Return to the 1999 Congressional Record directory

Project FREEDOM Opening Page

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: June 16, 1999

During debate on
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1501, CONSEQUENCES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 2122, MANDATORY GUN SHOW BACKGROUND CHECK ACT

------------

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H4358]

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule. I believe 2 days of debate on this very important issue is about as fair as we can get. I know a lot of people are not satisfied with the rule. But I think under the circumstances it is fair, and I will support the rule.

However, I am not optimistic that much good will come out of the next 2 days of debate. I think there is a lot of mischief going on here. I see that one-half of this Congress is quite capable and anxious to defend the First Amendment, and I think that is good. I see the other half of the Congress is quite anxious and capable of defending the second amendment, and I think that is good. But it seems strange because I see these two groups coming together in a coalition to pass a bill that will undermine the first amendment and undermine the second amendment.

That does not make a whole lot of sense to me because I think that we are obligated here in the Congress to defend both the first and the second amendment and were not here for the purpose of undermining both amendments.

We should be reminded, though, that traditionally, up until the middle part of this century, crime control was always considered a local issue. That is the way the Constitution designed it. That is the way it should be. But every day we write more laws here in the Congress building a national police force. We now have more than 80,000 bureaucrats in this country carrying guns. We are an armed society, but it is the Federal Government that is armed.

So I think we should think seriously before we pass more laws whether they undermine the first amendment or whether we pass more laws undermining the second amendment. We do not need more Federal laws.

Recently there was a bipartisan study put out and chaired by Ed Meese, and he is not considered a radical libertarian. He was quoted in an editorial in the Washington Post as to what we here in the Congress are doing with nationalizing our police force. The editorial states: `The basic contention of the report, which was produced by a bipartisan group headed by former Attorney General Edward Meese, is that Congress' tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a national government.'

Along with this, we have also heard Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist say the same thing. `The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.'

We are unfortunately bound and determined to continue this trend. It looks like we are going to do so today. We are going to place a lot more rules and regulations restricting both the first and second amendment.

We are bound and determined to write more rules and regulations dealing with the first and the second amendment, and I do not see this as a good trend. It is said today that those who want to undermine the first amendment, that it is already established that pornography is not protected under the first amendment. And today the goal is to make sure that the depiction of violence is not protected under the first amendment. But do my colleagues know that the major cause of violence in the world throughout history have been abuse of religion and the abuse of philosophy?

So, therefore, the next step will be, if we can limit the depiction of pornography and then violence, be the limitation of the depiction of a philosophy that deals with religion or political systems such as Communism or other fascism.

I say, today we should move carefully and not undermine either the first or the second amendment.