May 23rd, 2001
Washington, DC- The League of Private Property Voters recently named Congressman Ron Paul a “Champion of Private Property Rights” for his consistent pro-property voting record during the 2000 Congressional session. The League publishes an annual scorecard designed to let the public know how each member of Congress and the Senate voted on important private property and federal land use issues. Paul received high marks for his votes protecting the rights of property owners against an overreaching federal government.
“I am pleased that property rights organizations are monitoring Congress,” Paul stated. “The federal government has become hostile toward private property owners, particularly in rural and agricultural areas. Congress wants to regulate, tax, and control private lands without regard to constitutional constraints. Many of my constituents are farmers and ranchers, and their financial survival constantly is threatened by Washington bureaucrats dictating how their private land can be used. I want to restore respect for property rights on Capitol Hill.”
The League is a nationwide nonprofit coalition of more than 600 organizations representing farmers, ranchers, woodlot owners and rural communities. Votes for the 2000 index were chosen by prominent property rights advocates nationwide.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 23rd, 2001
<br />
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, thirty-six years ago Congress blatantly disregarded all constitutional limitations on its power over K-12 education by passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This act of massive federal involvement in education was sold to the American people with promises that federal bureaucrats had it within their power to usher in a golden age of education. Yet, instead of the promised nirvana, federal control over education contributed to a decline in education quality. Congress has periodically responded to the American people’s concerns over education by embracing education “reforms,” which it promises are the silver bullet to fixing American schools. “Trust us,” proponents of new federal edcation programs say, we have learned from the mistakes of the past and all we need are a few billion more dollars and some new federal programs and we will produce the educational utopia in which “all children are above average.” Of course, those reforms only result in increasing the education bureaucracy, reducing parental control, increasing federal expenditures, continuing decline in education and an inevitable round of new “reforms.”
Congress is now considering whether to continue this cycle by passing the national five-year plan contained in H.R. 1, the so-called “No Child Left Behind Act.” A better title for this bill is “No Bureaucrat Left Behind” because, even though it’s proponents claim H.R. 1 restores power over education to states and local communities, this bill represents a massive increase in federal control over education. H.R. 1 contains the word “ensure” 150 times, “require” 477 times, “shall” 1,537 and “shall not” 123 times. These words are usually used to signify federal orders to states and localities. Only in a town where a decrease in the rate of spending increases is considered a cut could a bill laden with federal mandates be considered an increase in local control!
H.R. 1 increases federal control over education through increases in education spending. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” it is inevitable that increased federal expenditures on education will increase federal control. However, Mr. Chairman, as much as I object to the new federal expenditures in H.R. 1, my biggest concern is with the new mandate that states test children and compare the test with a national normed test such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). While proponents of this approach claim that the bill respects state autonomy as states’ can draw up their own tests, these claims fail under close observation. First of all, the very act of imposing a testing mandate on states is a violation of states’ and local communities’ authority, protected by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to control education free from federal interference.
Some will claim that this does not violate states’ control because states are free to not accept federal funds. However, every member here knows that it is the rare state administrator who will decline federal funds to avoid compliance with federal mandates. It is time Congress stopped trying to circumvent the constitutional limitations on its authority by using the people’s own money to bribe them into complying with unconstitutional federal dictates.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 will lead to de facto, if not de jure, national testing. States will inevitably fashion their test to match the “nationally-normed” test so as to relieve their students and
teachers of having to prepare for two different tests. Furthermore, states will feel pressure from employers, colleges, and perhaps even future Congresses to conform their standards with other national tests “for the children’s sake.” After all, what state superintendent wants his state’s top students denied admission to the top colleges, or the best jobs, or even student loans, because their state’s test is considered inferior to the “assessments” used by the other 49 states?
National testing will inevitably lead to a national curriculum as teachers will teach what their students need to know in order to pass their mandated “assessment.” After all, federal
[Page: H2418]
GPO's PDF
funding depends on how students perform on these tests! Proponents of this approach dismiss these concerns by saying “there is only one way to read and do math.” Well then what are the battles about phonics versus whole language or new math versus old math about? There are continuing disputes about teaching all subjects as well as how to measure mastery of a subject matter. Once federal mandatory testing is in place however, those arguments will be settled by the beliefs of whatever regime currently holds sway in DC. Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues to consider how comfortable they would feel supporting this bill if they knew that in five years proponents of fuzzy math and whole language could be writing the NAEP?
Proponents of H.R. 1 justify the mandatory testing by claiming it holds schools “accountable.” Of course, everyone is in favor of holding schools accountable but accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which participating schools performance is judged. Even under the much touted Straight “A”s proposal, schools which fail to live up to their bureaucratically-determined “performance goals” will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. 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 education plan–yet this is the only part of the bill which even attempts to debureaucratize 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 are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of imposing 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 their education dollars.
As a constitutional means to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368). 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.
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free society maximizes human happiness.
When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their credit to improve their schools by purchasing of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.
According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts the average SAT verbal score by 21 points and the student’s SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the NAEP tests.
I have also introduced the Education Quality Tax Cut Act (H.R. 369), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. The Education Quality Tax Cut Act will allow concerned citizens to become actively involved in improving their local public schools as well as help underprivileged children receive the type of education necessary to help them reach their full potential. I ask my colleagues: “Who is better suited to lead the education reform effort: parents and other community leaders or DC-based bureaucrats and politicians?”
If, after the experience of the past thirty years, you believe that federal bureaucrats are better able to meet children’s unique educational needs than parents and communities then vote for H.R. 1. However, if you believe that the failures of the past shows expanding federal control over the classroom is a recipe for leaving every child behind then do not settle for some limited state flexibility in the context of a massive expansion of federal power: Reject H.R. 1 and instead help put education resources back into the hands of parents by supporting my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 23rd, 2001
<br />
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation<br />
Thank you for your interest in revising the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) medical privacy regulations. I respectfully urge HHS to revise those sections of the bill that reduce medical privacy by allowing the government increased access to medical records.
According to a Gallop survey commissioned by the Institute for Health Freedom, 92% of Americans oppose allowing government agencies to have access to medical records without patient consent. The American people are more opposed to government agencies having unfettered access to medical records than they are to any private party, with the exception of financial institutions, having access to their medical history. Yet HHS’s rule increases the power of government agencies to seize medical records without consent!
HHS should ensure that the regulation complies with the letter and spirit of the fourth amendment by requiring that law enforcement officials obtain a valid search warrant before seizing private medical records. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.
HHS should also eliminate those sections which require physicians to provide the federal government with personal medical records for purposes of monitoring compliance with the rule. HHS should only collect information if the physicians or the federal government has obtained written permission from the patient allowing HHS to obtain their records.
HHS should also repeal those sections of the regulations that provide private parties with a right to access private medical records for reasons unrelated to treatment. Particularly offensive are those sections which allow medical researchers to access private records without individual consent. While researchers claim to be able to protect the autonomy of their unwilling subjects, the fact is that allowing third parties to use medical records for research purposes runs the risk of inadvertent identification of personal medical information. I am aware of at least one incident where a man had his identity revealed when his medical records were used without his consent. As a result, many people in his community discovered details of his medical history that he wished to keep private!
I am also aware that some will make the argument that there is a “social good” in medical research that outweighs the individual’s right to privacy. As a physician, I certainly recognize the value and importance of medical research. However, as a legislator, I also recognize that because people have a property interest in their medical information, forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent runs afoul of the fifth amendment’s taking clause, which was designed to prevent sacrifices of individual liberty and property for the “common good.”
In a free society, such as the one envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a constitutional government that respects individual liberty.
Finally, Secretary Thompson, if HHS is going to collect private medical records, the medical privacy rule should then explicitly forbid the federal government from permanently storing any medical information on a federally maintained or funded database. Previous experience with federal collection of information demonstrates the need for an explicit ban on creating a database. For example, despite repeated assurances they would not do so, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is using their authority to conduct background checks under the Brady Law to compile a database of every gun owner in America!
In conclusion, I once again respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services amend the medical privacy rule to require a search warrant before government officials may seize medical records. I also request that HHS remove all sections of the rule that give private parties (particularly researchers) a federal right to access medical records without consent for purposes unrelated to treatment. Furthermore, if HHS is going to continue to allow the Federal Government to collect medical information for any reason, HHS must explicitly provide that none of the information collected under the authority given HHS, or any other federal agency, will be stored in a federally maintained or funded database. Thank you for your consideration of my views, which, according to the Gallup poll, are shared by the vast majority of Americans.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 22nd, 2001
<br />
America Not Getting a Fair Shake from the United Nations<br />
I wish to thank the subcommittee on Social Security of the Ways and Means Committee for holding this hearing on the misuse of the Social Security number. The transformation of the Social Security number into a de facto uniform identifier is a subject of increasing concern to the American people. This is, in large part, because the use of the Social Security number as a standard identifier facilitates the crime of identity theft. Today, all an unscrupulous person needs to do is obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and have had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft.
The responsibility for the misuse of the Social Security number and the corresponding vulnerability of the American people to identity crimes lies squarely with the Congress. Since the creation of the Social Security number, Congress has authorized over 40 uses of the Social Security number. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a drivers’ license without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!
Because it was Congress which transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem. In order to protect the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers which facilitate identity crimes, I have introduced the Identity Theft Prevention Act (HR 220). The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to the Social Security program. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient transition of the Social Security system.
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
Many of our colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
Mr. Chairman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is a more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides old comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? !
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
Mr. Chairman, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn drivers’ licenses into National ID cards, HHS’s misnamed “medical privacy” proposal, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue. I hope this hearing would lead to serious Congressional action to end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers which facilitate identity theft by passing Hr 220, the Identify Theft Prevention Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 10th, 2001
<br />
America Not Getting a Fair Shake from the United Nations<br />
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL ) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, as we are getting ready to adjourn, we have left the foreign relations authorization bill unfinished. I serve on the Committee on International Relations, and I was anxious to present several amendments in dealing with especially the United Nations. Unfortunately, those amendments were not permitted.
The amendments that we are dealing with I see as being very small token efforts to improve the bill, but not really dealing with the essence of whether or not we should be in the United Nations or further funding the peacekeeping missions and doing many of the things that I believe sincerely should not be engaged in if we followed the Constitution, and many Americans agree with this.
I think we are at a point now where a growing number of Americans feel like we are not getting a fair shake from the United Nations. I have been preaching this message for quite a few years, but I believe the United Nations itself is starting to make my point.
Just recently, in the last week, the United States was kicked off the Human Rights Commission, as well as the International Narcotics Control Board. This is an affront to our dignity and ought to point out to us that, although we pay the largest amount of money for peacekeeping missions and the largest amount of dues, here it is that, because there is disagreement, we are humiliated by being kicked off these commissions.
I do not see the benefits of belonging to the United Nations. I see too many disadvantages. If it were just a discussion group and trying to bring people together, that would be one thing; but we have gone to an extreme. This is an extreme position, as far as I am concerned, to belong to the United Nations and deliver so much of our sovereignty to the United Nations today.
Essentially since World War II, we have gone to war under U.N. resolutions. No longer does the President come to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war. U.N. resolutions are passed, and we send our troops throughout the world fighting and being engaged in war. That is not the way it is supposed to be. The Constitution is very clear on when we should be involved in war.
The conditions are not improving at all. They are asking for more and more funding. At the same time we sacrifice more and more of our sovereignty. On occasion we will stand up and say no, we do not want to participate in the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court, and that is good. But the whole idea of this world government under the United Nations I think is something we should really challenge.
Just January of this past year, it was noted that the United Nations proposed for the first time, although not ready to be passed, that we have an international tax placed on currency transactions to raise billions of dollars to be spent for international activities. Now, you say well, that is probably just a proposal and it will never happen. But even today, in Bosnia, the United Nations peacekeepers over there are tax collectors. There are not enough revenues being collected for certain governments, and the UN peacekeepers are there collecting taxes. So it is already happening that we are involved in tax collecting.
I think that is the wrong way to go, and certainly we should be considering slashing these funds. I would have liked to have seen the removal of all the funds for peacekeeping missions. There is no national sovereignty reasons why we should put American troops under U.N. command in areas like Bosnia. I think that is the wrong way to go, I do not think the American people support this, and that we should reconsider our position and our relationship in the United Nations.
There are hundreds of millions of dollars here for population control around the world. Some would say, well, as long as we write some little sentence in here and say “please do not use any of the money for abortion,” that will alleviate their conscience about sending tax dollars over to do abortions in places like China and other places in the world. Well, that does not work, because all funds are fungible. Funds can be shifted around. If we send the money, it can be used. If we specifically say “do not use them,” they can just shift the funds around, so I see that as not being a very good idea.
I would like to strike all the funds for population control. If we feel compelled to help other countries and teach them about birth control, it should be done voluntarily and through missionary work or some other way, but not to tax the American people and force them to subsidize events like abortion.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 3rd, 2001
“The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral…A draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending.”
—Ronald Reagan
Washington, DC Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation which would end the outdated and outmoded Selective Service system. HR 1597, which already enjoys bipartisan support from several of Paul’s congressional colleagues, completely repeals the 1979 Selective Service Act. Paul, who served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force, hopes his legislation will end military conscription in America.
“Not only is the notion of involuntary servitude at odds with our system of law and tradition of liberty, but it is not in keeping with the needs and demands of a 21st century defense program,” Paul stated. “Even the military agrees that the Selective Service System is an ineffective hold-over from a different age.”
Many military experts acknowledge that draft registration has been made obsolete by technological advances. A 1993 Department of Defense report states that registration could be ended “with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on military recruitment.”
Five hundred million dollars have been spent on the Selective Service program since its inception in 1979. During that time, the mission of the program has changed from simply collecting data for a possible compulsory call-up to serving as a mailing list for big-government programs.
Paul believes military recruitment and retention would improve greatly if America avoided engaging in military conflicts that do not clearly involve national security. At the same time, Congress must work to improve veterans’ benefits and honor commitments made to our armed forces.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 1st, 2001
Washington: Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced a bold constitutional amendment designed to radically reform our tax system. The 16th Amendment, passed in 1913, allowed the federal government to do what the Supreme Court had always ruled unconstitutional: levy a direct income tax on individuals. The “Liberty Amendment” (HJR 45) repeals the 16th Amendment, paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends our tax dollars.
“The income tax has given government a claim on our lives,” Paul stated. “It has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper limits, invade our privacy, and penalize our every endeavor. The Founding Fathers never intended an income tax, and they certainly would be dismayed to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.”
Polls demonstrate that America is fed up with the labyrinthine tax code and the abusive IRS. The tax code increasingly faces grassroots legal challenges, and interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals has never been greater. America clearly is ready for sweeping tax reform, yet Congress remains focused on rewarding certain constituencies by forever making complex small changes to the existing tax laws. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
“America existed for nearly 140 years without an income tax,” Paul concluded. “The federal government generally adhered to its strictly enumerated constitutional functions during that time, operating with modest excise revenues. When Congress introduced the 16th Amendment, it opened the door to the era of big government. This amendment would close that door.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: