July 31st, 2001
<br />
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we’re being asked to choose between two options dealing with the controversies surrounding cloning and stem cell research.
As an obstetrician gynecologist with 30 years of experience with strong pro-life convictions I find this debate regarding stem cell research and human cloning off-track, dangerous, and missing some very important points.
This debate is one of the most profound ethical issues of all times. It has moral, religious, legal, and ethical overtones.
However, this debate is as much about process as it is the problem we are trying to solve.
This dilemma demonstrates so clearly why difficult problems like this are made much more complex when we accept the notion that a powerful centralized state should provide the solution, while assuming it can be done precisely and without offending either side, which is a virtual impossibility.
Centralized governments’ solutions inevitably compound the problem we’re trying to solve. The solution is always found to be offensive to those on the losing side of the debate. It requires that the loser contribute through tax payments to implement the particular program and ignores the unintended consequences that arise. Mistakes are nationalized when we depend on Presidential orders or a new federal law. The assumption that either one is capable of quickly resolving complex issues is unfounded. We are now obsessed with finding a quick fix for this difficult problem.
Since federal funding has already been used to promote much of the research that has inspired cloning technology, no one can be sure that voluntary funds would have been spent in the same manner.
There are many shortcomings of cloning and I predict there are more to come. Private funds may well have flowed much more slowly into this research than when the government/taxpayer does the funding.
The notion that one person, i.e., the President, by issuing a Presidential order can instantly stop or start major research is frightening. Likewise, the U.S. Congress is no more likely to do the right thing than the President by rushing to pass a new federal law.
Political wisdom in dealing with highly charged and emotional issues is not likely to be found.
The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing abortion overseas, I find repugnant.
The original concept of the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems are nationalized.
Decentralized decision making and privatized funding would have gone a long way in preventing the highly charged emotional debate going on today regarding cloning and stem cell research.
There is danger in a blanket national prohibition of some questionable research in an effort to protect what is perceived as legitimate research. Too often there are unintended consequences. National legalization of cloning and financing discredits life and insults those who are forced to pay.
Even a national law prohibiting cloning legitimizes a national approach that can later be used to undermine this original intent. This national approach rules out states from passing any meaningful legislation and regulation on these issues.
There are some medical questions not yet resolved and careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use of fetal tissue. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus different from an embryo conceived in a dish?
Being pro-life and pro-research makes the question profound and I might say best not answered by political demagogues, executive orders or emotional hype.
How do problems like this get resolved in a free society where government power is strictly limited and kept local? Not easily, and not perfectly, but I am confident it would be much better than through centralized and arbitrary authority initiated by politicians responding to emotional arguments.
For a free society to function, the moral standards of the people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians can’t make the people more moral in making these judgments.
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty.
If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning?
The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty.
What can be done? The first step Congress should take is to stop all funding of research for cloning and other controversial issues. Obviously all research in a free society should be done privately, thus preventing this type of problem. If this policy were to be followed, instead of less funding being available for research, there would actually be more.
Second, the President should issue no Executive Order because under the Constitution he does not have the authority either to promote or stop any particular research nor does the Congress. And third, there should be no sacrifice of life. Local law officials are responsible for protecting life or should not participate in its destruction.
We should continue the ethical debate and hope that the medical leaders would voluntarily do the self-policing that is required in a moral society. Local laws, under the Constitution, could be written and the reasonable ones could then set the standard for the rest of the nation.
This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has been made much worse by the federal government involved, both by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal government’s involvement in embryonic research. The problem may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the most part were made worse by previous government mandates.
If the problem is that our society lacks moral standards and governments can’t impose moral standards, hardly will this effort to write more laws solve this perplexing and intriguing question regarding the cloning of a human being and stem cell research.
Neither option offered today regarding cloning provides a satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the real issue is being ignored.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 30th, 2001
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul once again will return a portion of his office’s operating budget to the federal treasury. House administrative records show that Paul’s office maintained an unspent balance of $52, 440 at the end of 2000, marking the fourth straight year Paul has spent less than his allotted office budget.
“I’m pleased we were able to save some taxpayer funds,” Paul stated. “My office strives to spend only the amount needed to provide effective constituent services. Every part of the federal government, including Congressional offices, needs to exercise fiscal restraint.”
Paul stated that he would continue to seek new ways to cut costs in 2001. “I’ve told my staff that we need to find innovative ways to provide excellent constituent services while keeping costs low.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 26th, 2001
<br />
Lift the US Embargo on Cuba<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, encouraged in part by a recent resolution passed by the Texas State Legislature, I rise again this Congress to introduce my bill to lift the United States Embargo on Cuba.
On June 29, 2001, the Texas state legislature adopted a resolution calling for an end to U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. Lawmakers emphasized the failure of sanctions to remove Castro from power, and the unwillingness of other nations to respect the embargo. One Texas Representative stated:
“We have a lot of rice and agricultural products, as well as high-tech products, that would be much cheaper for Cuba to purchase from Texas. All that could come through the ports of Houston and Corpus Christi.” I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I have introduced similar federal legislation in past years to lift all trade, travel, and telecommunications restrictions with Cuba. I only wish Congress understood the simple wisdom expressed in Austin, so that we could end the harmful and ineffective trade sanctions that serve no national purpose.
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked–when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.
Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation’s farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these ares. The department of Agriculture estimates that Iraq alone represents a $1 billion market for American farm goods. Given our status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors.
Still, support for sanctions continues in Congress. The House International Relations committee last week considered legislation that will extend existing economic sanctions against Iran and Libya for another 5 years. While I certainly oppose this legislation, I did agree with the
I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. For example, 10 years of trade sanctions against Iraq, not to mention aggressive air patrols and even bombings, have not ended Saddam Hussein’s rule. If anything, the political situation has worsened, while the threat to Kuwait remains. The sanctions have, however, created suffering due to critical shortages of food and medicine among the mostly poor inhabitants of Iraq. So while the economic benefits of trade are an important argument against sanctions, we must also consider the humanitarian argument. Our sanctions policies undermine America’s position as a humane nation, bolstering the common criticism that we are a bully with no respect for people outside our borders. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately.
The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.
I submit for inclusion in the record, a copy of the Sense of Congress Resolution passed in Austin in late June.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 54
Whereas, The relationship between the United States and Cuba has long been marked by tension and confrontation; further heightening this hostility is the 40-year-old United States trade embargo against the island nation that remains the longest-standing embargo in modern history; and
Whereas, Cuba imports nearly a billion dollars’ worth of food every year, including approximately 1,100,000 tons of wheat, 420,000 tons of rice, 37,000 tons of poultry, and 60,000 tons of dairy products; these amounts are expected to grow significantly in coming years as Cuba slowly recovers from the severe economic recession it has endured following the withdrawal of subsidies from the former Soviet Union in the last decade; and
Whereas, Agriculture is the second-largest industry in Texas, and this state ranks among the top five states in overall value of agricultural exports at more than $3 billion annually; thus, Texas is ideally positioned to benefit from the market opportunities that free trade with Cuba would provide; rather than depriving Cuba of agricultural products, the United States embargo succeeds only in driving sales to competitors in other countries that have no such restrictions; and
Whereas, In recent years, Cuba has developed important pharmaceutical products, namely, a new meningitis B vaccine that has virtually eliminated the disease in Cuba; such products have the potential to protect Americans against diseases that continue to threaten large populations around the world; and
Whereas, Cuba’s potential oil reserves have attracted the interest of numerous other countries who have been helping Cuba develop its existing wells and search for new reserves; Cuba’s oil output has increased more than 400 percent over the last decade; and
Whereas, The United States’ trade, financial, and travel restrictions against Cuba hinder Texas’ export of agricultural and food products, its ability to import critical energy products, the treatment of illnesses experienced by Texans, and the right of Texans to travel freely; now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 26th, 2001
<br />
Article on the Life of Frederic Bastiat<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of members an editorial appearing in the Wall Street Journal which is headlined “In Praise of an Economic Revolutionary.” The column is authored by Mr. Bob McTeer, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
In his article, Mr. McTeer highlights the life of Frederic Bastiat, a member of the French Chamber of Deputies during the 19th century who made great contributions to both individual liberty and free markets with clear, simple and humorous observations and arguments. Bastiat was a pioneer in the field of economics who fought against the protectionist fallacies and absurdities that persisted in his day and indeed continue to haunt us today.
Bastiat understood well what few in Congress have come to grasp–that it is absurd to favor producers over consumers and sellers over buyers. This is because producers and sellers benefit from scarcity and high prices while consumers benefit from abundance and low prices. As a consequence, when government policies favor producers, the citizens of the United States are faced with scarcity and unnecessarily high prices. In essence, the economic pie is made smaller for all.
As members of Congress we should note, as Bastiat did, that because we have limited resources and unlimited wants, it is unwise to create inefficiencies for the purpose of creating or protecting jobs. As Mr. McTeer writes, “Progress comes from reducing the work needed to produce, not increasing it.”
By supporting protectionist policies that tend to create stagnation and hurt consumers, some members stand in the way of economic progress that would benefit all. Yet we should reject these policies and in the tradition of Bastiat do away with the absurd notice that inefficiencies are good for this country and its people.
Mr. Speaker, again I commend Mr. McTeer’s column and encourage the recognition of the economic revolutionary, Frederic Bastiat.
IN PRAISE OF AN ECONOMIC REVOLUTIONARY
(By Bob McTeer)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else,”–Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
Claude Frédéric Bastiat was born in Bayonne, in the southwest of France, 200 years ago last Friday. This week, I kicked off a conference in nearby Dax, France, celebrating Bastiat’s contributions to individual liberty and free markets.
The whole world should be celebrating the birthday of this pioneer of free-market capitalism.
Bastiat’s output was prodigious, especially in the last five years of his life. Through his writing and speeches, and as a member of the French Chamber of Deputies, Bastiat fought valiantly against the protectionism and socialism of his time. He proselytized for free trade, free markets and individual liberty. His weapons were wit and satire; his method was the reductio ad absurdum. More than any other person before or since, he exposed economic fallacies with a clarity, simplicity and humor that left opponents with no place to hide.
The most famous example of Bastiat’s satire was his petition to the French parliament on behalf of candlemakers and related industries. He was seeking relief from “ruinous competition of a foreign rival who works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price.” The foreign rival was the sun. The relief sought was a law requiring the closing of all blinds to shut out the sunlight and stimulate the domestic candle industry.
Despite the publication of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” decades earlier, Bastiat was still fighting the mercantilist view of exports as good and imports as bad. He pointed out that under this view, the ideal situation would be for a ship loaded with exports to sink at sea. One nation gets the benefit of exporting and no nation has to bear the burden of importing.
Bastiat once saw an editorial proposing a Bordeaux stop on the railroad from Paris to Spain to stimulate local business. He wondered, why only Bordeaux? Why not have a stop in every single town along the way–a never-ending series of breaks–so the prosperity could be enjoyed by all? They could call it a “negative railroad.”
This point is true even today. Trade with Mexico has boomed since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and so has truck traffic across the Rio Grande. Luckily we have bridges to facilitate the crossing. But while the bridges were made for crossing, the hundreds of warehouses near the border were not. They’re for storing and waiting–where Mexican truckers are required to hand over their cargo to domestic carriers. Bastiat had his “negative railroads.” We have “negative bridges.”
Then there’s Bastiat’s broken-window fallacy. It seems someone broke a window. It’s unfortunate, but there’s a silver lining. Money spent to repair the window will being new business to the repairman. He, in turn, will spend his higher income and generate more business for others. The broken window could ultimately create a boom.
Wait a minute, Bastiat cautioned. That’s based only on what is seen. You must also consider what is not seen–what does not happen. What is not seen is how the money would have been spent if the window had not been broken. The broken window didn’t increase spending; it diverted spending.
Obvious? Sure, but we fall for a version of the broken-window fallacy every time we evaluate the impact of a government program without considering what taxpayers would have done with the money instead. Some people even judge monetary policy by what happens, without considering what might have happened.
Most economic myths give way to Bastiat’s distinction between the seen and the unseen. Related concepts include half truths and whole truths, intended and unintended consequences, the short run and long run and partial effects and total effects. Henry Hazlitt expanded on these themes in his wonderful book, “Economics in One Lesson.” If you don’t have time to read Bastiat’s collected works, try Hazlitt’s book.
Bastiat called attention to the absurdities that come from favoring producers over consumers and sellers over buyers. Producers benefit from scarcity and high prices while consumers benefit from abundance and low prices. Government policies favoring producers, therefore, tend to favor scarcity over abundance. They shrink the pie.
Bastiat stressed that because we have limited resources and unlimited wants, it’s foolish to contrive inefficiencies just to create jobs. Progress comes from reducing the work needed to produce, not increasing it. Yet, a day doesn’t pass that we don’t hear of some proposal to “create jobs,” as if there’s no work to be done otherwise. If it’s jobs we want, let’s just replace all the bulldozers with shovels. If we want even more work, replace shovels with spoons. Bastiat suggested working with only our left hands.
I was cautioned that most of the participants in the Bastiat conference would probably be from other countries, since Bastiat’s free-market views aren’t highly regarded in France. That reminded me of my visit to Adam Smith’s grave in Scotland a couple of years ago. I went into a souvenir shop about a block away and asked what kind of Adam Smith souvenirs they had. They not only didn’t have any, they’d never even had a request for one before. What a shame!
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 25th, 2001
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul yesterday introduced legislation that prevents the federal government from creating national medical ID numbers for Americans. The “Patient Privacy Act,” which repeals portions of a 1996 federal law, specifically forbids any government agency from creating a “standard unique health care identifier,” while also prohibiting the use of federal funds for the development of a national health information database.
“As a physician, my first priority is patient privacy,” Paul stated. “The federal government has no business tracking your medical history. A federal medical ID would give bureaucrats access to the intimate details of your doctor and hospital visits. Patients must place absolute trust in their doctors, so that effective treatment can be given. Yet patients will be reluctant to discuss sensitive problems such as AIDS, alcoholism, and mental illness if they know such information will be turned over to the federal government.”
The national health ID proposal was widely criticized when first touted by the Clintons, and Congress voted to suspend funding for the program in one-year increments. Paul’s bill, however, would eliminate the program altogether.
“The American people don’t want a national medical ID number,” Paul continued. “We’ve seen what the federal government did to our privacy with the supposedly confidential Social Security number. If Congress allows the creation of a federal medical ID, government agencies, HMOs, insurance companies, and criminals undoubtedly will use the number in unscrupulous ways. Congress needs to act now to block this latest threat to medical privacy.”
Paul has been instrumental in generating opposition to the medical ID in Congress, and his bill already enjoys bipartisan support. “Federal health care bureaucrats won’t give up easily,” Paul concluded. “One year delays of this program are not enough. We need to kill the national medical ID number permanently.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 24th, 2001
<br />
Introduction of the Patient Privacy Act<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information.
Establishment of such a medical identifier, especially when combined with HHS’s misnamed “federal privacy” regulations, would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into a health care database.
When the scheme to assign every American a unique medical identifier became public knowledge in 1998, their was a tremendous outcry from the public. Congress responded to the public outrage by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past three fiscal years. Last year my amendment prohibiting the use of funds to develop or implement a medical ID unanimously passed the House of Representatives.
It should be clear to every member of Congress that the American public does not want a uniform medical identifier. Therefore, rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should simply repeal the authorization of the national medical ID this year.
As an OB/GYN-with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
Many of my colleagues will admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, or force citizens to divulge their personal health information to the government, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty as it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the constitution.”
Those who claim that the Patient Privacy act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, should remember that under the constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 19th, 2001
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul yesterday introduced legislation which would amend President Bush’s faith-based charitable choice proposal. Paul, who met with the President earlier this week to discuss the faith-based initiative, proposes changes to the tax law that encourage charitable giving. Specifically, Paul’s legislation creates a tax credit (up to $5,000) available to individuals and businesses for donations to faith-based organizations which provide needed social services.
“I agree with the President that churches and private charities do a better job providing social services than government agencies,” Paul stated. “However, it’s dangerous to give public funds to private organizations, because such organizations might change their faith-based message to win government favor. Churches should not become entangled with government subsidies and programs, because truly independent religious institutions are critical to a free society.”
“The better approach is to provide tax incentives for individuals and businesses that make direct donations to charities and faith-based providers,” Paul continued. “This increases the budgets of such providers without using taxpayer funds, enabling them to expand their charitable missions without government involvement. The goal is to reduce the role of the federal welfare state by promoting charitable solutions to community problems. Charities do a far better job of helping the poor and returning individuals to productive lives than dependency-creating federal welfare programs.”
Paul’s legislation was introduced Wednesday as a substitute to HR 7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 19th, 2001
<br />
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one familiar with the history of the past century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs. Therefore, the sponsors of HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, are correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious-based organizations will benefit society. However, this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, HR 7 will transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of failed federal welfare programs.
Providing federal funds to religious organizations gives the organizations an incentive to make obedience to federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to please their new federal paymaster. Faith-based organizations may find federal funding diminishes their private support as people who currently voluntarily support religious organizations assume they “gave at the (tax) office” and will thus reduce their levels of private giving. Thus, religious organizations will become increasingly dependent on federal funds for support. Since “he who pays the piper calls the tune” federal bureaucrats and Congress will then control the content of “faith-based” programs.
Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that HR 7 explicitly forbids proselytizing in “faith-based’ programs receiving funds directly from the federal government. Religious organizations will not have to remove religious icons from their premises in order to receive federal funds. However, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a crucifix on its wall or a Jewish day care center to hang a Star of David on its door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols to persons receiving assistance. Furthermore, proselytizing is what is at the very heart of the effectiveness of many of these programs!
H.R. 7 also imposes new paperwork and audit requirements on religious organizations, thus diverting resources away from fulfilling the charitable mission. Supporters of HR 7 point out that any organization that finds the conditions imposed by the federal government too onerous does not have to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal funds, but a significant number will accept federal funds in exchange for federal restrictions on their programs, especially since the restrictions will appear “reasonable” during the program’s first few years. Of course, history shows that Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot resist imposing new mandates on recipients of federal money. For example, since the passage of the Higher Education Act the federal government has gradually assumed control over almost every aspect of campus life.
Just as bad money drives out good, government-funded charities will overshadow government charities that remain independent of federal funding. After all, a federally-funded charity has the government’s stamp of approval and also does not have to devote resources to appealing to the consciences of parishioners for donations. Instead, government-funded charities can rely on forced contributions from the taxpayers. Those who dismiss this as unlikely to occur should remember that there are only three institutions of higher education today that do not accept federal funds and thus do not have to obey federal regulations.
We have seen how federal funding corrupts charity in our time. Since the Great Society, many organizations which once were devoted to helping the poor have instead become lobbyists for ever-expanding government, since a bigger welfare state means more power for their organizations. Furthermore, many charitable organizations have devoted resources to partisan politics as part of coalitions dedicated to expanding federal control over the American people.
Federally-funded social welfare organizations are inevitably less effective than their counterparts because federal funding changes the incentives of participants in these organizations. Voluntary charities promote self-reliance, while government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.
Accepting federal funds will corrupt religious institutions in a fundamental manner. Religious institutions provide charity services because they are commanded to by their faith. However, when religious organizations accept federal funding promoting the faith may take a back seat to fulfilling the secular goals of politicians and bureaucrats.
Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.
Obviously, making religious institutions dependent on federal funds (and subject to federal regulations) violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment. Critics of this legislation are also correct to point out that this bill violates the first amendment by forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious organizations whose principles they do not believe. However, many of these critics are inconsistent in that they support using the taxing power to force religious citizens to subsidize secular organizations.
The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is “Not Yours to Give.”
Instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should focus on returning control over welfare to the American people. As Marvin Olaksy, the “godfather of compassionate conservatism,” and others have amply documented, before they were crowded out by federal programs, private charities did an exemplary job at providing necessary assistance to those in need. These charities not only met the material needs of those in poverty but helped break many of the bad habits, such as alcoholism, taught them “marketable” skills or otherwise engaged them in productive activity, and helped them move up the economic ladder.
Therefore, it is clear that instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should return control over charitable giving to the American people by reducing the tax burden. This is why I strongly support the tax cut provisions of H.R. 7, and would enthusiastically support them if they were brought before the House as a stand alone bill. I also proposed a substitute amendment which would have given every taxpayer in America a $5,000 tax credit for contributions to social services organizations which serve lower-income people. Allowing people to use more of their own money promotes effective charity by ensuring that charities remain true to their core mission. After all, individual donors will likely limit their support to those groups with a proven track record of helping the poor, whereas government agencies may support organizations more effective at complying with federal regulations or acquiring political influence than actually serving the needy.
Many prominent defenders of the free society and advocates of increasing the role of faith-based institutions in providing services to the needy have also expressed skepticism regarding giving federal money to religious organizations, including the Reverend Pat Robinson, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Star Parker, Founder and President of the Coalition for Urban Renewal (CURE), Father Robert Sirico, President of the Action Institute for Religious Liberty, Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare studies at the CATO Institute, and Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Ludwig Von Misses Institute. Even Marvin Olaksy, the above-referenced “godfather of compassionate conservatism,” has expressed skepticism regarding this proposal.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 7 extends the reach of the immoral, unconstitutional welfare state and thus threatens the autonomy and the effectiveness of the very faith-based charities it claims to help, I urge my colleagues to reject it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over charity to the American people through large tax cuts and tax credits.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 18th, 2001
<br />
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN<br />
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL :
SEC. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just read the amendment because it is just three lines. It says, “None of the funds appropriated in this act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.” It would defund the United Nations. It would take away the dues that we pay the United Nations as well as the amount of money that we are paying to pay our back dues.
I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights Commission should be an insult to all of us.
In committee, we dealt with this problem and we said, “Well, if the U.N. straightens up, then we’ll pay our dues this year; but maybe we’ll withhold our dues next year.” That is very, very weak; and it does not show any intent or show any rejection of what is going on in the United Nations.
It was mentioned earlier in debate on the gun issue that the U.N. is currently meeting up in New York dealing with the gun issue. There have been explicit proposals made at the United Nations to have worldwide gun control. No, they are not taking guns away from the government. They are taking guns away from civilians.
If anybody understands our history, they will know that taking guns from civilians is exactly opposite of what the Founders intended. In a nation like Afghanistan, they were able to defend the invasion of the Soviet Union because individuals had guns. Likewise, when the Nazis were murdering the Jews, the Jews had been denied the right to own guns. Now we are talking about the United Nations having international gun laws. There have been proposals made for an international tax on all financial transactions. Yes, it is true, it has not been passed, but these are the plans that have been laid and they are continued to be discussed and they are moving in that direction.
Today we have international government that manages trade through the WTO. We have international government that manages all international financial transactions through the IMF. We have an international government that manages welfare through the World Bank. Do these institutions really help the poor people of the world? Hardly. They help the people who control the hands of power in these international institutions and generally they help the very wealthy, the bankers, and the international corporations.
It was said the United Nations may have been set up to help preserve peace and help poor people, but it just does not happen. The poor pay the taxes and the international corporations gain the benefit.
The U.S. has taken a very strong position against endorsing the International Criminal Court. The argument is legitimate. It says that, oh, someday the International Criminal Court may arrest Americans because it just may be that Americans may pursue illegal acts of war, like bombing other countries and killing innocent people.
No, we do not want the international court to apply to us, but it is okay with our money, our prestige and our pressure to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, so that we can go in there and arrest the leaders that we have decided were the bad guys and leave the good guys alone, as if there were not bad guys on both sides in Yugoslavia.
But this presumption on our part that we can control the United Nations and arrest only those individuals that we do not like and allow the other ones to go free and that this will never apply to us, I think we are missing the point and it is a dangerous trend. Because you say, well, yes, we are powerful, we have the money and we have the weapons and we can dictate to the United Nations. They will not arrest us or play havoc with us. Yet at the same time we have already recognized that the U.N. Human Rights Commission which was voted on by a democratic vote kicked us in the face and kicked us off.
I think this is a time to think very seriously about whether this is wise to continue the funding of the United Nations. I think that a statement ought to be made. We should say, and the American people, I think, agree overwhelmingly that it is about time that we quit policing the world and paying the bills at the United Nations way out of proportion to our representation and at the same time being humiliated by being kicked off these commissions by majority vote.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 17th, 2001
<br />
Reimportation of FDA-Approved Pharmaceuticals<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal matter I was unable to be present for roll-call votes last week. I particularly regret not being in attendance for the votes on the amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bills offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Roll Call no. 216) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Roll Call no. 217) dealing with the reimportation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. I would have enthusiastically supported both amendments had I been able to be here last week and I was quite disappointed to see the gentleman from Vermont’s amendment rejected and pleased to see the gentleman from Minnesota’s amendment accepted by this body.
I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I supported these amendments. As my colleagues are aware, many Americans are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. These high prices particularly affect low-income senior citizens because many seniors have a greater than average need for prescription drugs and lower than average income. One of the reasons prescription drug prices are high is government policies which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the prescription drug market, such as those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. Therefore, all members of Congress who are serious about lowering prescription drug prices should have supported these amendments.
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals.
Opponents of the amendments offered by the gentlemen from Vermont and Minnesota waged a hysterical campaign to convince members that this amendment will result in consumers purchasing unsafe products. Acceptance of this argument requires one to assume that consumers will buy cheap pharmaceuticals without taking any efforts to ensure that they are buying a quality product. However, the experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to Mexico to purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of ensuring they purchase safe products without interference from Big “Mother.”
Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of powerful companies, they would be more concerned with reforming the current policies which endanger health by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs. Oftentimes lower income Americans will take less of a prescription medicine than necessary to save money. Some senior citizens even forgo other necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications. By reducing the prices of pharmaceuticals this amendment will help ensure no child has to take less than the recommended dosage of a prescription medicine and no senior has to choose between medication and food.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again wish to express my regret for missing the votes on the amendments by the gentlemen from Vermont and Minnesota and urge my colleagues to show they are serious about lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the people to do what is in their best interest, by supporting future efforts to establish a true free market in pharmaceuticals.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: