Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I appreciate the support of the gentlewoman.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan, the coauthor.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for cosponsoring this amendment. This amendment is simple and straightforward. The amendment merely states that it prohibits the use of funds for activities involving the acquisition of church property unless the consent of the governing body of the church is obtained. This means that community development block grant money cannot be used to invoke eminent domain and take a church away from the church owners or the occupants without their permission. It has been done in the past, and it is planned to be done in the future. I think this is a very important amendment to make sure that these funds are not used in this way. I think the point is that private property is very important, that owners do have rights; and quite frequently when this is invoked, it occurs in the poorer areas where there is less legal protection and legal help. I am very pleased to introduce this amendment. I am very pleased to have the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) as the cosponsor.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social political problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion has significantly contributed to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I can assure my colleagues that the partial-birth abortion procedure is the most egregious legally permitted act known to man. Decaying social and moral attitudes decades ago set the stage for the accommodated Roe vs. Wade ruling that nationalizes all laws dealing with abortion. The fallacious privacy argument the Supreme Court used must some day be exposed for the fraud that it is. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stems from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred. The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that would refuse to deal with the issues of violence, recognizing that for all such acts the Constitution defers to the States. It is constitutionally permitted to limit Federal courts jurisdiction in particular issues. Congress should do precisely that with regard to abortion. It would be a big help in returning this issue to the States. H.R. 3660, unfortunately, takes a different approach, and one that is constitutionally flawed. Although H.R. 3660 is poorly written, it does serve as a vehicle to condemn the 1973 Supreme Court usurpation of State law that has legalized the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure. Never in the Founders' wildest dreams would they have believed that one day the interstate commerce clause, written to permit free trade among the States, would be used to curtail an act that was entirely under State jurisdiction. There is no interstate activity in an abortion. If there were, that activity would not be prohibited but, rather, protected by the original intent of the interstate commerce clause. The abuse of the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce laws clause is precisely the reason our Federal Government no longer conforms to the constitutional dictates but, instead, is out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 3660 thus endorses the entire process which has so often been condemned by limited government advocates when used by the authoritarians as they constructed the welfare State. We should be more serious and cautious when writing Federal law, even when seeking praise-worthy goals. H.R. 3660 could have been written more narrowly, within constitutional constraints, while emphasizing State responsibility, and still serve as an instrument for condemning the wicked partial-birth abortion procedure.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan's publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it's proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan's candidacy for President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan's presidency. I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government. Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution--a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath. In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan's advocacy for limited government, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to commemorate the work of the Reagans. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer's money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate their generosity and allegiance to the Reagan's stated convictions. It is, of course, very easy to be generous with the people's money.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to assure the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I am not dealing with a fly, a gnat, or a flea with my amendment. I would rather not categorize this as dealing with an elephant for obvious reasons. But I would like to say that my amendment deals with what I consider a monster, and that monster to me is careless foreign military interventionism in which we engage way too often and something we are getting ready to further engage ourselves now in Colombia. I am quite convinced that, when most of the Members go back to their districts, they never brag and they never say that, ``I go to Washington, and I always vote for the United States to be the policemen of the world. I enjoy deferring to the United Nations and NATO forces for us to pursue some of our policies overseas.'' Quite frankly, I believe most of us go home and say that we do not believe that the United States should be the policemen of the world. Earlier on, we debated the issue of whether or not our allies are paying their fair share, and it is obvious they are not. So not only do we defer to them for policy and we extend ourselves throughout the world, we actually end up paying the bill, as most American citizens know. Last year, when we were dealing with Kosovo and our initial involvement in there, we had several votes on the floor dealing with the sentiment of the Congress. For the most part, the sentiment was strongly opposed to our military troops being placed in Kosovo. But, unfortunately, when it came time to deal with the funding, we were all too anxious to permit and authorize and appropriate the money to go into Kosovo. Today we are continuing to fund our activities in Kosovo as well as Bosnia, East Timor, and now with plans to go into South America, principally Colombia. My amendment deals with this. It would strike these funds, and it would permit funds to be used in Kosovo to bring troops home. Some people argue that if we strike funds for areas like Kosovo, that we are deserting our troops and it will be detrimental to their morale. Quite the opposite. I think it would absolutely be helpful, because the morale of our servicemen cannot get much lower. The morale is low because they do not know what their real function is in areas where we're involved. They have become policemen dealing with local laws as well as Peace Corps type operators. The morale would be tremendously helped by bringing these troops home. This is what this amendment deals with. And it strikes the funding for the expansion of our efforts in Central America. In Colombia, there are a lot of weapons already, and we are responsible for 80 percent of them. There is one irony about this bill that strikes me. The administration and many here on the floor who vote for these weapons are the same individuals who are anxious to prohibit the right of an American citizen to own a cheap weapon in self-defense. At the same time, they are quite willing to tax these individuals and take their money to spend it on the weapons of war around the world and become involved in no-win situations. I cannot think of a worse situation where there is a four-way faction in Colombia for us to get further involved. Buying 63 helicopters is bound to cause trouble and some will be shot down thus requiring more involvement by American troops. It is time to reassess this policy; to come home. We should not be the policemen of the world. The American people are not anxious for us to do this. They have spoken out. A recent poll has shown that 70 percent of the American people are very anxious for us not to be involved in policing the world. They certainly are not interested in us placing United States troops under the command of U.N. and NATO forces. This is a good time for the Members of the Congress to decide whether or not they would like to vote clearly and say to the American people, ``I do not endorse the concept that we should have an open-ended commitment to the world, to be the policemen of the world.'' This is what this amendment says. Quite frankly, the large majority of the American people are strongly supportive of this position. This is a clear amendment. This is not dealing with a gnat or a flea. This is dealing with a principle. Some say this amendment deals with a principle of foreign policy, and we should defer to the President. That is not correct. Under the Constitution, the words ``foreign policy'' do not exist. All the obligations fall on the Congress, especially with the power of the purse. The President is the Commander in Chief. But he should never send troops around the world without permission, which all Presidents continuously have done in the last 50 years. This amendment addresses that subject. I would have preferred an amendment that would have struck some of these funds from overseas and placed them into beefing up the military, increasing the pay of our military personnel, giving them better housing and better medical care, as well as having some of those funds spent here at home. That amendment was not permissible under the rule. But this point, if my colleagues are anxious to make it, can be made by voting for this amendment. If you are sick and tired of America being the patsy, sick and tired of us picking up the bill, sick and tired of our troops being exposed around the world, this is the amendment to support. I think this is a very important amendment, and I the American people support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not believe for one minute this is a surrender to the drug war. This is an acknowledgment that the $250 billion we have spent over the last 25 years has not worked; that the strategy against drugs is wrong. Why continue a war that does not work? This is money down a rat hole. This is totally wasted money and, as far as I am concerned, only an excuse to sell helicopters and go in to Colombia and protect oil interests. That is the real reason why we are down there. We say this is only replacement of money for Kosovo. Well, what makes us think if we put the money in and replace it the President will not do the same thing over again? Of course he will. The fact that we are not watching the purse strings tightly enough is the problem. The gentleman suggests that this would mean that there would be no more building and no support for our troops in Korea. My amendment only deals with the money in this supplemental. What about the current year's budget? Those funds can still be spent. But it also suggests that we shall question how long are we going to be in Korea. It is time to start thinking about these matters. It is time to bring these troops home. If we want to spend the money, spend it here at home. Spend the money here. Build up our national defense. If we wish to continually expand our interventionism and aggravation overseas, then I guess we have to vote against this amendment and for the bill. But this is a policy statement. Should we continue current policy of forever spending money and being involved overseas? I say it is time to start thinking about what is good for our people, what is good for our taxpayers, what is good for national defense, and what is good for our constitutional republic. Should we be doing this? I do not think so. Are we authorized to do it? No, we are not authorized to police the world. This is the furtherest stretch of the imagination to believe that what we are spending here on this budget, especially what we are going to do in Colombia, has anything to do with national security. What are we worried about? Are the Colombians going to attack us? This is not national security. This is special interest spending. This is conservative welfarism; that is what it is. We condemn all the welfare from the left, but we always have our own welfare on the right, and it is not for national defense. We should do less of this military adventurism overseas and put it into national defense, take better care of our troops, which would boost morale, and increase our ability to defend our country. But, instead, what do we do? We subsidize our enemies to the tune of many billions of dollars for a country like China at the same time, when they are aggravated and annoyed with Taiwan, we send more weapons to Taiwan and then promise to send American servicemen to stand in between the two of them. Some day we should ask the question of whether is this policy in good for us. I am frightened to think that this will only change either when we are in such a mess, a lot worse than Vietnam, or we totally go broke or both. But we should not wait. We should speak out and do what is best for our country. We have a good guideline as to what we should do in foreign policy, and it comes from the constitution, certainly we should note the tradition of the last 50 years. The Constitution gives us the guidance to pursue a proper foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. We have already appropriated $1.7 trillion for this year's budget. We do not need to appropriate another $9 billion. It is said that we need to appropriate this money to fight the drug war in Colombia. We have been fighting the drug war for 25 years. We have spent $250 billion on the drug war. Some day we will have to wake up and decide that the way we are fighting the drug war is wrong. As a physician, I can tell my colleagues, it is a serious problem. There are a lot of people suffering from drug usage in this country. But if something does not work, why are we so determined to pursue a process that does not work? Quite frankly, I am not sure the real reason why we are in Colombia has anything to do with drugs. I do concede a lot of individuals will be voting for this bill because of the belief that it might help. But it will not help. So we should reconsider it and think about the real reasons why we might be there. I had an amendment that was not approved. But what I would have done, if I had had the chance, I would have taken all the money from the overseas spending, Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, and the funds now for this new adventure down in Colombia, and put it into building up our military defense. That is what we need. We need better salaries, better medical care, and we need better housing for our military personnel. But here we go spreading ourselves thinly again around the world by taking on a new adventure, which will surely lead to trouble and a lot of expense. Members have referenced the 65 helicopters that will be sent to Colombia. There is one, I guess, cynical hope about what might happen with our involvement in Colombia. Usually when we get involved its only going to be for a short period of time. We were going to go into Bosnia for 6 months. We have been there 5 years. We were going to go to Kosovo for a short period of time. It is open-ended. We are in East Timor for who knows how long. And we will soon be in Colombia. But there was one time where we backed away, we literally surrendered and ran with our tail between our legs because we went in with helicopters, and that had to do with Somalia. We sent our Blackhawk helicopters in there. We had two of them shot down in Mogadishu. We had two others that crash landed when they returned to the base. Within a couple weeks, we were out of there. We did not send our Blackhawk helicopters into Kosovo because they would be shot down. Lets face it, it is not a good weapon. It will only lead to further involvement. Who is going to fly the Blackhawk helicopters? Do my colleagues think the Colombians are going to fly them? You can bet our bottom dollar we are going to have American pilots down there very much involved in training and getting in much deeper than we ever should be. So I think that, unfortunately, this could end up in a real mess. Maybe then we would have enough sense to leave. But we, in the Congress, ought to have enough sense not to go down there. This money can be better spent on national defense. We should be concerned about national security. When we get ourselves involved, whether it is the Persian Gulf or Bosnia or wherever, all we do is build up our enemies and expose ourselves more to terrorist attacks because we are not doing it in the name of security and resentment toward America builds. Under the Constitution, we should have a strong national defense, and we should provide for national security. Going into Colombia has nothing to do with national security and serves to undermine national defense. Even those who build helicopters are pretty blunt. One lobbyist said, ``It is business for us, and we are as aggressive as anybody. I am just trying to sell helicopters.'' What about the oil companies who support this war; which several oil companies do? Yes, they want investment security, so they want the military industrial complex to come down there and protect their oil interests. The oil interests are very supportive of this war, as well as the helicopter companies. But the American people, if they were asked, they would decline. A recent poll by Zogby showed that, essentially, 70 percent of the American people answered no to this particular question: ``Should the U.S. help defend militarily such-and-such country even though it could cost American soldiers their lives?'' It varied depending on which country. But, basically, 65 to 75 percent of the American people said no. The American people want us to mind our own business and not be the policeman of the world. Can any Member come to this floor and absolutely assure us that we are not going to lose American lives in Colombia? We are certainly committing ourselves to huge numbers of dollars, dollars that we do not have, dollars that if we wanted to could come out of the current $1.7 trillion budget we already have. So I would suggest to my colleagues, let us reassess this. It is not really a war on drugs. The war on drugs, by trying to reduce interdiction does not work. It has not worked. It is not going to work. It is only an excuse. It is an excuse for promoting military intervention in Colombia to satisfy those who are anxious to drill for oil there and for the military industrial complex to sell weapons. It's amazing to me to see an administration who strongly opposes law abiding American citizens from owning guns for self defense to be such a promoter of the big guns of war throughout the world. I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the law enforcement officers of Hays County, Texas. April 8th is the date of the second annual Hays County Law Enforcement Appreciation Day (LEAD) sponsored by SAC-N-PAC Stores Inc. LEAD 2000 committees have been meeting since last October to make this year's event even more successful than the last, which raised $7,500 for participating law enforcement departments. As Event Coordinator Cheryl Warren Norton said, ``With the growing rate of violence, especially among our youth, it is our responsibility and the general public's responsibility to assist our law enforcement officers in areas in which they are in need.'' The money raised through LEAD 2000 will go toward crime prevention programs aimed at fighting crime and violence on the 8local level. Local law enforcement is the backbone of public safety and protection across America, and I am proud to represent an area that recognizes its law enforcement personnel for the heroes that they are. Some of the LEAD 2000 exhibits are SWAT, Mounted Patrol, the Dive Team, and possibly a Black Hawk Helicopter or Star Flight. The event will be held at the Hays County Civic Center and begins at 10:00 a.m. with an award presentation of bicycles for youth calendar contest winners, followed by an auction and fish fry. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting our officers in blue across the nation, and I commend the LEAD 2000 organization as a model for other communities. This is an excellent way to show sincere appreciation for those who put their lives on the line for the safety of our communities.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the current budget this year authorizes an expenditure of $1.789 trillion. We would think that would be enough. The President has asked for an additional $4 billion. After the House leadership thought about this, they decided to give him $9 billion. Quite frankly, I think there is enough waste and fraud in the current budget that we could find the $4 billion if this expenditure were necessary. If we ever considered cutting back on some unconstitutional spending, we would have plenty of funds to take care of additional expenditures and have a lot left over. But we should be very cautious about what we are doing today by expanding our involvement in Colombia. We are now moving into Colombia and spending a lot of money and expanding our war in this area. We should not be spending our money on military adventurism. We should be taking this money and spending it to build up our military defenses. We should be using this money to pay our military personnel more money, give them better housing and better education and better medical care. What we are doing today, if we pass this bill, is we are going to move into an another area of the world where we have no constitutional interest.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today with H. Con. Res. 292 Congress bestows well-deserved congratulations upon the people of Taiwan for the successful conclusion of presidential elections on March 18, 2000, and for their continuing efforts to develop and sustain a free republic that respects individual rights and embraces free markets. President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan should also be praised for his significant contributions to freedom in Taiwan. Unfortunately, because the bill pronounces the Taiwan Relations Act (P.L. 96-8) as the legal standard by which U.S. policy toward Taiwan is governed, I cannot support the measure. This Taiwan Relations Act, effectuated a United States policy which recognized an attack against Taiwan as inimical to an attack on the United States. Just as it is wrong to force our preferences on other countries and cultures, it is wrong to dictate politics. The United States has absolutely no moral or constitutional right to do so. In fact, action of that sort could rightfully be considered an act of aggression on our part, and our founding fathers made it very, very clear that war should be contemplated only when national security is immediately threatened. to play the part of policemen of the world degrades all who seek to follow the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow our government to participate in actions against a foreign country when there is no immediate threat to the United States. Sadly, the U.S. has in recent years played the role of world interventionist and global policeman. Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address: ``Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.'' Instead, the U.S. government has become the government force that unconstitutionally subsidizes one country and then pledges taxpayer dollars and lives to fight on behalf of that subsidized country' enemies. It's the same sort of wisdom that would subsidize tobacco farmers and pay the health care costs of those who then choose to smoke. Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. It has been in vogue of late for everyone in Washington, it seems, to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of the communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way. Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American subsidization. Thanks to the largesse of this Congress, China enjoys the flow of U.S. taxpayers cash into Beijing's coffers. Yet, today we are asked to pledge support for Taiwan when we could best demonstrate support for Taiwan by terminating subsidies to that country's enemies. Again, my congratulations to the Taiwanese on their continuing efforts to develop and sustain a free republic that respects individual rights and embraces free markets and to President Lee Teng-hui for his contributions to that end.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, while nuclear power has conferred a considerable benefit upon power users in this country, today, we confront the symptoms of a federal government run Constitutionally amok which requires our serious attention. As a Congress, we are faced with the decision of whether to further ignore the federal government's constitutional limits and ultimately confront additional future symptoms of such action or acknowledge the necessary consequences of such an extra-Constitutional activity and act to correct the initial ``enumerated powers doctrine'' transgression. In 1982, the federal government entered into an agreement with nuclear power industry to take possession of their nuclear waste and properly dispose of it in 1998. It should be noted that it is now March 2000 and the federal government has quite simply breached its contract. More importantly, it should be noted that the federal government had no authority to enter such an agreement in the first place. These facts, of course, did nothing to prevent the federal government from collecting from utility companies and their customers tax revenues for placement in a trust fund to accomplish their illegitimate and unfulfilled promise. Lack of constitutional authority also did nothing to stop the federal government from squandering more than $6 billion of that trust fund without having collected one gram of nuclear waste. Today we are faced with yet another bill which provides mandates for which neither constitutional authority exists nor for which there is any reason to believe that such mandates will be observed by the Department of Energy any more than the previously legislated mandates have been observed. Additionally, this bill further expands the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and further involves the EPA in the process which could only exponentially increase the difficulty and time required to actually accomplish the legislation's stated purpose. These facts stated, we nevertheless remain faced with the current status quo requiring a solution. The initial question which must necessarily be asked and answered is ``whether one constitutionally illegitimate action by the federal government may ever be used to justify the second?'' The answer to this question must always be answered in the negative. This does not mean, however, that those whose taxes have been illegitimately taken should receive nothing in return-- quite the contrary. Numerous breach of contract lawsuits have been filed against the federal government for which quick remedies must be effectuated. Not only must the ill-taken revenues be returned to the non-breaching parties but attorneys fees and damages imposed upon the non-breaching parties should be awarded them as well. Perhaps, even more should be done, however, as this ``contract'' can, in many ways, be likened to the car thief who knowingly sells a stolen car to an unsuspecting customer inasmuch as the federal government promised to deliver something for which they themselves have usurped (stolen) from the state authorities and, hence, had no legitimate right to offer. Of course, returning the trust fund money including interest and damages to ratepayers and utilities companies quite obviously does not dispose of the hazardous waste. Waste disposal and public safety, though, remains a power of the state governments under the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which specifies that ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.'' The public safety and police power have long been held to be state law matters and most appropriately so. While citizens of those forty-nine states exclusive of Nevada may believe that Nevada is a fine place to dispose of one's waste, one must never concede the principle of states right guaranteed by the Constitution or forget that, in so doing, the next choice of the federal government may be to deposit equally dangerous or harmful materials in the rangeland of Texas. To the extent any particular state is unfit for such waste, the Constitution allows for interstate compacts between states. Enlisting the aid of the federal government to impose one's waste on citizens of another state while efficacious for the ``dumper'' is thus neither prudent, Constitutional, nor particularly pleasant for the ``dumpee.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) be removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 89 and H.J. Res. 90.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as this is Texas Public Schools Week, I wanted to take a moment to offer my thanks to the parents and teachers of my district and those across Texas for all of their hard work to make sure our children get the best education possible. Unfortunately, Congress and the federal bureaucracy continues to strip authority away from parents, teachers and local school boards. While Congress promises the American people that expansions of federal control over local schools will create an education utopia, the fact is the federal education bureaucracy has only made educating the next generation more difficult and diverted resources away from the classroom. For example, while the federal government provides less than 10% of education funding, many school districts find that over 50% of their paperwork is generated by federal mandates. The federal government also forces local school officials to jump through numerous hoops in order to get Washington to return a ridiculously small portion of taxpayer moneys to local public schools. Over thirty years of centralized control of education has resulted in failure and frustrated parents. It is time for Washington to return control of the nation's school system to the people who best know the needs of the children: local communities and parents. The key to doing so is to return control of the education dollar back to the American people. In order to give control of education back to the people I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). This bill provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for K-12 education expenses. The Family Education Freedom Act fulfills the American people's goal of 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 force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy. The Family Education Freedom Act will help parents strengthen their child's public education. Parents may use the credit to improve schools by helping to finance the purchase of education 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. I have also introduced the Teacher Tax Cut (HR 937), which provides a $1,000 tax credit for every teacher in America. Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. Yet, America's teachers remain underpaid compared to other professionals. Adding insult to injury, teachers often have to use their own money to purchase supplies for their classroom. For example, according to the Association of Texas Professional Educators, many Texas teachers spent between $50-300 of their own money on school supplies during the 1998-99 school year! Because America's teachers are underpaid because they are overtaxed, the best way to raise teacher take-home pay is to reduce their taxes. Raising teachers' take-home pay via a $1,000 tax credit lets teachers know the American people and the Congress respect their work and encourages high-quality people to enter, and remain in, the teaching professional have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut (HR 936), which provides a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra-curricular programs. This legislation encourages local-citizens and community leaders to help strengthen local public schools. The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act also ensures that education funding matches the needs of individual communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill. Mr. Speaker, my education agenda of returning control over the education dollar to the American people is the best way to strengthen public education. First of all, unlike plans to expand the federal education bureaucracy, my bills are free of ``guidelines'' and restrictions that dilute the actual number of dollars spent to educate a child. In addition, the money does not have to go through federal and sate bureaucrats, each of whom get a cut, before it reaches the classroom. Returning power over the education dollar to the American people will also free public school teachers, administrators and principals from having to comply with numerous federal mandates. Therefore, school personnel will be able to devote their time to working with parents and other concerned citizens to make sure all children are receiving the best possible education. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again extend my thanks to all those who are involved in the education of our nation's children. I also call upon my colleagues to help strengthen public schools by returning control over the education dollar to parents and other concerned citizens, as well as raising teacher take-home pay by cutting their taxes, so that the American people can once again make the American education system the envy of the world.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose the H.R. 3846, a bill to raise the federally-mandated minimum wage. Raising living standards for all Americans is an admirable goal, however, to believe that Congress can raise the standard of living for working Americans by simply forcing employers to pay their employees a higher wage is equivalent to claiming that Congress can repeal gravity by passing a law saying humans shall have the ability to fly. Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus ``wedge'' between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law- imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output meets or exceeds the ``minimum wage.'' This, of course, has the advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government- enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65--why not $50, $75, or $100 per hour? Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment and standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy! Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners violates citizens' rights of association and freedom of contract as if to say to citizens ``you are incapable of making employment decisions for yourself in the marketplace.'' Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must enact ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove government-created obstacles to job growth. For example, I would have supported the reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act contained in this bill had those provisions been brought before the House as separate pieces of legislation. Congress should also move to stop the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing its misguided and unscientific ``ergonomics'' regulation. Congress should also pass my H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which repeals Post Office regulations on the uses of Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs). Many entrepreneurs have found CMRAs a useful tool to help them grow their businesses. Unless Congress repeals the Post Office's CMRA regulations, these businesses will be forced to divert millions of dollars away from creating new jobs into complying with postal regulations! Because one of the most important factors in getting a good job is a good education, Congress should also strengthen the education system by returning control over the education dollar to the American people. A good place to start is with the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for K- 12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut (H.R. 936), which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for donations to private school scholarships or for cash or in-kind contributions to public schools. I am also cosponsoring the Make College Affordable Act (H.R. 2750), which makes college tuition tax deductible for middle-and-working class Americans, as well as several pieces of legislation to provide increased tax deductions and credits for education savings accounts for both higher education and K-12. In addition, I am cosponsoring several pieces of legislation, such as H.R. 1824 and H.R. 838, to provide tax credits for employers who provide training for their employees. My education agenda will once again make America's education system the envy of the world by putting the American people back in control of education and letting them use more of their own resources for education at all levels. Combining education tax cuts, for K-12, higher education and job training, with regulatory reform and small business tax cuts such as those Congress passed earlier today is the best way to help all Americans, including those currently on the lowest rung of the economic ladder, prosper. However, Mr. Speaker, Congress should not fool itself into believing that the package of small business tax cuts will totally compensate for the damage inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the minimum wage increase. This assumes that Congress is omnipotent and thus can strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so that no firm, or worker, in the country is adversely effected by federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that any and all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as large and diverse as America's, are doomed to fail. In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the winners of the National High School Cheerleading Championship sponsored by the Universal Cheerleaders Association held in Orlando, Florida--the Victoria High School Varsity Cheerleaders of Victoria, Texas. This victory follows a history of winning third place in 1997, and second place in 1998. By taking the championship in 1999, Victoria High became the first Texas squad to ever win the National Championship. With this second impressive win, the VHS Cheerleaders became the first squad in the nation to win back-to-back championships in the Medium Varsity Division of the UCA Nationals. The competition was fierce, with the Regional competition starting in November, 1999, when the squad's first place win put them in line to take on 65 of the best of the best in Nationals. The teen's first trip before the judges in the preliminary round earned them a shot at the national championship, where they gave a stellar performance, shutting out their competition consisting of the top 14 squads in the country. I am proud to recognize this very talented group of students for excelling in this very demanding sport. But I am equally proud to applaud their selfless efforts in representing their school through community service to the American Cancer Society, March of Dimes, American Heart Association, and the Texas Zoo of Victoria. They visit local elementary schools and participate in pep rallies during Red Ribbon Week and TAAS week. Each student is also required to maintain an 80 overall average while passing each class. They are to be commended for participating in these additional activities. National championships do not come along by accident. Many, many hours of practice and training must take place to achieve them. Leadership is also a key ingredient. I want to recognize the VHS teachers, Denise Neel and Terese Reese, who helped make this goal a reality. Additionally, I commend the parents of each cheerleader who, no doubt, contributed greatly to this success. This group of students deserve the honor they have earned. I commend each one of them: Laurie Beck--Co-Head Cheerleader, Amy Reinmann--Co- Head Cheerleader, Vanessa Bludau, Amber Clemmons, Sara Dickson, Courtney Horecka, Haley Kolle, Lacey Reed, Amanda Rodriguez, Karla Sterne, Sarah Carville, Melissa Keefe, Chelsie Luhn, Julia McLarry, Rachel Schmitt, and Ashley Valentine. I am proud to have these two-time national champions in the 14th Congressional District of Texas, and trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating them on this impressive achievement.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my introduction of and request cosponsors for a privileged resolution to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the United States was dealt a defeat in a tax dispute with the European Union by an unelected board of international bureaucrats. It seems that, according to the WTO, $2.2 billion of United States tax reductions for American businesses violates WTO's rules and must be eliminated by October 1 of this year. Much could be said about the WTO's mistaken Orwellian notion that allowing citizens to retain the fruits of their own labor constitutes subsidies and corporate welfare. However, we need not even reach the substance of this particular dispute prior to asking, by what authority does the World Trade Organization assume jurisdiction over the United States Federal tax policy? That is the question. At last reading, the Constitution required that all appropriation bills originate in the House, and specified that only Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Taxation without representation was a predominant reason for America's fight for independence during the American Revolution. Yet, now we face an unconstitutional delegation of taxing authority to an unelected body of international bureaucrats. Let me assure Members that this Nation does not need yet another bureaucratic hurdle to tax reduction. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution reserves to Congress alone the authority for regulating foreign commerce. According to Article II, section 2, it reserves to the Senate the sole power to ratify agreements, namely, treaties, between the United States government and other governments. We all saw the recent demonstrations at the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle. Although many of those folks who were protesting were indeed rallying against what they see as evils of free trade and capitalist markets, the real problem when it comes to the World Trade Organization is not free trade. The World Trade Organization is the furthest thing from free trade. Instead, it is an egregious attack upon our national sovereignty, and this is the reason why we must vigorously oppose it. No Nation can maintain its sovereignty if it surrenders its authority to an international collective. Since sovereignty is linked so closely to freedom, our very notion of American liberty is at stake in this issue. Let us face it, free trade means trade without interference from governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. The World Trade Organization is a quasi-governmental agency, and hence, it is not accurate to describe it as a vehicle of free trade. Let us call a spade a spade: the World Trade Organization is nothing other than a vehicle for managed trade whereby the politically connected get the benefits of exercising their position as a preferred group; preferred, that is, by the Washington and international political and bureaucratic establishments. As a representative of the people of the 14th District of Texas and a Member of the United States Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution of this country, it is not my business to tell other countries whether or not they should be in the World Trade Organization. They can toss their own sovereignty out the window if they choose. I cannot tell China or Britain or anybody else that they should or should not join the World Trade Organization. That is not my constitutional role. I can, however, say that the United States of America ought to withdraw its membership and funding from the WTO immediately. We need to better explain that the Founding Fathers believed that tariffs were meant to raise revenues, not to erect trade barriers. American colonists even before the war for independence understood the difference. When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they placed the treaty-making authority with the President and the Senate, but the authority to regulate commerce with the House. The effects of this are obvious. The Founders left us with a system that made no room for agreements regarding international trade; hence, our Nation was to be governed not by protection, but rather, by market principles. Trade barriers were not to be erected, period. A revenue tariff was to be a major contributor to the U.S. Treasury, but only to fund the limited and constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the Federal government. Thus, the tariff would be low. The colonists and Founders clearly recognized that these are tariffs or taxes on American consumers, they are not truly taxes on foreign corporations. This realization was made obvious by the British government's regulation of trade with the colonies, but it is a realization that has apparently been lost by today's protectionists. Simply, protectionists seem to fail even to realize that raising the tariff is a tax hike on the American people.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5), which repeals the Social Security ``earnings limitations.'' During a time when an increasing number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well past retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working. Yet the federal government does just that by deducting a portion of seniors' monthly Social Security check should they continue to work and earn income above an arbitrary government-set level. When the government takes money every month from people's paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply because a senior chooses to work. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by providing a disincentive to remaining in the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the American economy of the benefits of senior citizens who wish to continue working but are discouraged from doing so by fear of losing part of their Social Security benefits. The federal government should not discourage any citizen from seeking or holding productive employment. The underlying issue of the earnings limitation goes back to the fact that money from the trust fund is routinely spent for things other than paying pensions to beneficiaries. This is why the first bill I introduced in the 106th Congress was the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which forbids Congress from spending Social Security funds on anything other than paying Social Security pensions. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my strong support for the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. Repealing the ``earnings limitation'' will help ensure that America's seniors can continue to enjoy fulfilling and productive lives in their ``golden years.'' I also urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219).

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Partial birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill would, in accordance with article 3, section 2 of our United States Constitution, prohibit federal courts (exclusive of the U.S. Supreme Court) from hearing cases relative to partial birth abortion. One of the most egregious portions of the Roe versus Wade decision is that the ruling in that case served to substitute the opinions of unelected judges for those of state representatives when it comes to making abortion law. By doing this, judges have not merely taken on the role of legislators, they have also thrust the federal apparatus into an area that the founding fathers specifically and exclusively entrusted to state entities. Unfortunately, this aspect of Roe versus Wade has not received the attention that less critical portions of the decision have received. The legislation I am introducing today is aimed at moving us toward correcting this federal judicial usurpation of constitutionally identified state authority. This legislation is needed now more than ever as certain ``lower federal courts'' have taken it upon themselves to continue the error-ridden ways of Roe versus Wade by overturning legitimate state restrictions on partial birth abortion. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to review this new legislation and to join me in this battle by cosponsoring this pro-life legislation.