[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 5 (Monday, January 31, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H81-H87]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Green of Wisconsin). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  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.

[[Page H82]]

  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.

                              {time}  2045

  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

[[Page H83]]

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.

[[Page H84]]

  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.

                              {time}  2100

  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,

[[Page H85]]

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.

                              {time}  2115

  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

[[Page H86]]

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.

[[Page H87]]

 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.

                              {time}  2130

  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.

                          ____________________