. The results of these reports will be to determine the effect such programs have on knowledge and practice regarding palliative care. Twenty four million dollars is authorized for this new program. This program and this bill essentially nationalizes all terminal care and opens up Pandora's box in regards to patient choices as well as doctor judgment. This bill, no matter how well intended, is dangerously flawed and will do great harm to the practice of medicine and for the care of the dying. This bill should be rejected.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again preparing to exceed its constitutional limits as well as ignore the true lesson of the last thirty years of education failure by reauthorizing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA). Like most federal programs, Title I was launched with the best of intentions, however, good intentions are no excuse for Congress to exceed its constitutional limitations by depriving parents, local communities and states of their rightful authority over education. The tenth amendment does not contain an exception for ``good intentions!'' The Congress that created Title I promised the American public that, in exchange for giving up control over their schools and submitting to increased levels of taxation, federally-empowered ``experts'' would create an educational utopia. However, rather than ushering in a new golden age of education, increased federal involvement in education has, not coincidently, coincided with a decline in American public education. In 1963, when federal spending on education was less than nine hundred thousand dollars, the average Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) score was approximately 980. Thirty years later, when federal education spending ballooned to 19 billion dollars, the average SAT score had fallen to 902. Furthermore, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1992 Survey, only 37% of America's 12th graders were actually able to read at a 12th grade level! Supporters of a constitutional education policy should be heartened that Congress has finally recognized that simply throwing federal taxpayer money at local schools will not improve education. However, too many in Congress continue to cling to the belief that the ``right federal program'' conceived by enlightened members and staffers will lead to educational nirvana. In fact, a cursory review of this legislation reveals at least five new mandates imposed on the states by this bill; this bill also increases federal expenditures by $27.7 billion over the next five years--yet the drafters of this legislation somehow manage to claim with a straight face that this bill promotes local control! One mandate requires states to give priority to K-6 education programs in allocating their Title I dollars. At first glance this may seem reasonable, however, many school districts may need to devote an equal, or greater, amount of resources to high school education. In fact, the principal of a rural school in my district has expressed concern that they may have to stop offering programs that use Title I funds if this provision becomes law! What makes DC-based politicians and bureaucrats better judges of the needs of this small East Texas school district than that school's principal? Another mandate requires teacher aides to be ``fully qualified'' if the aides are to be involved in instructing students. Again, while this may appear to be simply a matter of following sound practice, the cost of hiring qualified teaching assistants will add a great burden to many small and rural school districts. Many of these districts may have to go without teachers aides, placing another burden on our already overworked public school teachers. Some may claim that this bill does not contain ``mandates'' as no state must accept federal funds. However, since obeying federal educrats is the only way states and localities can retrieve any of the education funds unjustly taken from their citizens by oppressive taxation, it is the rare state that will not submit to federal specifications. One of the mantras of those who promote marginal reforms of federal education programs is the need to ``hold schools accountable for their use of federal funds.'' This is the justification for requiring Title I schools to produce ``report cards'' listing various indicators of school performance. Of course, no one would argue against holding schools should be accountable, but accountable to whom? The Federal Government? Simply requiring schools to provide information about the schools, without giving parents the opportunity to directly control their child's education does not hold schools accountable to parents. As long as education dollars remain in the hands of bureaucrats not parents, schools will remain accountable to bureaucrats instead of parents. Furthermore, maximum decentralization is the key to increasing education quality. This is because decentralized systems are controlled by those who know the unique needs of an individual child, whereas centralized systems are controlled by bureaucrats who impose a ``one- size fits all'' model. The model favored by bureaucrats can never meet the special needs of individual children in the local community because the bureaucrats have no way of knowing those particular needs. Small wonder that students in states with decentralized education score 10 percentage points higher on the NAEP tests in math and reading than students in states with centralized education. Fortunately there is an alternative educational policy to the one before us today that respects the Constitution and improves education by restoring true accountability to America's education system. Returning real control to the American people by returning direct control of the education dollars to America's parents and concerned citizens is the only proper solution. This is precisely why I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for the K-12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Tax Credit Act (HR 936), which provides a $3,000 tax credit for cash contributions to scholarships as well as any cash and in-kind contribution to public, private, or religious schools. By placing control of education funding directly into the hands of parents and concerned citizens, my bills restore true accountability to education. When parents control education funding, schools must respond to the parents' desire for a quality education, otherwise the parent will seek other educational options for their child. Instead of fighting over what type of federal intervention is best for education, Congress should honor their constitutional oath and give complete control over America's educational system to the states and people. Therefore, Congress should reject this legislation and instead work to restore true accountability to America's parents by defunding the education bureaucracy and returning control of the education dollar to America's parents.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals. First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers. Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line. Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to America's rural communities, the IRS has decided that the provision of the benefits described above amount to taxable income. Not only does this adversely affect the financial position of the volunteer by foisting new taxes about him or her, it has in fact led local entities to stop providing these benefits, thus taking away a key tool they have used to recruit volunteers. That is why the IRS ruling in this instance has a substantial deleterious impact on the spirit of American volunteerism. How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization's annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy. This legislation would rectify this situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from federal taxation. Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well. Mr. Speaker I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act, and I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, those who wish to diminish federal control over education should cast an unenthusiastic yes vote for the Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT ``A's''). While this bill does increase the ability of state and local governments to educate children free from federal mandates and regulations, and is thus a marginal improvement over existing federal law, STRAIGHT ``A's'' fails to challenge the federal government's unconstitutional control of education. In fact, under STRAIGHT ``A's'' states and local school districts will still be treated as administrative subdivisions of the federal education bureaucracy. Furthermore, this bill does not remove the myriad requirements imposed on states and local school districts by federal bureaucrats in the name of promoting ``civil rights.'' Thus, a school district participating in STRAIGHT ``A's'' will still have to place children in failed bilingual education programs or face the wrath of the Department of Education's misnamed Office of Civil Rights. The fact that this bill increases, however marginally, the ability of states and localities to control education, is a step forward. As long as the federal government continues to levy oppressive taxes on the American people, and then funnel that money back to the states to use for education programs, defenders of the Constitution should support all efforts to reduce the hoops through which states must jump in order to reclaim some of the people's tax monies. However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding this bill. While the additional flexibility granted under this bill will be welcomed by the ten states allowed by the federal overseers to participate in the program, there is no justification to deny this flexibility to the remaining forty states. After all, federal education money represents the return of funds illegitimately taken from the American taxpayers to their states and communities. It is the pinnacle of arrogance for Congress to pick and choose which states are worthy of relief from federal strings in how they use what is, after all, the people's money. The primary objection to STRAIGHT ``A's'' from a constitutional viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of ``accountability'' stressed by the drafters of the bill. Talk of accountability begs the question: accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which a participating school's performance is judged. Should the schools not live up to their bureaucratically-determined ``performance goals,'' they will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the STRAIGHT ``A's'' programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state's five-year education plan--yet this is supposed to debureaucratize and decentralize education! Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states ``accountable'' for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America's families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. Because ``he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' when the federal government controls the education dollar schools will obey the dictates of federal ``educrats'' while ignoring the wishes of the parents. In order to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children. The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America's education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called ``consumer sovereignty.'' Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free society maximizes human happiness. When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their credit to improve their schools by helping to finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children. It is the Family Education Freedom Act, not STRAIGHT ``A's'', which represents the education policy best suited for a constitutional republic and a free society. The Family Education Freedom Act ensures that schools are accountable to parents, whereas STRAIGHT ``A's'' continues to hold schools accountable to bureaucrats. Since the STRAIGHT ``A's'' bill does give states an opportunity to break free of some federal mandates, supporters of returning the federal government to its constitutional limits should support it. However, they should keep in mind that this bill represents a minuscule step forward as it fails to directly challenge the federal government's usurpation of control over education. Instead, this bill merely gives states greater flexibility to fulfill federally-defined goals. Therefore, Congress should continue to work to restore constitutional government and parental control of education by defunding all unconstitutional federal programs and returning the money to America's parents so that they may once again control the education of their children.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I know that the goal of everyone here is to have quality education for everyone in this country. I do not like the approach. The approach has been going on for 30 years with us here in the Congress at the national level controlling and financing education. But the evidence is pretty clear there has been no success. It is really a total failure. Yet the money goes up continuously. This year it is an 8 percent increase for Title I over last year. In 1963, the Federal Government spent less than $900,000 on education programs. This year, if we add up all the programs, it is over $60 billion. Where is the evidence? The scores keep going down. The violence keeps going up. We cannot keep drugs out of the schools. There is no evidence that our approach to education is working. I just ask my colleagues to think about whether or not we should continue on this same course. I know the chairman of the committee has made a concerted effort in trying to get more local control over the schools, and I think this is commendable. I think there should be more local control. But I am also convinced that once the money comes from Washington, you really never can deliver the control back to the local authorities. So that we should give it serious thought on whether or not this approach is correct. Now, I know it is not a very powerful argument, but I might just point out that if Members read carefully the doctrine of enumerated powers, we find that it does not mention that we have the authority, but I concede that we have gotten around that for more than 35 years so we are not likely to reconsider that today. But as far as the practicality goes, we should rethink it. If we had a tremendous success with our educational system, if everybody was being taken care of, if these $60 billion were really doing the job, if we were not having the violence and the drugs in the school, maybe you could say, well, let us change the Constitution or let me reassess my position. But I think we are on weak grounds if we think we can continue to do this. There are more mandates in this bill. Even though we like to talk about local control, there are more mandates, and this bill will authorize not only the $8 billion and an 8 percent increase this year, but over the next 5 years there will be an additional $28 billion added to the budget because of this particular piece of legislation. I ask my colleagues, give it serious thought. This does not deserve passage.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. If ever there were a bill unnecessary, this is one. It is an example of us here in the Congress looking for dragons to slay. This is absolutely unnecessary. There is no real purpose in passing this legislation. As has been said, all 50 States have laws against violence and cruelty to animals. That should be adequate. But the way this bill is written really opens up a Pandora's box. It is a can of worms. Take, for instance, it says, ``whoever knowingly possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate commerce.'' That, you can get 5 years for. How do you prove intention? This is subjective, purely subjective. This is not narrowly written, this is very broadly written. This is a first amendment concern to many, but it is also so unnecessary. Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Ed Meese, has stated recently, there is just no need for more Federal laws. We do not need more Federal laws. We cannot even enforce the ones that we have. And besides, this is strictly a State matter. Now, if they want to use the interstate commerce clause, they should be reminded, up until this century at least, the interstate commerce clause was used in its original intent to open up trade between the States. It was never the excuse to regulate everything between the States. That is a 20th century distortion of the interstate commerce clause. So that is not even a real good excuse for this. Now, cruelty to animals, nobody is going to come and defend cruelty to animals. But quite frankly there will be times it will be difficult to define. The motivation for most cruelty to animals is because people are sick. This is a mental illness. We are dealing with mental illness here and we are going to write a Federal law against it. So if somebody, and it was even mentioned by the proponents of this bill, that people like Ted Bundy delight in this. Yes. These people are psychopaths. They are nuts. It is an illness. We cannot pass a law to deal with mental illness. I strongly object to this approach. We should be thinking not only about the process but of the unintended consequences of passing legislation like this. I have seen some pretty violent ads on television of killing cockroaches. I know that is not their intention. I went fishing one time and it was rather ghastly. I am not a very good fisherman nor a hunter. I cannot see the killing of animals. But to see the hook pulled up on a kingfish and have the fish thrown on the deck and the fish suffocate, we make movies of this. This is on television. They say this will not be affected. How do we know? There are hunting films on television. Animals are shot. Maybe people are delighting in looking at the cruelty or the killing of animals on television even though they are sporting or fishing shows. Yes, I agree that is not what is intended, but so often our legislation gets carried away and is misinterpreted. I would ask my colleagues not to pass this legislation. This legislation does not have any redeeming value whatsoever. It is well-intended in the sense that people object to cruelty to animals but quite frankly I have not had one single request from my 595,000 constituents in my district for this bill, and I would like to see how many others who would honestly get up here and say, oh, I have had dozens or hundreds or thousands of people. The only people that I have heard that have requested this piece of legislation are law enforcement officials, not the judges who have to deal with this, not the people in the country, not the State legislative bodies, not the governors, but people who may want to have a lot more activity to do things they are not doing well enough anyway. Federal law enforcement is lagging. So to put another law on the books which is not well written, and it is subjective in that we have to decide whether or not the person who possesses this material is intending to sell it to somebody. This bill really is something that we need to just reject, vote down. We do not need it. The States will take care of this. We do not need to be bashful and say that if we do not vote for this bill for some reason that we endorse the idea of animal cruelty. That is not the case. Nobody endorses this. I just think that the qualifications in here to exempt certain people like journalistic and historical and artistic, these categories, quite frankly, who will be the judge? It will be very difficult to do.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing in the Congressional Record an amendment I, along with my colleague, Mr. Doolittle of California, are offering to H.R. 3037, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by $30,000,000, increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by $25,000,000 and apply $5,000,000 toward debt reduction. Our amendment provides an increase in financial support to help local schools cope with the federal IDEA mandates by reducing funding for an out-of-control bureaucracy that is running roughshod over the rights of workers, and even defying the Supreme Court! The NLRB has repeatedly proven itself incapable of acting as an unbiased arbiter for individual employees. Most recently the NLRB established a new nationwide rule that union officials may force employees to pay for union organizing drives as a condition of employment--directly contradicting several Supreme Court rulings! It is an outrage that the tax dollars of working men and women are wasted on an agency that flaunts Supreme Court rulings in support of its forced-dues agenda--especially when local schools are struggling with the IDEA mandate that they provide a ``free and appropriate'' public education to children with disabilities. Congress must make funding for schools and disabled children a greater priority than funding for a rogue federal agency. Therefore, I hope all my colleagues will support the Paul-Doolittle amendment to H.R. 3037.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an MD, I know that when I advise on medical legislation I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views, but nevertheless I am acting the role of legislator and politician. The MD degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our managed care mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with all goods and other services, is determined by the degree the market is allowed to operate. Economic principles determine efficiency of markets, even the medical care market; not our emotional experiences dealing with managed care. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure, rather they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market. In today's system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). In a free market this cannot happen. Everyone's rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides. Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible, by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage, in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates which will only makes the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise. No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMOs' role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion among organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have ``universal'' food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs and yet many of the ``poor'' do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition. We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new ``Bill of Rights'' such as a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, or now a Patient's Bill of Rights. Why don't more Members ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services. If over the last fifty years we had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, state jurisdiction and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we're facing today in providing medical care. The power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us this managed care monster. If we pursue the course of more government management--in an effort to balance things--we're destined to make the problem much worse. If government mismanagement, in an area that the government should not be managing at all, is the problem, another level of bureaucracy--no matter how well intended--cannot be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the nation's psyche. The choice in actuality is government provided medical care and it's inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy. Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called Patient's Bill of Rights are a 100% endorsement of the principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement, even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent ``necessary'' to curtail the abuses of the HMOs. The Patients' Bill of Rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy, HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons, and the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue. The problems started early on when the medical profession, combined with tax code provisions making it more advantageous for individuals to obtain first-dollar health care coverage from third-parties rather than pay for health care services out of their own pockets, influenced the insurance industry into paying for medical services instead of sticking with the insurance principle of paying for major illnesses and accidents for which actuarial estimates could be made. A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous third- party payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population--just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels become much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups. Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors liked being paid adequately for services that in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation's medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since ``no one can be turned away.'' Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increase benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don't complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can't afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care, limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn't justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the policitians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention. For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor- patient relationship. That's where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help. Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist--there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine ``American style,'' that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care. The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we're debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards. Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO's when both sides are incapable of such a feat. Excessive litigation has significantly contributed to the ongoing medical care crisis. Greedy trial lawyers are certainly part of the problem but there is more to it than that. Our legislative bodies throughout the country are greatly influenced by trial lawyers and this has been significant. But nevertheless people do sue, and juries make awards that qualify as ``cruel and unusual punishment'' for some who were barely involved in the care of the patient now suing. The welfare ethic of ``something for nothing'' developed over the past 30 to 40 years has played a role in this serious problem. This has allowed judges and juries to sympathize with unfortunate outcomes not related to malpractice and to place the responsibility on those most able to pay rather than on the ones most responsible. This distorted view of dispensing justice must someday be addressed or it will continue to contribute to the deterioration of medical care. Difficult medical cases will not be undertaken if outcome is the only determining factor in deciding lawsuits. Federal legislation prohibiting state tort law reform cannot be the answer. Certainly contractual arrangements between patients and doctors allowing specified damage clauses and agreeing on arbitration panels would be a big help. State-level ``loser pays'' laws, which discourage frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, would also be a help. In addition to a welfare mentality many have developed a lottery jackpot mentality and hope for a big win through a ``lucky'' lawsuit. Fraudulent lawsuits against insurance companies now are an epidemic, with individuals feigning injuries in order to receive compensation. To find moral solutions to our problems in a nation devoid of moral standards is difficult. But the litigation epidemic could be ended if we accepted the principle of the right of contract. Doctors and hospitals could sign agreements with patients to settle complaints before they happen. Limits could be set and arbitration boards could be agreed upon prior to the fact. Limiting liability to actual negligence was once automatically accepted by our society and only recently has this changed to receiving huge awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and huge punitive damages unrelated to actual malpractice or negligence. Legalizing contracts between patients and doctors and hospitals would be a big help in keeping down the defensive medical costs that fuel the legal cost of medical care. Because the market in medicine has been grossly distorted by government and artificially managed care, it is the only industry where computer technology adds to the cost of the service instead of lowering it as it does in every other industry. Managed care cannot work. Government management of the computer industry was not required to produce great services at great prices for the masses of people. Whether it is services in the computer industry or health care all services are best delivered in the economy ruled by market forces, voluntary contracts and the absence of government interference. Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient's ``rights'' can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone's well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care. Instead of the continual demagoguery of the issue for political benefits on both sides of the debate, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis. The ERISA laws requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws--or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that were available and affordable in other parts of the world! The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients--unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American's people's desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care. There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don't have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient's Bill of Rights.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an M.D. I know that when I advise on medical legislation that I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views. But, nevertheless, I am acting the role as legislator and politician. The M.D. degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our managed-care mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with all goods and services, is determined by the degree the market is allowed to operate. Economic principles determine efficiencies of markets, even the medical care market, not our emotional experiences dealing with managed care. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market. In today's system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with the rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations. In a free market, this cannot happen. Everyone's rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides. Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise. No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO's role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion through organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition. We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a taxpayers' bill of rights, or now a patients' bill of rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? If over the last 50 years we had had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, State jurisdiction, and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we are facing today in providing medical care. The power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us to this managed-care monster. If we pursued a course of more government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area that the Government should not be managing at all is the problem, another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, cannot be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the Nation's psyche. The choice in actuality is government-provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy. Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called patients' bill of rights are 100 percent endorsement of a principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent necessary to curtail the abuses of the HMO. The patients' bill of rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy. HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons. And the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue. The problems started early on when the medical profession, combined with the tax code provisions making it more advantageous for individuals to obtain first-dollar health care coverage from third parties rather than pay for health care services out of their own pockets, influenced the insurance industry into paying for medical services instead of sticking with the insurance principle of paying for major illnesses and accidents for which actuarial estimates could be made. A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous third-party payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands increased because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population--just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels became much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups. Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors like being paid adequately for services than in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation's medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since ``no one can be turned away.'' Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increased benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don't complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can't afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care; limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn't justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the politicians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention. For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor- patient relationship. That's where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help. Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist--there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine ``American style'', that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care. The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we're debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards. Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO's when both sides are incapable of such a feat. Excessive litigation has significantly contributed to the ongoing medical care crisis. Greedy trial lawyers are certainly part of problem but there is more to it than that. Our legislative bodies throughout the country are greatly influenced by trial lawyers and this has been significant. But nevertheless people do sue, and juries make awards that qualify as ``cruel and unusual punishment'' for some who were barely involved in the care of the patient now suing. The welfare ethic of ``something for nothing'' developed over the past 30 to 40 years has played a role in this serious problem. This has allowed judges and juries to sympathize with unfortunate outcomes, not related to malpractice and to place the responsibility on those most able to pay rather than on the ones most responsible. This distorted view of dispensing justice must someday be addressed or it will continue to contribute to the deterioration of medical care. Difficult medical cases will not be undertaken if outcome is the only determining factor in deciding lawsuits. Federal legislation prohibiting state tort law reform cannot be the answer. Certainly contractual arrangements between patients and doctors allowing specified damage clauses and agreeing on arbitration panels would be a big help. State-level ``loser pays'' laws, which discourage frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, would also be a help. In addition to a welfare mentality many have developed a lottery jackpot mentality and hope for a big win through a ``lucky'' lawsuit. Fraudulent lawsuits against insurance companies now are an epidemic, with individuals feigning injuries in order to receive compensation. To find moral solutions to our problems in a nation devoid of moral standards is difficult. But the litigation epidemic could be ended if we accepted the principle of the right of contract. Doctors and hospitals could sign agreements with patients to settle complaints before they happen. Limits could be set and arbitration boards could be agreed upon prior to the fact. Limiting liability to actual negligence was once automatically accepted by our society and only recently has this changed to receiving huge awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and huge punitive damages unrelated to actual malpractice or negligence. Legalizing contracts between patients and doctors and hospitals would be a big help in keeping down the defensive medical costs that fuel the legal cost of medical care. Because the market in medicine has been grossly distorted by government and artificially managed care, it is the only industry where computer technology adds to the cost of the service instead of lowering it as it does in every other industry. Managed care cannot work. Government management of the computer industry was not required to produce great services at great prices for the masses of people. Whether it is services in the computer industry or health care all services are best delivered in the economy ruled by market forces, voluntary contracts and the absence of government interference. Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient's ``rights'' can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone's well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care. Instead of the continual demagoguery of the issue for political benefits on both sides of the debate, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis. The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws--or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world! The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients--unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American's people's desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care. There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don't have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient's Bill of Rights. {time} 2030

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, pro-life Members of Congress are ecstatic over the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, touting it as a good step toward restoring respect for life, and once again criminalizing abortion. This optimism and current effort must be seriously challenged. As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I strongly condemn the events of the last third of the 20th century in which we have seen the casual acceptance of abortion on demand. The law's failure to protect the weakest, smallest and most innocent of all the whole human race has undermined our respect for all life, and therefore for all liberty. As we have seen, once life is no longer unequivocally protected, the loss of personal liberty quickly follows. The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. Not only for its codification, through an unconstitutional court action, of a social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion of convenience and for birth control, but for flaunting as well the constitutional system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of the states alone. A single ``Roe v. Wade'' ruling by one state would be far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state laws protecting the unborn. Achieving the goal of dehumanizing all human life, by permitting the casting aside all pre-born life, any time prior to birth, including partially born human beings, Roe v. Wade represents a huge change in attitudes toward all life and liberty. Now pro-life Members are engaged in a similar process of writing more national laws in hopes of balancing the court's error. This current legislative effort is just as flawed. Traditionally, throughout our history, except for the three constitutional provisions, all crimes of violence have been--and should remain--state matters. Yet this legislation only further undermines the principle of state jurisdiction, and our system of law enforcement, which has served us well for most of our history. Getting rid of Roe v. Wade through a new court ruling or by limiting federal jurisdiction would return this complex issue to the states. Making the killing of an unborn infant a federal crime, as this bill does, further institutionalizes the process of allowing federal courts to destroy the constitutional jurisdiction of the states. But more importantly, the measure continues the practice of only protecting some life, by allowing unborn children to be killed by anyone with an ``M.D.'' after his name. By protecting the abortionist, this legislation carves out a niche in the law that further ingrains in the system the notion that the willful killing of an innocent human being is not deserving of our attention. With more than a million children a year dying at the hands of abortionists, it is unwise that we ignore these acts for the sake of political expediency. Pro-abortion opponents of this legislation are needlessly concerned regarding its long-term meaning, and supporters are naively hoping that unintended consequences will not occur. State laws have already established clearly that a fetus is a human being deserving protection; for example, inheritance laws acknowledge that the unborn child does enjoy the estate of his father. Numerous states already have laws that correctly punishes those committing acts of murder against a fetus. Although this legislation is motivated by the best of intentions of those who strongly defend the inalienable rights of the unborn, it is seriously flawed, and will not achieve its intended purpose. For that reason I shall vote against the bill and for the sanctity of life and the rights of the states, and against the selected protection of abortionists. Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to further instill and codify the ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision. While it is the independent duty of each branch of the federal government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, H.R. 2436, 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 tenth 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 versus 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 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. (The bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence--yet another diminution of the unborn's personhood status.) 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 non-person in others. In this 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 our 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. Occasionally 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 a police power. It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. 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 become 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. 2436 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. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2436, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. To try to tie in World War II is not quite fair. I think the gentleman has to admit that we are not talking about that. Besides, I am talking as much about procedure as I am talking about the policy itself. In World War II there was a serious problem around the world. It was brought to this Congress. We voted on a war resolution. We went to war. The country was unified, and we won. That is what I endorse, that procedure. What I do not endorse is us getting involved the back-door way; getting involved carelessly and casually. Not realizing what we are doing. I come to the floor only to try to warn my colleagues of what they are voting on today; that this is not just a simple humanitarian resolution. It is the process I'm concerned about. If we bring a war resolution to the floor and say, look, we need to go to war to defend the East Timorese, we can vote it up and down and decide to go over and settle it in 2 or 3 months. But we should not do what we are doing now, to endorse internationalism, or interventionism that inevitably fails. I think there is a better way to proceed, and it is written in the Constitution.