July 31st, 1997
Statement by US Representative Ron Paul on the spending portion of the Fiscal Year 1998 Budget:
“I voted against the proposed spending side of the budget agreement originally and on Thursday for one very simple reason: it is far too big. This budget continues the unconstitutional spending which has brought us the fiscal problems we are experiencing today. In fact, the spending not only increases but there are whole new social-welfare programs included. The bottom-line is this: this is a budget we cannot afford.
“The odds are slim-to-none that this and coming budgets, produced by the prevailing philosophy of Washington, will stumble into “balance” at some future date without the use of creative accounting techniques.
“The people of the United States deserve an honest budget which has constitutional spending. We must make serious cuts, real cuts, in the budget for that to occur: without harming a single taxpayer we could cut the departments of education, energy, labor and commerce, and we could eliminate foreign aid, stop policing the world, and shore up our defenses at home.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 30th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Was the amendment printed in the Record ?
Mr. PAUL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Paul :
At the end of title I (page 5, after line 14), insert the following new paragraph:
“REDUCTION IN AMOUNTS”
“Each amount otherwise provided in this title is hereby reduced to $0.”
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate on the previous amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher ] suggested that there was one problem with the Royce amendment. He said it just does not go far enough.
I have an amendment that will go far enough to deal with this entire problem of corporate welfare. My amendment strikes all the funding from title I. This means that the $632 million that goes to the Export-Import Bank, the $32 million that goes to OPIC and the $40 million that goes to the Trade and Development Agency would be struck. This would not close these agencies down. We have heard on numerous occasions already today that OPIC and other agencies like OPIC are obviously self-supporting. If they are self-supporting, they need no more appropriations. They can use the current funding, they can be privatized. This whole idea that they come with the argument that they are self-supporting and self-sustaining and that they make a profit, there is no purpose in being here. Why do they come to the American people and ask in this particular bill for export subsidies of $704 million? My amendment would strike the $704 million. These three agencies have liabilities of well over $100 billion and this would be eliminated.
One of the reasons the argument is made that these agencies are self-sustaining is that they hold Treasury bills, which means that they receive huge sums of money through the back door through interest payments. This money is not appropriated for the specific purpose, but as long as they hold Treasury bills they get the interest payments. For instance, I mentioned earlier that OPIC in 1996 received $166 million in this manner. Self-sustaining, it is not.
We should really ask if this is good economic policy. Quite frankly, it is not good economic policy. It encourages businesspeople to do the wrong things at the taxpayers’ risk.
It is mentioned that these programs are available in the private sector but they will not go into the risky areas. Obviously not. OPIC, for instance, goes into countries, and what the American people have to assume is the risk against political risk and economic risk. So if these companies go bust, the American taxpayers have to stand behind them. We have a misdirection of the economy and the misdirection of investment because we get companies to do things more risky than they would have otherwise. If they want to go into a more risky area, the private insurance would obviously be higher, so therefore this is a subsidy to corporations.
There is no reason why we should support this type of welfare. There are several kinds of welfare. We have welfare for the poor, we have welfare for the foreigners and we have welfare for the corporations. I do not think the correct place to try to solve our problem on welfare is to go after the poor man’s welfare, but we can go after foreign welfare and we can go after corporate welfare, and this is an example of corporate and foreign welfare.
It is said that with these programs there is never any loss to the taxpayers. That is a bit of a fallacy, because the loss to the taxpayers is when we take the money from the taxpayer, so they are losing all the time. Most little people never get benefits from this. It is the large corporations that lobby us so heavily to endorse these programs. There are not that many loans that default.
But there is another reason why we do not have that many loan defaults, because they quickly renew these loans at different terms.
There is a lot of generous renewing of loans and therefore the default level is very, very low, if we see it at all. But the risk is there. The real risk to the American taxpayer is when we tax the Americans to go and encourage programs like this. The assumption is made that if we do not do it, it will not happen. Maybe not, maybe it will. If it does not happen, maybe it is too risky. But most of it still would happen; it would be insured in the private sector and many of these programs would occur.
To get up and say A, B, and C company would not have existed and could not have done this is not correct because we do not know. The other thing we do not know is who suffered from this credit allocation. When the Government gets involved in credit allocation, in saying this credit is guaranteed and should go in this direction, every time there is $10 billion going in that direction, it comes out of the private sector and some little guy lost his credit. So obviously the banks are going to loan to the people that have a guarantee.
Another area that we should address here is the subject of who gets these loans. For instance, one of the biggest beneficiaries is China. Red China gets over $4 billion. That in itself is enough reason to vote for this amendment and reject corporate welfare on principle.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to destroy the Eximbank which might sound good and might look good on the back of a bumper sticker, but it would be a tremendous mistake for literally tens of thousands of working American people who are working today as a result of the fact that we are doing business in some overseas countries. If indeed my colleagues believe that we are not in a global economy, then my colleagues ought to do exactly what the gentleman from Texas said: build a wall around the United States of America. Let us not let anybody in and let us not let anybody out, let us not ship any of our equipment overseas.
Let us talk about General Electric. What kind of generators do Members think they use if GE builds a plant in a foreign country? They use a GE generator built by American workers, built by American workers who take that money home and support their families and support my colleagues through their taxes that they pay.
So if my colleagues want to close down America, if they do not want to do business overseas, if they really in their heart believe that a global economy is not the future of this country, then my colleagues ought to abolish the Eximbank and they ought to abolish OPIC as well.
But unfortunately, if the gentleman will read the newspapers, watch television, look at world affairs, attend some of the committee hearings that we have, when we hear the testimony of the Eximbank and these various agencies, he will learn that we are exporting our jobs overseas by letting them work in Texas, by letting them work in Alabama, in California. They are taking that money to their homes and we are shipping our generators and our products to them overseas simply because we have provided for our businesspeople the same thing that the French, the British, the Germans, the Japanese have provided to theirs. Not as much, I grant the gentleman. They still give them much more. They subsidize theirs. We do not subsidize these.
So, yes, if the gentleman wants to shut the world down as far as the United States is concerned and abolish all these; but it would be very, very unwise to do that. I would encourage my colleagues to recognize that and to vote against the gentleman’s amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Japan subsidizes 32 percent of their exports and we only subsidize a small amount, only 2 percent. So I guess I would be complaining a lot more if I lived in Japan because they do so much more; but if we look at the economic growth of Japan, now it is less than 1 percent and we are doing better. We have economic growth of 4 percent.
Mr. CALLAHAN. If I may reclaim my time, that is because they are doing too much. We are not doing too much. We are trying to facilitate our businesspeople in this country the opportunity to make them competitive doing business in foreign countries. If that is wrong, then I am wrong. But I am not wrong. The gentleman is wrong in trying to abolish this agency.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment of our distinguished colleague from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, this is a most unfortunate amendment, because it strikes right to the heart of eliminating title I of our bill, which is an important part of our foreign operations legislation. Eximbank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Trade and Development Agency programs help create more and better-paying U.S. jobs through exports. Each of these agencies has a distinct role in the administration’s effort to increase U.S. exports. Increasing U.S. exports is a major pillar of our foreign policy and these agencies help do that. Every one of our major industrial competitors have publicly supported counterparts to Exim, OPIC and TDA. Virtually all of our competitors fund their trade and investment finance agencies at a higher level than we do. Failure to fully fund Exim, OPIC and TDA would severely handicap our exporters as they battle for market share in the key fast-growing markets. Exports create more and higher-paying jobs, support the creation of American jobs by promoting exports. Vote against this amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Could the gentlewoman cite the constitutional authority for programs like this? Where did we get this authority? When did we get involved in doing this? I am confused on that constitutional issue.
Ms. PELOSI. I would not be able to cite the constitutional authority. I know the gentleman is well known for his opposition to any spending bills, but I think the question that he asks is an appropriate one to ask every Member who speaks on the floor, because these agencies of government create jobs and return revenue to our Treasury.
I would like to address one of the points the gentleman made in his remarks. He said if they are so self-sustaining, why are they not privatized, or words to that effect.
I think it is very important that this is part of our national export program, that we be able to participate in the program level and have a control on the operating expenses so that all of the funds that are put to this end are well spent and that they promote the most exports, create the most jobs and increase the vitality and dynamism of our own economy.
Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I think that is a noble gesture to mix business and government, but some people are hesitant to do that, to supervise what businesses are doing.
Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, the point was not to mix business and government. The point was to promote U.S. exports abroad and to recognize the realities of the global economy, where all of the countries, the developed countries of the world and the developing countries, are very competitive for the market share out there. It is very important for us in those particular instances where, for example, OPIC would be necessary, assessing the risk very carefully so as not to put the U.S. taxpayers’ dollars at an extraordinary risk, but where the calibration is such that we need OPIC’s participation, or Eximbank’s participation or TDA’s promotion, that we give some opportunity to U.S. business to make the playing field more level. As I have said in my remarks, we do not come close to what many countries do to help promote exports, but at least we can participate in promoting exports.
Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will yield further, I think earlier she said that it would be an appropriate question to ask for constitutional authority and suggested that this is a good idea, and I would like to emphasize that we do it more often.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I think if the gentleman reads the question, he will find that the Constitution calls upon the Congress to promote the general welfare of this Nation. I think by increasing trade and creating jobs, we are promoting the general welfare of our Nation.
Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will yield further, this is frequently cited as a constitutional authority to do almost anything. But let me be specific to point out to the gentleman that we are not dealing with the general welfare. We are dealing with the very specific welfare of General Electric and other big companies at the expense of the general welfare of the taxpayers who are paying the money.
Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, I would like to say to the gentleman, I keep a very close eye on these agencies. To the extent that I believe that they are not promoting the general welfare and that special interest is served rather than the public interest, I would be certain to join with the gentleman in criticism of those aspects.
But that is not what the point is here tonight.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Paul amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest opposition to the gentleman’s amendment, offered for ideological reasons no doubt. It is devastating. It would do draconian levels of damage to the American economy, American exporters, American business and American workers. It needs to be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo ].
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I would cite with authority Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution that it is within the powers of this body to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and if I could make my point, then I would be glad to yield for a question from my constitutional friend.
In what we are doing here with these 3 bodies, Ex-Im, OPIC and TDA, are we regulating commerce? You bet we are. We are involved in an international global war. If the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul ] were presented somehow in an international body, and I would dread that because we would have a one-world government, then I would say let us go ahead and do what he is doing because there are 73 export credit agencies, there are 36 international equivalents of OPICs. So what that means is that if we get rid of these specialty types of credit agencies, where are we? What we have done is we have effectively thrown up our hands and we have left it to the Finns and Germans to take over.
Let me give my colleagues an example that is in my backyard, Beloit Corporation. There is one of 3 manufacturers of paper making machines, 3 worldwide manufacturers of paper making machines, engaged in trying to get a contract in Indonesia. The only other 2 manufacturers are in Europe. One are the Finns and the other one are the Germans, and the Finns and the Germans go through extraordinary lengths in order to, if my colleagues want to use that word, subsidize, grant favorable financing so that these sales can take place.
So what happened was Beloit Corporation applied to Ex-Im in working with Members on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett ] over here from Milwaukee. We were able to see Ex-Im grant a $275 million loan guarantee which has to be paid back with interest at a good premium for the purpose of making sure that Beloit Corporation was put in a level playing field to sell those machines. Those were 2 machines that cost over $150 million a piece, and there are several more in the lot. Let me finish my thought here.
Now what is going on here dynamically is this. Worldwide there is an effort, there is an effort to eliminate OPIC and Ex-Im types of financing. For example the OECD met and said that what we will do is we will have an agreement that a Nation can only subsidize the spread; that is, the actual amount of interest as charged worldwide on the open market with what a Nation wants to pay to a certain extent, and they continue to narrow that gap so that nations will be involved in less core subsidizing of the loans for the exports.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Let me address the subject of regulation. The Constitution does give us the authority to regulate commerce, but it never mentions that we should subsidize special interests at the expense of the average American taxpayers. Yes, we can put on tariffs and we can regulate what comes and goes across our borders, but in the wildest dreams of the Founders of this country they never intended that we would have programs like this. We have to think this is a concoction of the latter part of the 20th century, the past 20 or 30 years. This is when this stuff; when welfare-ism has blossomed, it has been these type of programs. It was never intended by our Constitution to do these programs.
Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the authorization appropriations are funds that are very much in the American taxpayers’ benefit. They come out positive as a result directly of these jobs.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, back in those days the main income for the United States was international tariffs. We have these incredible tariff barriers, and that is how we supported the economy of the Nation before the income tax.
I mean nobody wants those tariffs. I know the gentleman is a libertarian and does not like the tariffs, but that is what was going on 200 some years ago when the Nation was founded, and I think when this was put into the Constitution it says to regulate, meaning this body, the United States Congress, is given the power to make sure that we can operate internationally.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul ].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 30th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. This is a form of welfare that should be stopped. We have poor man’s welfare, foreign welfare, and corporate welfare. This is an example of foreign and corporate welfare. The program really ought to be abolished.
If it is true that this program pays its own way, then there is no need for us to be here. Why are they asking for $32 million? It is a good program. Some insurance company will take it over.
Obviously, they need the $32 million that is in here. But there is something else involved here that is very, very important. On the very chart that was standing here a minute ago, it was showing that they do fabulously, this tremendous income of $299 million in 1996, which is true. But in looking at this Price Waterhouse balance sheet, financial report for 1996, it shows that OPIC owns $2.47 billion worth of bonds. Right above it, as a matter of fact, the line went through it, so you could not read it, it said that the income from these treasuries was $166 million. That is what it is costing the taxpayers.
We are giving a subsidy to OPIC in the back door by paying interest. It appears on the budget as an interest payment. I mean this is really close to outright deception on the part of many here in the Congress as well as the American people. So it is not paying its own way.
The other argument, we heard it expressed several times now, is that this is a very necessary program because it goes where the private market will not go. That is precisely the reason we should not be there, because there is a risk. The businessman will not go there because it is too risky.
So what do we do? We ask the American taxpayers to back it up. What to do? To take our businesses from this country, export the business and export the jobs. Most of this money goes to big companies. If we look at their record over the past 6 years, these big companies have had a significant shrinkage of employment. These jobs are going overseas. Programs like this serve to export jobs, and this amendment should be passed.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 30th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 133 expressing the sense of Congress with regard to the terrorist bombing in the Jerusalem marketplace.
Certainly, I can agree with the language in the resolution that this attack is a violent, vicious, and reprehensible assault upon the individual citizens in Israel. For the victims and the victims’ families I have the utmost sympathy. However, while expressing my sincerest personal condolences to these families and victims, I, at the same time, take very seriously my oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Insofar as H. Con Res. 133 ‘[u]ges the President and appropriate Executive agencies to provide all appropriate assistance to the government of Israel . . . [and] . . . bring to justice the terrorist leaders . . . [and] . . . prevent such terrorist acts in the future,’ I am unable to vote in favor of this Resolution. Constitutionally, it is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government to police the world. At the same time we are asked to support this resolution to urge intervention by the United States Government to ‘prevent such terrorist acts in the future’ in Israel, would we be so receptive to allowing foreign entities to, for example, intervene to bring to justice the individual who initiated the bombing in Atlanta, GA, during the recent Olympic games.
It is not the responsibility of foreign governments to police the United States and constitutionally, it is not the responsibility of the United States to police the world. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and with the deepest regrets for the victims and families of this act of brutality in Jerusalem, I oppose passage of H. Con. Res. 133.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 30th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – House and Senate negotiators working on the tax plan for the coming year kept in the legislation a key point which has been supported by US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside). Now the plan will go to the president, and Paul is urging Mr. Clinton to keep the education savings account plan in place for America’s families.
“While I differ with you on many issues, I have always supported your efforts to allow Americans to spend more of their hard-earned funds on education,” Paul wrote in a letter to the president on Tuesday.
Paul asked President Clinton to sign into law the “Coverdell Amendment,” which would allow parents to contribute up to $2,000 a year into tax-sheltered savings accounts to pay for educational expenses such as tuition, fees, books, supplies, and even home computers. Additionally, parents would be able to use the savings to pay for elementary and secondary educational expenses, as well as save for college costs. The Coverdell Amendment was supported in the Senate by Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia.
“This proposal will allow parents to save and invest in their children’s future and begin to provide more equitable opportunities for children to receive the best possible education,” Paul wrote.
Besides being a supporter of this education savings method, Paul is also working on two other pro-education initiatives. The first is House Resolution 1816 “The Family Education Freedom Act,” which allows parents to take up to $3,000 a year in tax credits for educational expenses. The second piece of legislation is HR1810 “The Higher Education and Learning Promotion Act.” This measure will allow the creation of tax-exempt education investment accounts into which an individual may contribute up to $1,500 a year in order to save for college expenses for their children.
“It’s critical that American families be allowed to provide for the education of their children. The key to increasing the educational aptitude of our students is found not in the bureaucratic halls of Washington, DC, but in parents being allowed to exercise their natural, God-given authority and responsibility to care for their children,” said Paul. “The Coverdell Amendment, as well as HR 1816 and HR 1810, give parents the economic tools they need to provide for their children in the ways best suited for their children.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 26th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – While the US House of Representatives had been scheduled to debate and vote on the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act this week, it now appears it has been delayed until next week, most likely on Tuesday, July 29.
US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas) had announced he was introducing two amendments to the legislation which would have abolished corporate welfare and ended taxpayer subsidization of overseas abortion and family planning activities.
The Act’s presentation on the House Floor has been delayed because of partisan tension over the abortion issue. A Democratic Member of Congress has wanted to be able to introduce language into the measure which would allow for funding of abortion and related services. However, the “rule” regulating the debate and amendments to the Act would not allow it. So Rep. Pelosi and other Democrats have been using procedural rules as a form of protest during other appropriations measures to delay the House. The Foreign Operations measure has not yet been brought onto the floor and has not been directly targeted for delay tactics.
“While it’s a shame that these tactics mean the measure may not be heard and voted on until September, this gives our side time to really build up the momentum of support we already have,” said Paul. “These two amendments I am offering are not only in line with the Constitution, but make strong fiscal sense.”
Paul’s first amendment will prohibit using the funds in the Foreign Operations Appropriation to pay for abortion, family planning or population control activities. The amendment is supported by many of the nations pro-life organizations, including Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council and the American Life League.
The second amendment will stop what Paul calls “foreign corporate welfare” by eliminating the funds for the Export-Import Bank and other tax-funded organizations which use US taxpayers’ dollars to subsidize US corporations doing business overseas. This amendment is supported by organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Citizens Against Government Waste.
“Our tax dollars shouldn’t by funding abortions, and they shouldn’t be used to underwrite the purchases of foreign governments like China and Mexico,” said Paul. “The Constitution simply does not allow it, and we simply do not have the money for it.”
In all, the two amendments if passed could save taxpayers more than $1 billion during fiscal year 1998.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 25th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – A measure to allow parents to save up to $1,500 per year into a tax-exempt “Education Investment Account,” is being cosponsored by US Representatives Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas) and Kay Granger (R-Fort Worth). The legislation, HR 1810, “The Higher Education and Learning Promotion Act,” also allows individuals to contribute to similar accounts for children from low-income families and economically disadvantaged situations.
In letter to their House colleagues on Thursday, Paul and Granger wrote that, “Education tax credits are one of the best ways to assist millions of hard-working Americans achieve their greatest wish: that children have the means to pursue a higher education.”
Under the legislation, if parents were to invest the $1,500 yearly into a plan with a seven-percent yield, they would have access to over $50,000 for their child’s education.
“The key to funding higher education is found in empowering parents and individuals to make their own education choices,” said Paul, who is also sponsoring “The Family Education Freedom Act” HR 1816, which would allow parents tax credits of up to $3,000 per year per child to pay for educational expenses from the earliest ages through college. “Parents and their children know best what higher education needs they have, and they should be free to pursue those goals without the stifling burden of government regulation and taxation.”
The Paul and Granger Higher Education and Learning Promotion Act’s provisions also make it possible for individuals to make tax-exempt contributions to the education of children besides their own.
“H.R. 1810 makes it possible for more Americans to personally contribute to the betterment of children rather than subsidizing wasteful government programs,” they wrote, noting that the involvement of individuals in the educational opportunities of low-income children is the only way “to break the cycle of poverty and allow more American children to reach their potential.”
The legislation has been assigned for hearings in the House Committee on Ways and Means. Following hearings and a vote of the Ways and Means Committee, the legislation will go before the entire House, though no time table has been established.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 22nd, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, over the past 35 years, Congress has constructed a centralized system of vocational education, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a system that all-too-often serves more as a ‘dumping ground’ for special-needs students than as an effective means of providing noncollege bound students with the knowledge and skills they need to become productive citizens.
Congress is considering prolonging the life of large parts of this system by reauthorizing the Carl Perkins Vocational Education and Applied Technology Act (H.R. 1853). While 1853 does eliminate several Federal programs and State mandates contained in current law, if further legitimizes the unconstitutional notion that the Federal Government has a legitimate role to play in education.
Furthermore, certain language in H.R. 1853 suggests that the purpose of education is to train students to serve the larger needs of society, as determined by Government and business, not to serve the individual.
During the discussion of this bill, the case has been made that constitutionalists should support H.R. 1853 because it reduces the number of Federal mandates on the States; however the 10th amendment does not quantify the extent to which the Federal Government can interfere in areas such as education. Instead, the 10th amendment forbids any and all Federal interference in education, no matter how much flexibility the programs provide the States.
H.R. 1853 represents mandate federalism, where the Federal Government allows States limited flexibility as to the means of complying with Congress mandates. Under this bill, States must submit a vocational education plan to the Department of Education for approval. States must then demonstrate yearly compliance with benchmarks that measure a series of federally set goals. The Secretary of Education has the authority to sanction the States for failure to reach those benchmarks, as if the States were the disobedient children of the Federal Government, not entities whose sovereignty must be constitutionally respected.
Congress has, so far, resisted pressure from the administration to give the Department of Education explicit statutory authority to create model benchmarks, which would then be adopted by every State. However, certain provisions of H.R. 1853 may provide the Department of Education with the opportunity to impose a uniform system of vocational education on every State in the Nation.
Particularly troublesome in this regard is the provision requiring every State to submit their vocational education plan to the Secretary for approval. The Secretary may withhold approval if the application is in violation of the provisions of this act. Ambitious bureaucrats may stretch this language to mean that the Department can reject a State plan if the Department does not feel the plan will be effective in meeting the goals of the bill. For example, a Department of Education official may feel that a State’s plan does not adequately prepare vocational-technical education students for opportunities in postsecondary education or entry into high skill, high wage jobs, because the plan fails to adopt the specifications favored by the Education Department. The State plan may thus be rejected unless the State adopts the academic provisions favored by the administration.
H.R. 1853 further opens the door for the establishment of national standards for vocational education through provisions allowing the Secretary to develop a single plan for evaluation and assessment, with regard to the vocational-technical education and provide for an independent evaluation, of vocational-technical education programs, including examining how States and localities have developed, implemented, or improved State and local vocational-technical education programs. Education bureaucrats could very easily use the results of the studies to establish de facto model benchmarks that States would have to follow.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education may impose national standards on State vocational education programs by requiring that States improve the academic component of vocational education. Integrating academics with vocational education is a noble goal, but Federal education bureaucrats may use this requirement to force vocational education programs to adopt national academic standards, upon pain of having their State plans denied as inconsistent with the provisions of the act mandating instead that States integrate academics into their vocational education programs.
States are also required to distribute their Federal funds according to a predetermined formula that dictates the percentage of funds States must spend on certain federally approved activities without regard for differences between the States. For example, H.R. 1853 singles out certain populations, such as displaced homemakers and single parents, and requires the States to certify to the Federal Government that their programs are serving these groups. These provisions stem from the offensive idea that without orders from the Federal Government, States will systematically deny certain segments of the population access to job training services.
Another Federal mandate contained in this so-called decentralization plan, is one requiring States to spend a certain percentage on updating the technology used in vocational education programs. Technological training can be a useful and necessary part of vocational education, however, under the Constitution it is not the business of the Federal Government to ensure vocational education students receive up-to-date technological training.
The States and the people are quite capable of ensuring that vocational education students receive up-to-date technological training–if the Federal Government stops usurping their legitimate authority to run vocational education programs and if the Government stops draining taxpayers of the resources necessary to run those programs.
H.R. 1853 provides businesses with taxpayer-provided labor in the form of vocational education students engaging in cooperative education. Since businesses benefit by having a trained work force, they should not burden the taxpayers with the costs of training their future employees. Furthermore, the provision allowing students to spend alternating weeks at work rather than in the classroom seems inconsistent with the bill’s goals of strengthening the academic component of vocational education.
Work experience can be valuable for students, especially when that experience involves an occupation the student may choose as a future career. However, there is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize the job training of another. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for Federal minimum wage and other laws that make hiring inexperienced workers cost prohibitive, many businesses would gladly provide work apprenticeships to young people out of their own pockets instead of forcing the costs onto the U.S. taxpayer.
Today, employers can be assessed huge fines if they allow their part-time adolescent employees to work, with pay, for 15 minutes beyond the Department of Labor regulations. Yet, those same businesses can receive free, full-time labor from those same adolescents as part of a cooperative education program. Clearly, common sense has been tossed out the window and replaced by the arbitrary and conflicting whims of a Congress attempting to do good.
Further evidence of catering to well-established businesses can be found within the provision of H.R. 1853 wherein teachers are instructed not to meet the needs and expectations of students, but rather the needs, expectations, and methods of industry. All education, including vocational education, should explicitly be tailored to the wishes of the parent or those already funding the costs of education.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1853 continues the Federal education policy of dragooning parents into education as partners in the education process. Parents should control the education process, but they should never be placed in a subordinate role and made to help carry out the agenda of Government bureaucrats.
Concerns have been raised that vocational education programs may be used as a means to force all students into a career track not of their own choosing, and thus change the American education system into one of preparation for a career determined for the students by the Government. Such a system more closely resembles something depicted in a George Orwell novel than the type of education system compatible with a free society. H.R. 1853 attempts to assuage those fears through a section forbidding the use of Federal funds to force an individual into a career path that the individual would not otherwise choose or require any individual to obtain so-called skilled certificates.
However, States and localities that violate this portion of the act are not subject to any loss of Federal funds. Of course, even if the act did contain sanctions for violating an individual’s freedom to determine their own career path, those sanctions would have to rely on the willingness of the very Federal bureaucracy which helped originate many of the education reforms which diminish student freedom to enforce this statutory provision.
Mr. Chairman, the Carl D. Perkins Act reauthorization may appear to provide for greater State and individual control over vocational education. However, H.R. 1853 is really another example of mandate federalism, where States, localities, and individuals are given limited autonomy in how they fulfill Federal mandates. As H.R. 1853 places mandates on the States and individuals to perform certain functions in the area of education, an area where Congress has no constitutional authority. It is also in violation of the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, H.R. 1853 forces Federal taxpayers to underwrite the wages of students working part-time in the name of cooperative education, another form of corporate welfare. Businesses who benefit from the labor of students should not have the costs of that labor subsidized by the taxpayers.
Certain language in H.R. 1853 suggests that parent’s authority to raise their children as they see fit may be undermined by the Government in order to make parents partners in training their children according to Government specifications.
Congress should, therefore, reject H.R. 1853 and instead eliminate all Federal vocational education programs in order to restore authority for those programs to the States, localities, and individual citizens.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 22nd, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC — This week, the US House will be considering the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. As part of that legislation, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas) will be offering two important amendments: one dealing with US sovereignty, the other with abortion, and both with constitutionality and cost to taxpayers. A vote could come as early as Wednesday afternoon.
The first amendment prohibits any funds from being sent overseas to be used for abortions, family planning services, or population control activities. US taxpayers right now spend approximately $380 million funding international “family planning” services.
“Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to take the money of US citizens to fund – directly or indirectly – population control, abortion services, or ‘family planning,’” said Paul. “If individuals or private organizations want to use their money to fund overseas population control, pro-abortion lobbying and other activities, then that is their right. Under the doctrine of Enumerated Powers, it is unconstitutional and wholly inappropriate for us to force our taxpayers to subsidize these overseas services and activities.”
Supporting this amendment are such groups as Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, the Republican National Coalition for Life, American Life League, the Family Research Council, and others.
The second amendment he is introducing will end much of the corporate welfare, and make a dent in the taxpayer subsidization of China, Mexico and many other nations. The amendment will reduce to zero the funds for the “Export-Import Bank,” the “Overseas Private Investment,” and the “Trade Development Agency.” The zeroing out could save taxpayers approximately $700 million.
Paul said that it is through those agencies that taxpayers money is used to “prop-up communist regimes and subsidize US corporations at the same time.” Mexico and China are the two countries which benefit most from the money distributed by these three agencies.
“I am a staunch supporter of free trade and of the rights of Americans to do business with whomever they please, but I am completely opposed to our tax dollars being given to American corporations so they can ship US jobs overseas, often propping up communistic and dictatorial governments,” said Paul. “Further, taxpayer-funded subsidies give those countries’ economies a boost. US taxpayers should not be subsidizing the purchases of Beijing or Mexico, even if the purchases are from US corporations.”
This is an unconstitutional use of tax dollars, according to Paul. “The Constitution does not give Congress, even remotely, the right or authority to take the money of hard working Americans and give it to either foreign governments or to big US corporations.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
July 19th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – As House and Senate negotiators begin work on the tax package which will eventually go to the president, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas), sent a letter to House’ conferees Thursday evening asking that they keep alive an idea which was passed by the Senate: a tax-free education savings account.
The House and Senate have both passed versions of a tax package for the coming fiscal year. Now, a committee of representatives and senators are meeting to hammer out a compromise version upon which both houses will vote before sending it to the President for his signature.
The education provision, proposed by Senator Paul Coverdell (R-Georgia), would allow parents to contribute up to $2,000 per year into a savings account designated for providing for their children’s education. As long as the funds from the account are used to pay for tuition, books, supplies, computers and other educational expenses, the interest earned on the account would be tax exempt. The account could be used for elementary, secondary and college education.
“Few items considered by this Congress will do as much to benefit all Americans as” this education savings account, wrote Dr. Paul in his letter to the House conferees. Paul is the sponsor of The Family Education Freedom Act, which if passed would grant parents up to $3,000 a year in tax credits for providing for their children’s education, whether they be in public, private, church or home school situations.
Paul said the education account, patterned after the “individual retirement accounts” used by many Americans, would give parents sole authority over how to best educate their own children.
“The key to bettering America’s educational status is found not in the bureaucracy of Washington, DC, but rather in parents doing what is in the best interest their child and family, as they see fit. Only parents, with the consultation with local educators, know what is best for their children, and only parents should be allowed to decide how and by whom their children are educated.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: