|
Ron Paul's Freedom Report
A publication of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
Volume 3, No. 8 November 1999
Editors note: this is another in the series of special reports featuring Rep. Paul's statements on the floor of the House taken from selected legislative days leading up to the end of the First Session of the 106th Congress.
MONDAY, SEPT. 14, 1999
[Dr. Paul rises in opposition to H.R. 202]
Preserving Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century Act
Mr. Speaker ... [t]hat the House of Representatives would consider any bill authorizing [the additional expenditure] of about a billion dollars of taxpayer funds annually on the suspension calendar - an expedited procedure reserved for "non-controversial" bills - shows how far we have moved from our ... claim to respect the concerns of taxpayers.
The consideration of this bill succumbs to the misperception that the best course of action on any perceived problem is further (federal) governmental response. Clearly, that is not the case.
Recently, John Stossel hosted an ABC television special, "Is America Number One!" In that show, he examined the premise of governmental solutions to problems always being best and concluded:
"Intuition would suggest that countries with the most government planning, places where you're taken care of, would be the best places to live. But in fact the opposite is true; countries with the most planning are the most poor. Several organizations rank countries by economic freedom. At one end are places with lots of government planning. Invariably, these are the worst places to live. At the other end on the list ... Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. The best places to live are places with the fewest rules. Freedom isn't everything. Climate matters. Religion, geography, even luck can make a difference. But nothing matters as much as . . . Liberty."
In the show, Peter Jennings said that "Nearly 37 million Americans now live below the official poverty line."
Federal Reserve economist Michael Cox explained, "The government says now 13.3 percent of households are in poverty. Let's go see what households in poverty have. Ninety-seven percent of households in poverty have color televisions. Two-thirds have microwave ovens and live in air-conditioned buildings. Seventy-five percent have one or more cars."
Unfortunately, H.R. 202 makes the situation worse by diluting our current policy of helping the truly needy. H.R. 202 creates a middle-class entitlement by expanding eligibility for (taxpayer-subsidized] occupancy to [those with] as high as 80% of the area's median income for existing housing developments for seniors.
I commend Mr. Stossel for illustrating clearly that choosing liberty is the best path for making a difference. I wish more of my colleagues heeded his advice.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
During debate on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999
Mr. Chairman, pro-life members of Congress are ecstatic over the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, touting it as a good step toward restoring respect for life and once again criminalizing abortion. This optimism and current effort must be seriously challenged.
As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I strongly condemn the events of the last third of the 20th Century in which we have seen the casual acceptance of abortion on demand. The law's failure to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent of the whole human race has undermined our respect for all life, and therefore for all liberty. As we have seen, once life is no longer unequivocally protected, the loss of personal liberty quickly follows.
The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century, not only for its codification, through unconstitutional court action, of a social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion for convenience and for birth control, but also for flouting the constitutional system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of the states alone. After all, a single Roe v. Wade ruling by one state would be far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state laws protecting the unborn.
In achieving the goal of dehumanizing all human life by permitting the casting aside of all pre-born life, any time prior to birth, including partially born human beings, Roe v. Wade represented a huge change in attitudes toward all life and liberty. Now, pro-life Members are engaged in a similar process of writing more national laws in hopes of balancing the court's error. This current legislative effort is just as flawed.
Throughout our history, except for the three constitutional provisions, all crimes of violence have been - and should remain - state matters. Yet this new legislation only further undermines the principle of state jurisdiction and our system of law enforcement, which has served us well for most of our history.
Getting rid of Roe v. Wade through a new court ruling, or by limiting federal jurisdiction, would return this complex issue to the states.
Making the killing of an unborn infant a federal crime, as this bill does, further institutionalizes the process of allowing federal courts to destroy the constitutional jurisdiction of the states. But more importantly, the measure continues the practice of only protecting some life because it allows unborn children to be killed by anyone with an 'M.D.' after his name.
By protecting the abortionist, this legislation carves out a niche in the law that further ingrains in the system the notion that the willful killing of an innocent human being is not deserving of our attention. With more than a million children a year dying at the hands of abortionists, we are unwise to ignore these acts for the sake of political expediency.
Pro-abortion opponents of this legislation are needlessly concerned regarding its long-term meaning, and supporters are naively hoping that unintended consequences will not occur. State laws have already established clearly that a fetus is a human being deserving protection; for example, inheritance laws acknowledge that the unborn child does enjoy the estate of his father. Numerous states already have laws that correctly punish those committing acts of murder against a fetus.
Although this legislation is motivated by the best of intentions of those who strongly defend the inalienable rights of the unborn, it is seriously flawed and will not achieve its intended purpose. For that reason, I shall vote against the bill and the selected protection of abortionists, and [in so doing "vote" for] the sanctity of life and the rights of the states,
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to further instill and codify the ill-advised Roe v. Wade decision. While it is the independent duty of each branch of the federal government to act constitutionally, Congress will likely ignore not only its constitutional limits, but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1999
Dr. Paul introduces the Public Safety Tax-Cut Act
Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Public Safety Tax-Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public-policy goals.
First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments which provide services for public-safety volunteers.
[Second], many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or to supplement, their public-safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services, such as ... drinking-water, sewerage, or debris pick up. ...
Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to America's rural communities, the IRS has decided that the provision of the benefits described above amounts to taxable income. Not only does this ... foist new taxes on the volunteer, it has, in fact, led local entities to stop providing these benefits, thus taking away a key tool they have used to recruit volunteers. ...
How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization's annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy.
This legislation would rectify this situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from federal taxation.
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public-safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide.
In America we have a tradition of local law-enforcement and public-safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of [the providers of these services], it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money we take from their pockets via federal taxation. That is something this bill specifically does as well.
Mr. Speaker I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act, and I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation.
[Thursday, October 21 continued ...]
During debate on Academic Achievement for All Act ("Straight A's" Act)
Mr. Chairman, those who wish to diminish federal control over education should cast an unenthusiastic "yes" vote for the Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act ("Straight A's"). While this bill does increase the ability of state and local governments to educate children free from federal mandates and regulations, and is thus a marginal improvement over existing federal law, "Straight A's" fails to challenge the federal government's unconstitutional control of education.
In fact, under "Straight A's", states and local school districts will still be treated as administrative subdivisions of the federal education bureaucracy. Furthermore, this bill does not remove the myriad requirements imposed on states and local school districts by federal bureaucrats in the name of promoting "civil rights." Thus, a school district participating in "Straight A's" will still have to place children in failed bilingual education programs or face the wrath of the Department of Education's misnamed Office of Civil Rights.
The fact that this bill increases, however marginally, the ability of states and localities to control education, is a step forward. As long as the federal government continues to levy oppressive taxes on the American people, and then funnel that money back to the states to use for education programs, defenders of the Constitution should support all efforts to reduce the hoops through which states must jump in order to reclaim some of the peoples' tax monies.
However, I have a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding this bill. While the additional flexibility granted under this bill will be welcomed by the 10 states allowed by the federal overseers to participate in the program, there is no justification to deny this flexibility to the remaining 40 states. After all, federal education money represents the return of funds illegitimately taken from the American taxpayers to their states and communities. It is the pinnacle of arrogance for Congress to pick and choose which states are worthy of relief from federal strings in how they use what is, after all, the peoples' money.
The primary objection to "Straight A's" from a constitutional viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of "accountability" stressed by the drafters of the bill. Talk of accountability begs the question: accountable to whom?
Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which a participating school's performance is judged. Should the schools not live up to their bureaucratically determined "performance goals," they will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the "Straight A's" programs, and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state's five-year education plan ... yet this is supposed to de-bureaucratize and decentralize education!
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states "accountable" for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools were held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America's families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. Because "he who pays the piper calls the tune," when the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will obey the dictates of federal "educrats" while ignoring the wishes of the parents.
In order to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home-schooling their children.
[Thursday, October 21 continued ...]
During debate on Student Results Act of 1999
Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again preparing to exceed its constitutional limits and ignore the true lesson of the last 30 years of education failure by reauthorizing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA).
Like most federal programs, Title I was launched with the best of intentions. However, good intentions are no excuse for Congress to exceed its constitutional limitations and deprive parents, local communities, and states of their rightful authority over education. The Tenth Amendment does not contain an exception for "good intentions!"
The Congress that created Title I promised the American public that, in exchange for giving up control over their schools and submitting to increased levels of taxation, federally-empowered "experts" would create an education utopia. However, rather than ushering in a new golden age of education, increased federal involvement in education has, not coincidentally, coincided with a decline in American public education.
o In 1963, when federal spending on education was less than $900,000, the average Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) score was approximately 980.
o Thirty years later, when federal education spending had ballooned to $19 billion, the average SAT score had fallen to 902.
Furthermore, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1992 Survey, only 37% of America's 12th graders were actually able to read at a 12th-grade level.
...[T]oo many in Congress continue to cling to the belief that the "right federal program," conceived by enlightened members and staffers, will lead to educational nirvana. This bill increases federal expenditures by $27.7 billion over the next five years. A cursory review of this legislation reveals at least five new mandates imposed on the states - yet the drafters of this legislation somehow manage to claim, with a straight face, that this bill promotes local control.
One mandate requires states to give priority to K-6 education programs in allocating their Title I dollars. At first glance, this may seem reasonable, however, many school districts may need to devote an equal, or greater, amount of resources to high-school education. In fact, the principal of a rural school in my district has expressed concern that they may have to stop offering programs that use Title I funds if this provision becomes law!
What makes DC-based politicians and bureaucrats better judges of the needs of this small East Texas school district than that school's principal?
Another mandate requires teachers' aides to be "fully qualified" if the aides are to be involved in instructing students. Again, while this may appear to be a simple matter of following sound practice, the cost of hiring qualified teaching assistants will add a great burden to many small and rural school districts. Many of these districts may have to go without teachers' aides, placing another burden on our already overworked public-school teachers.
Some may claim that this bill does not contain "mandates," because no state must accept federal funds. However, since obeying federal educrats is the only way states and localities can retrieve any of the education funds unjustly taken from their citizens by oppressive taxation, it is the rare state that will not submit to federal specifications.
One of the mantras of those who promote marginal reforms of federal education programs is the need to "hold schools accountable for their use of federal funds." This is the justification for requiring Title I schools to produce "report cards" listing various indicators of school performance. Of course, no one would argue against holding schools accountable, but accountable to whom? The Federal Government?
Simply requiring schools to provide information about the schools, without giving parents the opportunity to directly control their childrens' education, does not hold schools accountable to parents. As long as education dollars remain in the hands of bureaucrats and not parents, schools will remain accountable to bureaucrats instead of parents.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1999
[Dr. Paul addresses the House]
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction, and Loss of Life
Mr. Speaker, demonstrators in a foreign city are once again condemning America. This time, it is in Kabul, Afghanistan. By shouting 'Death to America,' burning our flag, and setting off bombs, the demonstrators are expressing their hatred toward America.
The United States has just placed sanctions on yet another country to discipline those who do not obey our commands. The nerve of them! Do they not know we are the most powerful nation in the world, and that we have to meet our responsibilities? They should do as we say, and obey our CIA directives!
This process is not new. It has been going on for 50 years, and it has brought us grief and multiplied our enemies. Can one only imagine what the expression of hatred might be if we were not the most powerful nation in the world?
Our foreign policy of military interventionism has brought death and destruction to many foreign lands and loss of life to many Americans. From Korea and Vietnam to Serbia, Iran, Iraq, and now Afghanistan, we have ventured far from our shores in search of wars to fight. Instead of more free trade with our potential adversaries, we are quick to slap on sanctions that hurt American exports and help to solidify the power of tyrants, while seriously penalizing innocent civilians and fomenting anti-America hatred.
The current anti-American demonstrations in Kabul were understandable and predictable. Osama bin Laden, our one-time ally when he served as a freedom fighter against the Soviets in Afghanistan and when we bombed his Serbian enemies while siding with his friends in Kosovo, has not been fooled. He knows that his cause cannot be [deterred] by our fickle policy.
Sanctions are one thing, but seizures of bank assets of any business related to the Taliban government infuriates and incites the radicals to violence. There is no evidence that this policy serves the interests of world peace. It certainly increases the danger to all Americans as we become the number-one target of terrorists. Conventional war against the United States is out of the question, but acts of terrorism, whether the shooting down of a civilian airliner or bombing a New York City building, are almost impossible to prevent in a reasonably open society. Likewise, the bombings in Islamabad and, possibly, the U.N. plane crash in Kosovo, are directly related to our meddling in the internal affairs of these nations.
General Musharraf's successful coup against Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan was in retaliation for America's interference with Sharif's handling of the Pakistan-India border war. The recent bombings in Pakistan are a clear warning to Musharraf that he, too, must not submit to U.S.-CIA directives.
I see this as a particularly dangerous time for a U.S. president to be traveling to this troubled region, since so many blame us for the suffering, whether it is the innocent victims in Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is hard for the average citizen of these countries to understand why we must be so involved in their affairs, resorting so readily to bombs and boycotts in countries thousands of miles away from our own.
Our foreign policy is deeply flawed and does not serve our national security interest. In the Middle East, it has endangered some of the moderate Arab governments and galvanized Muslim militants.
The recent military takeover of Pakistan and the subsequent anti-American demonstration in Islamabad should not be ignored. It is time we in Congress seriously rethink our role in the region and in the world. We ought to do more to promote peace and trade with our potential enemies, rather than resorting to bombs and sanctions.
|
