Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer into the Record two record examples of the fine writing often found in one of district newspapers, The Brazosport Facts. While many find it easy to deride the press as liberal and closed to the notions of liberty, free markets, and constitutional principles, I am pleased to report that The Brazosport Facts in general, and these two authors in specific, seek to bring a fair, even balance to the coverage of news and ideas.

Today I enter into the Record an editorial written by Glenn Heath, a former executive editor of The Brazosport Facts and now a retired member of the community active yet active on the paper's editorial board. Also, I enter into the Record a column written by Bill Sturdevant, a frequent contributor to the Facts.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my fellow Members of Congress to read these principled writings. I offer my congratulations and thanks to these two men for supporting the ideas of liberty; and to the entire staff of The Brazosport Facts for their ongoing dedication to presenting fair coverage of events and ideas.

------

A larger principle than the bill itself is involved. The principle applies to many human circumstances where a mandated gain entails a substantial loss.

For decades, a safety measure has been before the Legislature, either asking the state to require motorcycle riders to wear a protective helmet, or asking the state to repeal such a law. Riders have been in the gallery in force to oppose one or support the other.

This time it's repeal. Sen. Jerry Patterson's bill would relieve all motorcycle riders aged 21 or over of wearing the helmet. Legislators deleted a provision that they must carry added insurance if they did so.

The Senate is expected to vote on Patterson's bill Thursday or Friday.

From a purely practical standpoint, the arguments for the original bill had merit. In case of an accident, the helmet would help protect against head injuries.

Even most riders would admit that motorcycles can be dangerous. In the best of road conditions, their speed capability is often abused; and on slick surfaces or loose surfacings they can be treacherous. In a crash with a four-wheel vehicle, the motorcycles always lose.

But motorcycles are designed as much for fun as for practical transportation. Even those who accept the helmet for its safety would agree that using one diminishes the pleasure of motorcycling.

More important, the helmet protects no one but the one wearing it. So the effect of the law is to force a person to do something entirely for personal safety.

That should be that person's choice. No government should regulate an individual's right to accept risks, and in doing so deprive that person of the freedom to enjoy a pleasure.

That doesn't mean there should be no rules of highway safety. Faulty brakes threaten not just the driver of an auto, but every other vehicle on the road. Slick tires, malfunctioning lights endanger others. These are concerns of government.

But not air bags. These don't prevent crashes and they don't protect others on the road; they only tend to reduce the injuries to a driver and possibly a passenger after a crash.

When air bags were a prospective federal mandate, the estimated cost for each was about $300. Once they were in place, they were said to have saved 1,600 lives. For this to happen, tens of millions of motorists must pay the high cost of the devices.

And in a few cases, the air bags have actually killed people. New proposals would soften the impact, and would allow a motorist to have the air bag disabled. Then why shouldn't the motorist be allowed to avoid the expense altogether?

These are only two examples. We need protection from the negligence of others, but there should be limits on how much government limits our freedom and pleasure in protecting us from ourselves.

Benjamin Franklin had words for it: `Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'

(BY BILL STURDEVANT)

Rights are counterbalanced with responsibility; juxtaposed and eternally linked. In the United States of America, we have a government created by a group of individuals collectively called `the people,' who are not only `endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,' those being `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' but also have the `equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry,' and `to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them.' (Thomas Jefferson).

In short, we have the right to choose what is best for us. We have the right to pursue happiness as we define it, we have the right to keep the fruits of our labor that we earn in that pursuit, and we have the right to decide how to dispose of those rewards. At the same time, we must reconcile these rights with the responsibility of respecting the rights of others, and living with the consequences of our decisions and actions. If our country's founding fathers had written a golden rule for our citizens, it would have read `Respect the God-given rights of others, while at the same time protecting your own rights.'

What bothers me is that there seem to be fewer and fewer people who understand and live by this golden rule. More and more often, people are turning to the federal government to secure the force necessary to take from others something that they are not by right entitled to. I may have the right to eat, but I don't have the right to steal someone else's food. I have the right to have children, but I don't have the right to force someone else to pay for my child's food, house, clothes or education. The decision is mine; it therefore follows that the responsibility is also mine. Many federal `entitlement' programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, are morally wrong because they require, by threat of force, that people give up part of what they earn so that it can be redistributed to someone who did not earn it.

But wait a minute, you say. All of the above mentioned federal programs were created by the will of the majority of Americans, and it is therefore our civic duty to contribute. My response to that is, `So what?' My rights are not bestowed to me by government or by a majority of the electorate. They do not have the legitimate authority to force me to contribute to programs that are not enumerated in the Constitution. In too many cases in the history of mankind, the majority has used the power of government to enslave the minority, or at least create an unfair advantage for themselves.

Say that a congressman and a police officer were riding in a bus that was full of other passengers. On the bus was a `rich' man, who had one dollar more than the others. The Congressman announced: `If you vote for me, I will use the government's police power to take the dollar from the rich man, and redistribute it to you.' A vote was held, and the majority of those on the bus decided the rich man should contribute his dollar for the good of all the rest. The policeman seized the dollar, and the congressman divided it up. He gave 25 cents to the policeman, 25 cents was given to the people on the bus, (which they immediately started fighting over), and he kept 50 cents for himself. It seemed that everyone, except the rich man, was happy, but were they right?

In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said of the `sacred principle' of our federal government, `that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.' It could be argued that it was wrong to take the dollar from the rich man because he could have used it to build a factory, employ everyone on the bus, and thus create wealth for all.

My point is that it doesn't matter what you or I may think, the person who earns the money is the only one with the right to decide how to spend it, so long as doing so does not infringe on your or my legitimate rights. Jefferson continued by defining the `good government' as being `wise and frugal, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.'

The next time a politician promises you an `entitlement,' think about who he is going to rob to pay for it. Ask yourself if, by accepting it, you would have to abdicate your personal responsibility and therefore your freedom. Ask yourself if you are legitimately entitled to it because you earned it. If the government has the power to `take from Peter to pay Paul,' what is to stop it from taking from both? Ask yourself why the politician isn't battling to restore your lost liberty.

Please understand that I am not against charity. There are people who, through no fault of their own, need temporary assistance, and I believe we have a moral obligation to help them if we can. But to lose our freedom, in the name of `charity,' by allowing confiscatory taxation of our money, really only benefits politicians and bureaucrats. This is not only dangerous, it is absurd.

Only by accepting our responsibility to honor the rights of others can we hope to protect our own rights. As Jefferson said, only by protecting our rights can we hope to `regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.'