September 30th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the characterization of the benefits from the Export-Import Bank as being export subsidies because we are talking about subsidies.
Generally speaking, we on this side of the aisle are against subsidies, especially if the subsidies are for the poor people. I just suggest we should question whether we should oppose subsidies for the rich people as well.
So I rise in support of the rule. There could be a better rule but, under the circumstance, I support the rule but I do not support the legislation. There are very good economic and there are very good moral reasons why programs like this should not even exist.
I do want to take a moment to talk about something else I think is very important. Sometimes I think if one takes themselves too seriously around here one would become depressed, and I try very hard not to be depressed. But I found something in the committee report that I think is very, very interesting.
We have a House rule that says that in the committee report on legislation, when it comes up, we have to explain which part of the Constitution justifies what we do here. Of course, there is legislation that is proposed that if we pass the legislation it would be the law and we would have to answer to that antiquated document, the Constitution. I happen to be so old-fashioned as to believe that if we were all as serious about the Constitution, all we would have to do is vote the Constitution and those convictions each day and we would not need rules or laws.
But nevertheless I think it is interesting to note exactly where the constitutional authority comes from for the Export-Import Bank. Of course, the old standby is the general welfare clause. We do this for the general welfare of the people. But if we think about it, we are using taxpayers’ money, we are using subsidized interest rates, we are benefiting certain companies, and we do benefit the foreign recipients and many times these are foreign governments, so they are not the general welfare. If it is a cost to the taxpayer, we are doing this at a penalty of the general welfare, not to the benefit of the general welfare.
This is a wastebasket used especially in the 20th century as a justification for doing almost anything in the Congress. But then the justification goes on, and I find this even more fascinating. Of course, the other justification is the power to regulate commerce.
Well, regulating commerce between the States, actually the commerce clause was written to deregulate and make sure there were no impediments against trade, so we cannot under the Constitution regulate trade. But that does not say subsidize certain people at the expense of others. So that was a giant leap in the 20th century where the regulation of commerce permits us to do almost anything.
It certainly rejects the whole notion and challenges the whole concept of the doctrine of enumerated powers. So we either have a Constitution where there is a doctrine of enumerated powers or we do not. The document is very clear. It delegates powers. The powers are very limited and they are numbered. They are enumerated.
But today, if we casually look at the welfare clause, and if we casually look at the regulatory clause on commerce, we here in the Congress, under that understanding, we can do just about anything. And what happens? We do just about anything. And that is why our Government is so big and our regulatory bodies are so huge and we have tens of thousands of pages of regulations, because we have so little respect for the document that we should be guided by.
But there is another justification, according to the committee report, as to why we should and are permitted to pass legislation like the Export-Import Bank. Now, this one has to catch somebody’s interest and it has to be slightly humorous to somebody other than myself.
In addition, the power to coin money and regulate its value gives us the justification to give subsidies to big corporations, to benefit companies overseas, to take credit from one group and give it to another, and to steal the money from the people through an oppressive tax system in order to provide these subsidies. And yet the justification is to coin money?
The Constitution still says that all we can do is use gold and silver as legal tender. Since we do not do that, we should have changed the Constitution. We should do one or the other. But to use the coinage clause to extend credit is a stretch beyond belief. It says, though, that the courts have broadly construed this to allow Federal regulation, the provision of credit, to provide credit.
Well, this is exactly opposite of what the founders said and exactly opposite of one of the major reasons why we had the Constitutional Convention. This power that they take through the coinage clause in order to extend credit is exactly opposite of the provision in the 1792 Coinage Act, which says we have to protect against counterfeiting, and anybody who would be so bold as to debase the currency and ruin the value of the money, there was a death penalty mandated.
But here we casually give to our agencies of government this authority under the coinage clause to provide credit. Credit is nothing more than the dilution of the value of money. And believe me, long term, this is detrimental.
Later on in the general debate, I would like to address the economic issues as well.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 30th, 1997
Mr. Chairman, it is correct, I am going to vote no on this bill, for various reasons. I stated some of those earlier on. One is constitutional. There is a strong moral argument against a bill like this. But I am going to talk a little bit about the economics. Also, one other reason why I am going to vote against this bill has to do with campaign finance reform. If we vote no against this, I think we would be working in the direction of campaign finance reform.
I myself get essentially no business PAC money. I do not have any philosophic reasons not to take it. I would take the money on my conditions, but that sort of excludes me. But not infrequently when I would visit with large corporations they would ask me, what is my position on the Export-Import Bank. And when they would find out, of course they would not give me any money.
So I would say that the incentive to get people to do certain things for subsidies gives this incentive for big corporations to subsidize and to donate money to certain politicians. If we did not have so much economic power here, there would not be the incentive for big business to come and buy our influence.
Mr. Chairman, I do not happen to believe that campaign finance reform will ever be accomplished by merely taking away the right of an individual or company to spend money the way they see fit. Regulating finances of a company, once a company can come in here and put pressure on us to pass the Export-Import Bank, I think is an impossible task.
There have been certain economic arguments, so-called, in favor of this bill, but I think there are some shortcomings on the economics. One thing for sure, I think even the supporters of this bill admit that this is not free trade, this is an infraction that we have to go through because the other countries do this.
But we might compare this. It is true, we subsidize our companies less than Japan, but would Members like to have Japan’s economy right now? Japan has been in the doldrums for 8 years. They subsidize it 30, 40, 50 percent of the time. Maybe it is not a good idea. Yes, ours are small in number, but why should we expand it and be like Japan? So I would suggest that the benefits, the apparent benefits, are not nearly as great as one might think.
The other thing that is not very often mentioned is that when we allocate credit, whether we expand credit, which was mentioned earlier, that we do expand credit, we extend credit, we allocate it, we subsidize it, so we direct certain funds in a certain direction, but we never talk about at the expense of what and whom.
When a giant corporation or even a small business gets a government-guaranteed loan, it excludes somebody else. That is the person we never can hear from, so it is the unseen that is bothersome to me. Those who get the loans, sure, they will say yes, we benefited by it. Therefore, it was an advantage to us. But we should always consider those individuals who are being punished and penalized, that they do not have the clout nor the PAC to come up here and promote a certain piece of legislation.
Another good reason to vote against this piece of legislation, it is through this legislation that we do support countries like China and Russia. This is not supporting free markets. They are having a terrible time privatizing their markets. Yet, our taxpayers are being required to insure and subsidize loans to state-owned corporations.
China receives the largest amount of money under Eximbank. I do believe in free trade. I voted for low tariffs for China. I support that. But this is not free trade. This is subsidized trade. It is the vehicle that we subsidize so much of what we criticize around here. Some people voted against low tariffs for China because they said, we do not endorse some of the policies of China. They certainly should not vote for the subsidies to China nor the subsidies to the corporations that are still owned by the state in Russia, because it is at the expense of the American taxpayer.
It is said that the companies that benefit will increase their jobs, and that is not true. There are good statistics to show that the jobs are actually going down over the last 5 or 6 years. Jobs leave this country from those companies that benefit the most.
It is also said quite frequently here on the floor that this is a tremendous benefit to the small companies. Eighty-some percent, 81 percent of all the loans made go to small companies. There is some truth to that. That is true, but what they do not tell us is only 15 percent of the money. Eighty-five percent of the money goes to a few giant corporations, the ones who lobby the heaviest, the ones who come here because they want to support high union wages and corporate profits for sales to socialist nations and socialist-owned companies.
For these reasons, I urge a no vote on this bill.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 26th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, just a short while ago we had a vote to cut $54 million out of the U.N. appropriation. The vote tally was 242 to 165, 165 in favor of cutting this $54 million of so-called past dues.
I want to compliment the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett ] for bringing to this our attention, because I think it is a very important point, because we are never reimbursed for all of the peacekeeping missions throughout the world. Therefore, they actually owe us, we do not owe them. So it is rather sad to see that we, as a Congress, cannot rectify this; instead, we vote more funds for the United Nations.
Of course, I do not hide the fact that I do not think a lot about the United Nations. I think ultimately it is very detrimental to America’s policy and very detrimental to our sovereignty, so I have a specific agenda in that regard.
Actually, the problems we face with the United Nations can be solved, because there has been a compromise offered. Instead of abolishing the United Nations like I would like to do, I think Ted Turner has offered us a real solution. Ted Turner is a very wealthy man, has made a lot of money in the capital system, and he is voluntarily willing to submit $1 billion to continue with the United Nations, and I think that is fine. I think the United Nations ought to be funded by donations such as from Ted Turner. An additional advantage of having Ted Turner send his money to the United Nations, we can be assured that with the next war started by the United Nations, we can send Jane Fonda to do the fighting for us.
On another subject, I want to just mention something about the recent discussions we have had here on the floor here in the last week on the pay raise. I am not in favor of the pay raise. I voted against the pay raise. As a matter of fact, I think our pension fund is outrageously obscene, and I do not participate in it. But in comparison to some other matters, I think the amount of attention that we gave to the pay raise is probably a little bit more than needed to be done.
For instance, the pay raise, after taxes, would come to $40 a week, but nevertheless, I think the point was well taken that we should not be taking a pay raise when so many people in this country are actually suffering the consequence of a decreasing standard of living. Until we solve that, I do not believe we should be taking a pay raise. That so-called pay raise would have been a 2.3-percent COLA increase.
But in comparison to what we were doing in the particular bill that that was attached to, the Treasury-Postal Service appropriation, informed many Members of the Congress that were not aware of it, but in this bill, we actually increase the budget for the IRS by more than a half a billion dollars. At the same time we hold these grand hearings, make grand speeches against the IRS, and at the very same time we are expanding the role and the power and the authority of the IRS by expanding their budget by more than a half a billion dollars.
Then there is another agency of government that is probably the second least favorite of mine to the IRS, and that is the BATF. The BATF budget was increased 14 percent. It went up $66 million. So at the time we were talking about a small cost-of-living increase for Congress, which again I oppose, we at the same time were pretending that we were fighting this IRS and the abuse of the IRS, but expanding the role of the IRS.
I think what we need to do is get things in perspective. I think that first off, we should exist here for the liberty, protection of liberties of American citizens; we should be protecting the sovereignty of the United States; we should not be paying the dues out of proportion to what everybody else pays throughout the world at the same time we sacrifice much of our liberties and we live in a nation today where our troops are actually serving under the commanders of foreign generals. Everybody I talk to, everybody in my district I talk to, they do not like this. They would like to see this change.
So once again, I would like to express the sadness about the recent vote that we could not even cut the $54 million away from what is called overdue back dues for the United Nations. I think it is so important that we put all of this in perspective. Yes, we do not need pay raises, but we certainly do not need to raise the amount of money we give the IRS and the BATF.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 26th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – Leading a team of eight Texas congressmen, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas) this week sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to withdraw his Executive Order implementing the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI). The letter was co-signed by US Representatives Dick Armey of Irving, Bill Archer of Houston, Henry Bonilla of San Antonio, Sam Johnson of Dallas, Lamar Smith of San Antonio, Pete Sessions of Dallas and Kay Granger of Fort Worth.
In the letter, Paul wrote that each of these members have expressed their own and their constituents concerns about the impact of the AHRI, including “whether the executive branch has the authority to create such a program, whether the initiative was brought forth in a procedurally correct manner, and whether the program is an unwarranted encroachment upon state water law.”
The AHRI is an ambiguous policy which claims to coordinate environmental protection, but is unclear regarding the costs, the benefits and even the basis by which rivers are or are not to be placed on the list. Further, the initiative creates mountainous new bureaucracies within the existing agencies.
“On September 11, 1997, you signed an Executive Order to various Federal agencies to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative … this, despite the fact that your proposal triggered an avalanche of concern over what precisely an American Heritage River designation would entail, as well as the associated impacts to private property rights,” Paul wrote in the letter on behalf of himself and the other congressmen. Further, the letter asks that the President “withdraw the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.”
Paul said he is committed to fighting the AHRI because it is a basic infringement on the rights of individuals and is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
“The federal government has absolutely no authority to step in and regulate the rivers and the lands through which the rivers flow. The president is acting far outside the bounds of the Constitution and this initiative must be stopped,” said Representative Paul. “The Constitution clearly does not give the President this authority, nor does Congress have this authority. The right to owning property without interference if the most basic to all other rights. If there is to be regulation and ‘protection’ of rivers, or land, for that matter, it is an issue the Constitution dictates must be reserved solely to the states.”
In the letter to the President, Paul and his colleagues requested that they receive written assurances that, at the very least, “Texas will not be made a part of any American Heritage River designation.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 17th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, another Member severely criticized me on the House floor for declaring on C-SPAN that indeed many Americans justifiably feared their own government. This fear has come from the police state mentality that prompted Ruby Ridge, Waco and many other episodes of an errant Federal Government.
Under the constitution, there was never meant to be a Federal police force. Even an FBI limited only to investigations was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the Federal Government’s misdirected war on drugs, radical environmentalism, and the aggressive behavior of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the States where they have no legal authority. The sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local government by the majority of American citizens has permitted the army of bureaucrats to thrive.
We have depended on government for so much for so long that we as people have become less vigilant of our liberties. As long as the government provides largesse for the majority, the special interest lobbyists will succeed in continuing the redistribution of welfare programs that occupies most of Congress’s legislative time.
Wealth is limited, yet demands are unlimited. A welfare system inevitably diminishes production and shrinks the economic pie. As this occurs, anger among the competing special interests grows. While Congress and the people concentrate on material welfare and its equal redistribution, the principals of liberty are ignored, and freedom is undermined.
More immediate, the enforcement of the interventionist state requires a growing army of bureaucrats. Since groups demanding special favors from the Federal Government must abuse the rights and property of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty, real resentment is directed at the agents who come to eat out our substance. The natural consequence is for the intruders to arm themselves to protect against angry victims of government intrusion.
Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, the surge in the number of armed Federal bureaucrats has been brought to our attention. Farah points out that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new Federal cops were authorized to carry firearms. That takes the total up to nearly 60,000. Farah points out that these cops were not only in agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Even Bruce Babbitt, according to Farah, wants to arm the Bureau of Land Management. Farah logically asks, ‘When will the NEA have its armed art cops?’ This is a dangerous trend.
It is ironic that the proliferation of guns in the hands of the bureaucrats is pushed by the antigun fanatics who hate the second amendment and would disarm every law-abiding American citizen. Yes, we need gun control. We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then abolish the agencies. If government bureaucrats like guns that much, let them seek work with the NRA.
Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants. Intimidation with government guns, the threat of imprisonment, and the fear of harassment by government agents puts fear into the hearts of millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a settlement in her celebrated suit, she received notice that she and her husband would be audited for 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is the current audit year for the IRS, the administration’s denial that the audit is related to the suit is suspect, to say the least.
Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward the Federal Government, know the evidence exists that since the 1970′s both Republican and Democratic administrations have not hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits and regulatory harassment.
Even though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by many guns. All government power is ultimately gun power and serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend the principles of liberty. The gun in the hands of law-abiding citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 17th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – With the Department of Commerce threatening a new rule which will hurt shrimpers in the name of the radical environmental agenda, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas) on Tuesday said he has legislation ready to take on those plans.
The rule, referred to officially as “Amendment 9 to the Shrimp Fisheries Management Plan,” would have a significantly adverse impact on American shrimpers as it requires large capital expenditure on “Red Snapper Bycatch Reduction Devices.” Further, these devices will reduce the total harvest of shrimpers, costing them more than just the initial outlay for the devices. Paul wrote a letter on Tuesday to all his fellow Members of Congress, informing them of his intention to take-on the rule if the Department of Commerce moves forward. The Department of Commerce promulgates the rules proposed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The Secretary of Commerce is not required to promulgate the rules recommended by the council. Requests by Representative Paul and other Members of Congress that the secretary decline the rule has apparently been disregarded.
In accordance with Section 251 of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Congress is able to review of agency rule-making and overturn those rules it finds are unfair, misguided or detrimental.
“I believe that balance, fairness and scientific quality must be the guideposts for all fishery management measures, and these important factors are absent from this rule,” Paul wrote in the letter to his colleagues on Tuesday.
After distributing the letter, Paul said the economic impact of the rule will be felt not just in his Gulf Coast district, but throughout the region and the nation, as the cost of shrimping increases.
“This kind of rule caters to the extreme environmental, anti-business agenda of the radical liberal-left,” he said. “We need to be cutting these kinds of onerous rules and regulations, not increasing them. The American people want a stop to these senseless rules which hurt small, family-owned businesses. It’s the little guy running a shrimping business, as well as the American consumer, who will be injured by this rule.”
In his letter to his colleagues, Paul also pointed out that this anti-shrimping measure will be difficult for the Coast Guard to enforce. The Coast Guard is charged with enforcing Department of Commerce’s fishing rules.
“During the August break, my staff met with Coast Guard Officers who are tasked by the Department with enforcement of these laws. They stated that they were never asked about their capabilities to enforce fisheries laws and are already overburdened in this requirement,” he wrote.
While the rule has not been officially “published,” meaning the rule is in effect, it could be as soon as Wednesday, Sept. 17. Paul wrote that he has the legislation ready to go “the moment the rule is finalized.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 16th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are asked to support a bill which has the Federal Government engaged in the unconstitutional business of further regulating mortgage brokers, extending Federal housing programs–some of which would be extended permanently by this bill–and offering flood insurance programs.
This bill will add new regulations by Government and impose new restrictions on the private sector which provides most of the safe and affordable housing in this country. Such regulations and restrictions raise costs and limit availability of housing for our citizens insofar as such additional costs may ultimately be passed along to the consumer. This bill will further add to the Federal Government’s intrusion in the housing market by limiting private sector initiatives to help consumers obtain mortgage loans, and eventually, their own homes.
Second, this bill would make authorization of some programs permanent so that future representatives of the people will not be able to judge the wisdom of these specific programs. To the extent Congress has any constitutional right to legislate in this sphere at all, certainly, Representatives must have the legal ability to weigh the specific needs of their constituents and make appropriate decisions. Some of these multi-housing programs are mere demonstration projects which have not proved their worthiness. They have, however, proved their cost to the taxpayer with ever-rising tax bills without the corresponding benefits. Government-run housing schemes are less efficient, more costly and limit the private sector’s ability to provide the services that the public wants at a price that properly takes into account true economic costs. Even such misnamed ‘good government’ housekeeping provisions merely perpetuate and extend the Government’s reach into the private sector and, ultimately, into the wallets of taxpaying Americans.
With respect to Federal flood insurance programs, the constitutional separation of powers strictly limited the role of the Federal Government and, at the same time, anticipated that maintaining the balance between cost, risk, and the benefits of insuring one’s property was best reserved–via the ninth and tenth amendments–to State and local governments, or individuals respectively. One can insure oneself against virtually every natural disaster at some policy premium. Determination of whether the peace of mind and other benefits of insurance outweigh the premium for any particular property is not amongst the constitutionally enumerated Federal powers. The private market provision and resulting cost internalization of such insurance premiums will accomplish much toward enhancing macroeconomic efficiency and, at the same time, eliminate the necessity for the national government to overstep its constitutional bounds with governmental ‘pseudo-insurance.’
In addition, this bill did not go through the proper committee process. I am a member of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services and have not had the opportunity to vote on, amend, improve, or block this piece of legislation. It is in the committee process, where respective Members make it their responsibility to be better versed in that committee’s respective issues, amend and hopefully improve bills as they move through the legislative process. Members of the Banking Committee should have had the opportunity to review relevant legislation before it is voted on by the entire House of Representatives.
As a U.S. Congressman, I remain committed to the Constitution which I, only months ago, swore to uphold. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power amongst Federal, State and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make Government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. For each of these reasons, I must rise in opposition to S. 562, the Senior Citizen Home Equity Protection Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 16th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling ] to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for President Clinton’s national testing scheme.
The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania would prevent the Department of Education from developing a national test unless authorized to do so by Congress. While I share the concerns of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling ] that the administration should not take such a drastic step as developing national testing without congressional authorization, and I thank the gentleman for all his leadership in fighting for this amendment, the fact is the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to develop national testing even with congressional approval.
National testing is another significant step toward total nationalization of education. National testing will ultimately lead to fulfillment of the dream of the enemies of the constitutional system of local and parental control of education, the de facto creation of a national curriculum.
Mr. Chairman, the administration claims that the testing program would be voluntary. However, I remind my colleagues that this is the same administration that considers the Goals 2000 a voluntary program, despite the numerous times Goals 2000 uses the terms ‘shall’ and ‘must’ in describing State functions.
Furthermore, whether or not schools are directly ordered to administer the tests, schools will face pressure to do so as colleagues and employers inevitably begin to use national tests as the standard by which students are measured for college entrance exams and entry-level jobs. At the very least, schools would soon find Federal and perhaps even State funding dependent on their voluntary participation in the national testing programs.
When all or at least the majority of the schools are administering national tests, the tests will then be the standard against which all schools will be measured. Those schools whose students did poorly on the national test would be labeled as doing a poor job of educating children. Educators would react to this pressure to ensure that students scored highly on the national test by teaching the test; that is, structure the curriculum so students can learn those subjects and only those subjects covered by the national tests.
As University of Kansas professor John Poggio remarked in February, ‘What gets tested is what will be taught.’ Government bureaucrats would control the curriculum of every school in the Nation, and they would be able to alter the curriculum at will by altering the national test.
Private schools and home schools will be affected as well, as performance on the national tests become the standard by which student performance is judged. Those in private and home schools will face increasing pressure to participate in national testing and to shape what is taught to the criteria of the test itself.
The Department of Education has already admitted its ultimate aim is for a national curriculum. According to a United Press International story on the national assessment of educational progress reprinted in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat in May, ‘The Education Department * * * hopes the kinds of questions involved in the voluntary test will shape the way science is taught.’
Mr. Chairman, under the United States Constitution, the enumerated powers of the Federal Government simply do not include education. Yet the Clinton administration’s national test proposal will inevitably result in Federal bureaucrats dictating what every child in America will be taught. National testing represents another giant step in the centralizing of American education and a giant step away from America’s constitutional republic.
I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in opposing all moves to implement a national testing scheme, starting by supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling ] to prohibit the expenditures of Federal funds to develop and administer a national testing program without explicit authorization from Congress.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 12th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside) was Thursday night’s guest on NET’s “DirectLine” program, hosted by Paul Weyrich. Congressman Paul was invited on the program to discuss two of the pieces of legislation he has sponsored this session of Congress. NET is a popular cable network offering a wide selection of news, interview and talk shows, from a conservative point of view. It is broadcast to more than 50 million homes nationwide.
“I was pleased to be able to go on Mr. Weyrich’s show and talk about the Family Education Freedom Act and the Selective Service Privacy Act. These are two major pieces of legislation which will have a direct impact on the lives of almost every American,” said Representative Paul.
The Family Education Freedom Act, HR 1816, allows Americans to take up to $3,000 in tax credits per child per year to pay for education and education-related expenses, whether the child is in a public, private, church or home school setting.
“Real education reform involves getting the federal government completely out of the system, and letting parents keep more of their money so they can be free to make the best possible choices for their own children,” said Paul. “Giving more money and power to Washington bureaucrats is a big mistake.”
Meanwhile, The Selective Service Privacy Act, HR 2029, will permanently prohibit the AmeriCorps program from ever using the records of, or merging with, the Selective Service Administration. Under current law, all 18-year-old males must register with Selective Service so they can be drafted. Some members of the Clinton Administration have indicated a desire to be able to “call up” young people for “national volunteer service,” said Paul.
“It’s completely contrary to everything our nation was founded upon and we as a people cherish that this or any president could have the authority to draft our sons, and maybe someday daughter, to go hand out needles to drug users in urban areas, or clean up national parks.”
Besides these pieces of legislation, Paul is also sponsoring numerous other items, including the American Sovereignty Act (HR 1146), the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 1147), the Financial Freedom Act (HR 1121), legislation to hand the Palmetto Bend Project over to the state of Texas (HR 2161). Further, he is cosponsoring more than 60 other pieces of legislation.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 10th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – Testifying before a subcommittee of the House’s Committee on Education and the Workforce, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside) said on Tuesday that reform in education will come only when parents are given control over their children’s education, and, he added, more federal meddling will only further erode the academic prowess of American schools.
“Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a recent study by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, 57 percent of blacks, 65 percent of Hispanics, and 48 percent of whites support school choice,” Paul told the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.
Testifying about his bill, HR 1816 The Family Education Freedom Act, Paul said tax credits give parents control over their own dollars.
“The Family Education Freedom Act aims to restore parental control of education by offering Americans a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending children to private, public, and/or parochial schools as well as home schooling,” said Paul. Earlier in his testimony, he said, “The Family Education Freedom Act will allow millions of working and middle class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as make it easier for parents to actively participate in improving schools both public and private schools. I believe that restoring parental control over education is the key to genuine education reform and I support all efforts to achieve this goal, including Speaker Gingrich’s Parent and Student Savings Account Plus (PASS A+) Act, HR 2373.”
Paul told the subcommittee that simply taking more money from the taxpayers to fund the out-of-control federal education bureaucrats is not the answer, and will actually contribute to the problem.
“Greater parental support and involvement is surely a better way to improve public schools than funneling more federal taxpayer dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the public schools. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.”
Finally, Paul called on Congress to immediately bow to the wishes of American parents and extract the federal government from involvement in education.
“Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than forcing them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: