Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. RON PAUL, my former classmate from 1978.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my concern about some of the rule changes.

Drug Testing

We are now being asked to support rule changes that will require random drug testing of all members and staff. Drug usage in this country , both legal and illegal, is a major problem and deserves serious attention. However, the proposal to test randomly individuals as a method to cut down on drug usage is ill-advised and should not be done without serious thought

The real issue here is not drugs, but rather the issues of privacy, due process, probable cause, and the fourth amendment. We are dealing with a constitutional issue of the utmost importance. It raises the question of whether or not we understand the overriding principle of the 4th amendment.

A broader, but related question is whether or not it’s the Government’s role to mold behavior any more than it’s the Government’s role to mold, regulate, tax, impede the voluntarism of economic contractoral arrangements. No one advocates restraint to regulate journalistic expression even though great harm has come over the centuries from the promotion of authoritarian ideas. Likewise, we do not advocate the regulation of political expression and religious beliefs however bizarre and potentially harmful they may seem. And yet we casually assume that it’s the role of government to regulate personal behavior to make one act more responsibly.

A large number of us do not call for the regulation or banning of guns because someone might use a gun in an illegal fashion. We argue that it’s the criminal that needs regulated and refuse to call for diminishing the freedom of law-abiding citizens because some individual might commit a crime with a gun. Random drug testing is based on the same assumption made by anti-gun proponents. Unreasonable effort at identifying the occasional and improbable drug user should not replace respect to our privacy. Its not worth it

While some are more interested in regulating economic transactions in order to make a “fairer” society, others are more anxious to regulate personal behavior to make a good society. But both cling to the failed notion that governments, politicians, and bureaucrats know that is best for everyone. If we casually allow our persons to be searched why is it less important that our conversations, our papers and our telephones not be monitored as well. Vital information regarding drugs might be obtained in this manner. We who champion the cause of limited government ought not be promoters of the revolving eye of big brother.

If we embark on this course to check randomly all Congressional personnel for possible drug usage, it must be noted that the two most dangerous and destructive drugs in this country are alcohol and nicotine. To not include these in the efforts to do good, is inconsistent – to say the least.

I have one question. If we have so little respect for our own privacy, our own liberty, and our innocence, how can we be expected to protect the liberties, the privacy and the innocence of our constituents for which we have just sworn an oath to do?

This legislation is well motivated, as is all economic welfare legislation. The good intentions in solving social problems – when violence is absent — perversely uses government power, which inevitably hurts innocent people while rarely doing anything to prevent the anticipated destructive behavior of a few.

The only answer to solving problems like this is to encourage purely voluntary testing programs whereby each individual and member makes the information available to those who are worried about issues like this.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 7th, 1997 at 3:14 am and is filed under Speeches and Statements. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.