Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend that my colleagues read today's Washington Times article entitled ``Disarming Good People'' before voting on unconstitutional and counter-effective gun legislation. Outlined within, are some of the disastrous consequences of enacting more gun control. While the lawmakers demand even more restrictions on the sale, ownership, and the use of firearms, we currently have the highest level of gun control in our Nation's history. Yet only 50 years ago, there were no violent incidents in schools like the recent tragedy. Instead of rushing to disarm the law-abiding, let us first examine the current 20,000 gun laws already on the books for their effectiveness. Disarming good people Editor's note: The following is an open letter from 287 economists, law-school professors and other academics to Congress, regarding gun-control legislation before the House of Representatives. Some but not all of the names of the signatories appear here. After the tragic attacks at public schools over the last two years, there is an understandable desire to ``do something.'' Yet, none of the proposed legislation would have prevented the recent violence. The current debate focuses only on the potential benefits from new gun control laws and ignores the fact that these laws can have some very real adverse effects. Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately save lives, prevent injury, and reduce crime. Passing laws based upon their supposed benefits while ignoring their costs poses a real threat to people's lives and safety. These--gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law- abiding citizens and risk making it less likely that good people have guns compared to criminals. Deterrence is important and disarming good people relative to criminals will increase the risk of violent crime. If we really care about saving lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things that never happen because people are able to defend themselves. Few people would voluntarily put up a sign in front of their homes stating, ``This home is a gun-free zone.'' The reason is very simple. Just as we can deter criminals with higher arrest or conviction rates, the fact that would-be victims might be able to defend themselves also deters attacks. Not only do guns allow individuals to defend themselves, they also provide some protection to citizens who choose not to own guns since criminals would not normally know who can defend themselves before they attack. The laws currently being considered by Congress ignore the importance of deterrence. Police are extremely important at deterring crime, but they simply cannot be everywhere. Individuals also benefit from being able to defend themselves with a gun when they are confronted by a criminal. Let us illustrate some of the problems with the current debate. The Clinton administration wants to raise the age at which citizens can posses a handgun to 21, and they point to the fact that 18- and 19-year-olds commit gun crimes at the highest rate. Yet, Department of Justice numbers indicate that 18- and 19-year-olds are also the most likely victims of violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery with serious injury, and aggravated assault. The vast majority of those committing crimes in this age group are members of gangs and are already breaking the law by having a gun. This law will primarily apply to law-abiding 18- to-21-year-olds and make it difficult for them to defend themselves. Waiting periods can produce a cooling-off period. But they also have real costs. Those threatened with harm may not be able to quickly obtain a gun for protection. Gun locks may prevent some accidental gun deaths, but they will make it difficult for people to defend themselves from attackers. We believe that the risks of accidental gun deaths, particularly those involving young children, have been greatly exaggerated. In 1996, there were 44 accidental gun deaths for children under age 10. This exaggeration risks threatening people's safety if it incorrectly frightens some people from having a gun in their home even though that is actually the safest course of action. Trade-offs exist with other proposals such as prison sentences for adults whose guns are misused by someone under 18 and rules limiting the number of guns people can purchase. No evidence has been presented to show that the likely benefits of such proposals will exceed their potential costs. With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems we currently face. The new legislation is ill- advised. Sincerely, Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. Baird, California State University Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, Boston University; Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University; Michael Block, University of Arizona; Walter Block, Thomas Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley, George Mason University; Colin D. Campbell, Dartmough College; Robert J. Cottrol, George Washington University; Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon University; Mark Crain, George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola College in Maryland; Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard Geddes, Fordham University; Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas; John Heineke, Santa Clara University; David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas, Austin; Lester H. Hunt, University of Wisconsin-Madison; James Kau, University of Georgia; Kenneth N. Klee, UCLA; David Kopel, New York University; Stanley Liebowitz, University of Texas at Dallas; Luis Locay, University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago; Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John Matsusaka, University of Southern California; Fred McChesney, Cornell University; Jeffrey A. Miron, Boston University; Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary; Craig M. Newark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S. Parker, George Mason University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern University; Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon University; Douglas B. Rasmussen, St. John's University; Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee; John R. Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts, Washington University; Randall W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; Charles Rowley, George Mason University; Allen R. Sanderson, University of Chicago; William F. Shughart II, University of Mississippi; Thomas Sowell, Stanford University; Richard Stroup, Montana State University; Robert D. Tollison, University of Mississippi; Eugene Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. Ward, University of Illinois; Benjamin Zycher, UCLA; Todd Zywicki, George Mason University.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will this week fully debate the issue of school violence. If we had remained a constitutional republic, this debate would not be going on. I sincerely believe this kind of violence would be greatly reduced, and for the violence that did occur, it would be dealt with as a local and school issue. Responding emotionally with feel-good legislation in the Congress serves no worthwhile purpose, but makes the politician feel like he is doing something beneficial. In dealing with the problem of violence, there is a large group here in the Congress quite willing to attack the first amendment while defending the second. Likewise, there is a strong contingency here for attacking the second amendment while defending the first. My question is this: Why can we not consistently defend both? Instead, we see plans being laid to appease everyone and satisfy no one. This will be done in the name of curbing violence by undermining first amendment rights and picking away at second amendment rights. Instead of protecting the first and second amendment, we are likely in the name of conciliation to diminish the protections afforded us by both the first and second amendment. It does not make a lot of sense. Curbing free expression, even that which is violent and profane, is un-American and cannot solve our school problem. Likewise, gun laws do not work, and more of them only attack the liberties of law-abiding citizens. Before the first Federal gun law in 1934, there was a lot less gun violence, and guns were readily accessible to everyone. However, let me remind my colleagues, under the Constitution, gun regulations and crime control are supposed to be State issues. There are no authentic anti-gun proponents in this debate. The only argument is who gets the guns, the people or the Federal bureaucrats. Proponents of more gun laws want to transfer the guns to the 80,000 and growing Federal Government officials who make up the national police force. The argument made by these proponents of gun control is that freedom is best protected by the people not owning guns in that more BATF and other agency members should have them and become more pervasive in our society. It is disingenuous by either side to imply that those who disagree with them are unconcerned about violence. Everyone wants less violence. Deciding on the cause of the hostile environment in our public schools is the key to solving this problem. A few points I would like to make. Number one, private schools are much safer than public schools. Number two, public school violence has increased since the Federal government took over the public school system. Number three, discipline is difficult due to the rules, regulations, and threats of lawsuits as a consequence of Federal Government involvement in public education. Number four, reading about violence throughout history has not been a cause of violence. Number five, lack of gun laws has not been a cause of violence. Number six, the government's practice of using violence to achieve social goals condones its use. All government welfare is based on the threat of government violence. Number seven, Star Wars technology, casually displayed on our TV screens showing the blowing up of bridges, trains, sewer plants, and embassies all in the name of humanitarianism glibly sanctions violence as a proper tool for bringing about change. Number eight, the Federal government's role in Waco and the burning alive of innocent children in the name of doing good sends a confused message to our youth. Number nine, government's role in defending and even paying to kill a half-born child cannot but send a powerful message to our young people that all life is cheap, both that of the victims and the perpetrators of violence. More gun laws expanding the role of the Federal government in our daily lives while further undermining the first and second amendment will not curb the violence. Understanding the proper constitutional role for government and preventing the government itself from using illegal force to mold society and police the world would go a long way in helping to diminish the violence. Ultimately, though, only a moral society, with the family its key element, will make the citizens and the government less violent.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a great symbol of our nation, the flag of the United States of America on this Flag Day 1999. I wonder how frequently we take for granted this symbol, how often we fail to consider what it is and indeed what it represents. The flag contains 13 stripes and 50 stars. Those 13 stripes represent the first thirteen states, each of which emanating from colonies of British America. These 13 colonies came together because they were opposed to continued oppression by the British executive and the British parliament. After numerous and significant entreaties seeking reconciliation, the British American came to understand that political independence and local self-government was the only way to insure against the most dangerous of tyrannies. Was this eternal truth forgotten immediately upon the founding of our nation? Hardly. From the Articles of Confederation through to the original U.S. Constitution a clear understanding of the necessity of the separation of powers was maintained. And the genius of that division of powers lay only so partially in the three federal branches, each reliant upon some different direct authority but all resting government finally on the consent of the governed. Indeed, it has rightly been said that ``the genius of the constitution is best summed up in that clause which reserves to the states or to the people those powers which are not specifically delegated to the federal government.'' So those states came together to form a compact, indeed to form a nation and, they gave specific but limited powers to the federal government. From those original thirteen stars and stripes, representing the individual states, came one. E pluribus unum. And this is what the flag and those stripes represent. Today the flag contains 50 stars to represent the 50 current states. From 13 came 50 and in this way ``E pluribus pluribum'' is also true. From many came more. Yes, Mr. Speaker, our flag is a symbol of our nation. It is a symbol but certainly not the sum. America means so much more to us than symbol devoid of substance. It means those rights, inalienable and indivisible, which are life, liberty and property. Property not just as an object of ownership but as an idea. Private property is indeed the bedrock of all privacy. And private enjoyment of property is not simply exemplified by the right to hold, but to use and dispose of as the owner sees fit. This is at the very essence of property, and it is in fact the meaning of the pursuit of happiness. And those stars and stripes represent an idea about how it is that we should hope to actually realize the protection of all these rights that we as Americans hold so dear. Namely, we the people vest in those very states that formed this union, the power to legislate for the benefit of the residents thereof. This is the idea of federalism and of local self-government. This idea is sacrosanct because it is the necessary precursor to all of those things which we hold dear, most specifically those rights I have enunciated above. Our nation is based on federalism, and state governments, indeed the nation is created by the states which originally ratified our constitution. Now confusion has come upon us. We are far removed from the days of the constitution's ratification and hence it seems we have lost that institutional memory that points to the eternal truths that document affirms. Today there are calls to pass federal laws and even constitutional amendments which would take from the states their powers and grant them to the federal government. Some of these are even done in the name of protecting the nation, its symbol, or our liberties. How very sad that must make the founding fathers looking down on our institutions. Those founders held that this centralization of power was and ought always remain the very definition of ``unAmerican'' and they understood that any short term victory an action of such concentration might bring would be paid for with the ultimate sacrifice of our very liberties. To do what is right we must understand and honor the symbol and the sum of our nation. We must contemplate the flag and the constitution, both of which point us to the key basis of liberty that can be found only in local self-government. Our flag and our constitution both honor and symbolize federalism and when we undermine federalism we dishonor our flag, our constitution and our heritage. The men who founded our nation risked the ultimate price for freedom. They pledged ``their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor'' to the founding of a republic based on local self-government. We should honor them, our republic and its most direct symbol, our U.S. flag by taking a stand against any rule, law or constitutional amendment which would expand the role of our federal government.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but today's reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating tremendous incentive to protect one's own interest by investing in politicians. The problem is not a lack of Federal laws or rules regulating campaign spending. Therefore, more laws will not help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership. There is tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over $100 million per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers' dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans and grants. Corporations and others are forced to participate in the process out of greed, as well as self defense, since that is the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing powers such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue. The reformers argue only that the fault is those who are trying to influence government and not the fault of the members who yield to the pressure of the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process, which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformers' argument is to stop us before we capitulate and before we capitulate to the special interest groups. Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed and run. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending, a benefit to which the reformers will never admit. The quasi two-party system will become more entrenched by limiting the huge expenditures required to oust an incumbent. Alternative choices and third party candidates will be further handicapped if all the reforms proposed are passed. The media become a big winner. Their influence grows as the private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. The wealthy gain a significant edge since it is clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boost for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete. Celebrities will gain an even greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank, and by limiting the resources to counterbalance this advantage works against the noncelebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger. The current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government. More regulation of political speech through control of private money without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government. True, reform probably is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize and show preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process, but we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more laws. We should demand disclosure so voters can decide if their representatives in Congress are duly influenced or unduly influenced, but the best thing we could do is to encourage competition, which will be made worse if the reformers have their way. The majority of Americans are turned off with the system and do not vote because they do not believe they have a real choice. Signature requirements, filing fees and rules written by the two major parties make it virtually impossible for alternative parties to compete if not independently rich or a celebrity. We should change these obstructive rules to encourage the majority of Americans who now sit out the elections to participate in the electoral process. Campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but today's reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect one's own interests by ``investing'' in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won't help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership. The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest influence on government, but his cannot be done while ignoring the control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government--legal or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for voters to know who's buying influence from whom. There's tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are ``forced'' to participate in the process out of greed as well as self defense-- since that's the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue. Many reformers recognize this and either like the system or believe that it's futile to bring about changes and argue that curtailing influence is the only option left even if it involves compromising political speech through regulating political money. It's naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If enough honorable men and women served in Congress and resisted the temptation to be influenced by any special interest group, of course this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because Members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem. The reformers argue that it's only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer's argument is ``stop us before we capitulate to the special interest groups.'' Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending--a benefit to which the reformers will never admit. The quasi-two party system will become more entrenched by limiting the huge expenditures required to oust an incumbent. Alternative choices and third-party candidates will be further handicapped if all the reforms proposed are passed. They will never qualify for equal treatment since all campaign laws are written by Republicans and Democrats. The same will be true when it comes to divvying up taxpayer's money for elections. The media becomes a big winner. Their influence grows as private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. Campaigns are more likely to reflect the conventional wisdom and candidates will strive to avoid media attacks by accommodating their views. The wealthy gain a significant edge since it's clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boast for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete. Celebrities will gain even a greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank and by limiting the resources to counter-balance this advantage, works against the non-celebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger. This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government. The immoral Political Action Committees that work only to rip-off the taxpayers by getting benefits from government may deserve our condemnation but not the heavy hand of government anxious to control this group along with all the others. The reformers see no difference between the two and are willing to violate all personal liberty. Since more regulating doesn't address the basic problem of influential government, now out of control, neither groups deserves more coercive government rules. All the rules in the world can't prevent Members from yielding to political pressure of the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation cannot instill character. More regulation of political speech through control of private money, without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government. True reform probably is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process. But we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more bad laws. We should demand disclosure so voters can decide if their Representatives in Congress are unduly influenced. But the best thing we could do is to encourage competition, which will be made worse if the reformers have their way. The majority of Americans are turned off with the system and don't vote because they don't believe they have a real choice. Signature requirements, filing fees, and rules written by the two major parties make it virtually impossible for alternative parties to compete if not independently rich or a celebrity. We should change these obstructive rules to encourage the majority of Americans, who now sit out the elections, to participate in the electoral process. Restricting political money and speech will only further hamper competition and discourage citizens from voting.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend Bruce Bartlett's ``Minimum Wage Hikes Help Politicians, Not the Poor'', which recently appeared in The Wall Street Journal, to all of my colleagues. Mr. Bartlett's article provides an excellent overview of the evidence that an increase in the federally-mandated minimum wage reduces teenage employment. Since those shut out of entry-level work are unlikely to obtain higher- paying jobs in the future, an increase in the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities for millions of Americans. This point was also highlighted by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in testimony before the Senate in January when he pointed out that ``All the evidence that I've seen suggests that the people who are the most needy of getting on the lower rungs of the ladder of our income scales, develop skills, getting the training, are unable to earn the minimum wage. As a consequence, they cannot get started. And I think we have to be very careful about thinking that we can somehow raise standards of living by mandating an increase in the minimum wage rate.'' I hope all of my colleagues will carefully consider how increasing the minimum wage decreases opportunities for our nation's youth and refrain from reducing economic opportunity for those at the bottom of the economic ladder by raising the minimum wage. Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow at the NCPA. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy in the Treasury Department from 1988 to 1993, and Senior Policy Analyst at the White House from 1987 to 1988. He is an expert commentator on taxes and economic policy, the author of two books and, a syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in many papers including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. He regularly appears on national television and radio programs. Minimum Wage Hikes Help Politicians, Not the Poor (By Bruce Bartlett) It now appears likely that the Republican Congress will soon raise the minimum wage for the second time in three years. In 1996 the minimum increased to the present $5.15 an hour from $4.25; the increase now being considered would bring the figure up to $6.15 by 2002. This is bad news, for as many as 436,000 jobs may disappear as a result of the increase. During the last debate, two arguments were advanced in favor of raising the minimum wage. The first claimed that the minimum wage had fallen sharply in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since the previous increase in 1991. But with inflation having all but vanished in the 19 months since the last increase, this argument does not hold true today. The second argument, based almost exclusively on a 1995 study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, was that raising the minimum wage actually reduced unemployment. Since then, however, virtually every study done on the subject has confirmed longstanding research showing that raising the minimum wage invariably has a negative impact on employment, particularly among teenagers and minorities. The federal minimum wage was first enacted in 1938, but applied only to the small minority of workers who were engaged in interstate commerce. The first data we have on teenage unemployment are from 1948. From then until a significant expansion of the minimum wage in 1956, teenage unemployment was quite low by today's standards and was actually lower for blacks than whites. Between 1948 and 1955 unemployment averaged 11.3% for black teenage males and 11.6% for whites. Beginning in 1956, when the minimum wage rose from 75 cents to $1, unemployment rates between the two groups began to diverge. By 1960, the unemployment rate for black teenage males was up to 22.7%, while the white rate stood at 14.6%. Despite such evidence, supporters continued to push for ever higher and more inclusive minimum-wage rates, which were raised almost yearly between 1961 and 1981. At each point the unemployment rate for black teenagers tended to ratchet higher. By 1981, the unemployment rate for black teenage males averaged 40.7%--four times its early 1950s level, when the minimum wage was much lower and its coverage less extensive. That year, the federally-mandated Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded that each 10% rise in the minimum wage reduces teenage employment by between 1% and 3%. Subsequent research, based on the effects of the previous two minimum-wage increases, continues to confirm this estimate. A study of the 1990-91 increases, which raised the rate by 27%, found that it reduced overall teenage employment by 7.3% and black teenage employment by 10%. Similarly, a study of the 1996 increases found a decline in employment of between 2% and 6% for each 10% increase in the minimum wage. In a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, economist Kenneth Couch Translated these percentages into raw numbers. At the low end of the range, at least 90,000 teenage jobs were lost in 1996 and another 63,000 jobs lost in 1997. At the higher end, job losses may have equaled 268,000 in 1996 and 189,000 in 1997. He estimates that a $1 rise in the minimum wage will further reduce teenage employment by between 145,000 and 436,000 jobs. The fact is that the vast bulk of economic research demonstrates that the minimum wage has extremely harmful effects on the very people it is designed to aid--the poor: The minimum wage unambiguously reduces employment. The September 1998 issue of the Journal of Economic Literature, an official publication of the American Economic Association, contains a survey of labor economists on the employment effects of the minimum wage. When asked to estimate the impact of raising the minimum wage, the average effect was estimated at minus 0.21%, meaning that a 10% rise in the minimum wage will reduce overall youth employment by 2.1%. This puts to rest any notion that economists have changed their view that in general higher minimum wages reduce employment. Increases in the minimum wage have a disproportionate impact on teenagers and the poor. The minus 2.1% figure cited above is an overall impact. For those currently earning less than the new minimum wage, the impact is much greater. For example, prior to the 1996 increase, 74.4% of workers between the ages of 16 and 24 already earned more than $5.15, and 4.3% were legally exempt from the minimum wage law. Thus the employment losses were concentrated among the 21.3% of workers making the minimum wage or slightly more. When one attributes total employment losses entirely to this group, it turns out that the employment loss figure is minus 1%, according to economists David Neumark, Mark Schweitzer and William Wascher. This means a 10% rise in the minimum wage reduces employment among this group by 10%. Increases in the minimum wage add almost nothing to the incomes of poor families. There are two reasons for this. First, employment losses reduce the incomes of some workers more than the higher minimum wage increases the incomes of others. Second, the vast bulk of those affected by the minimum wage, especially teenagers, live in families that are not poor. Thus a study by economists Richard Burkhauser and Martha Harrison found that 80% of the net benefits of the last minimum-wage increase went to families well above the poverty level; almost half went to those with incomes more than three times the poverty level. (The poverty level is about $17,000 for a family of four.) The minimum wage reduces education and training and increases long-term unemployment for low-skilled adults. Messrs. Neumark and Wascher found that higher minimum wages cause employers to reduce on-the-job training. They also found that higher minimum wages encourage more teenagers to drop out of school, lured into the labor force by wages that to them seem high. These teenagers often displace low-skilled adults, who frequently become semipermanently unemployed. Lacking skills and education, these teenagers pay a price for the minimum wage in the form of lower incomes over their entire lifetimes. A raise in the minimum wage has always been an easy sell in Washington. But whatever the political realities may be, it's still a bad idea.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is a very important amendment, and what we do on it will be with us for a long time. We are endorsing, if we vote in favor of this amendment, a policy of occupation of Kosovo for an endless period of time. We have now been fighting an undeclared war for more than 70 days. We have endlessly bombed a country the size of Kentucky killing many, many civilians. It is an undeclared war. It is an immoral, illegal war. It violates the Constitution. It violates the War Powers resolution. It is claimed now that we have had a great victory. But what we are doing now, after bombing a country to smithereens, is laying plans to occupy it. We are asking the American people to make an endless commitment to occupying this country. A few years back, we were going to occupy Bosnia for a short period of time. We are still occupying Bosnia, spending between $10 billion, $20 billion already, depending on the estimate. A few years back it was in our national interests to be involved in the Persian Gulf. We had to do a lot of bombing there and a lot of fighting. We are still bombing in the Persian Gulf. I mean, when will it end? Where do our borders end? What are the limits to our sovereignty? Where is our responsibility? It seems like it is endless anyplace, anywhere we have to go. We are now supporting an empire. No wonder there is anti-American hostility existing around the world, because we believe that we can tell everybody what to do. We can deliver an ultimatum to them. If they do not do exactly what we say, whether it is under NATO or the United Nations or by ourselves stating it, what happens, we say, ``If you do not listen to us, we are going to bomb you.'' I think that policy is a bad policy. If we vote for this amendment, we endorse this policy, and we should not. This is not the end of the Kosovo war; it's only the beginning of an endless occupation and the possibility of hostilities remain. The region remains destabilized and dangerous. Only a policy of non-intervention and neutrality can serve the interest of the American people. The sooner we quit accepting the role of world policemen, the better. We cannot afford to continue our recent policy of intervention to satisfy the power special interest that influences our foreign policy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, because this is small business appreciation week I would like to remind my colleagues of the importance of enacting HJ Res 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act. HJ Res 55 repeals recently enacted Post Office regulations requiring Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs) to collect personal information about their customers, such as their name, address, social security number, and photograph. These regulations not only force small businesses to intrude into their customer's privacy, they could impose costs as high as $1 billion on small businesses during the initial six-month compliance period. The long term costs of this rule are incalculable, but could conceivably reach several billion dollars in the first few years. Some small businesses may even be forced into bankruptcy. Businesses like Mailboxes, etc., must turn the collected information over to the Post Office. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to force their competitors to provide them with their customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box. It is ironic that this regulation comes at a time when the Post Office is getting into an ever increasing number of enterprises not directly related to mail delivery. So, while the Postal Service uses its monopoly on first-class mail to compete with the private sector, it works to make life more difficult for its competitors in the field of mail delivery. Mr. Speaker, Congress must do more than talk about how it appreciates small business, it must work to lift the burden of big government from America's job-creating small businesses. Passing HJ Res 55 and protecting Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies from the Post Offices' costly and anti-competitive regulations would be a great place to start.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Yugoslavian civil war, now going on for years, was near ending until NATO chose to enter on the side of the KLA seeking independence. Aggressively entering the fray by invading a foreign nation, in direct opposition to its charter, NATO has expanded the war and multiplied the casualties. The impasse now reached, although predictable, prompts only more NATO bombing and killing of innocent civilians on both sides. It is difficult to see how any good can come from this continuous march of folly, but I am going to try. Number one, the U.N. has suffered a justified setback in its effort to be the world's governing body of the new world order, and that is good. By NATO refusing to seek a U.N. resolution of support for its war effort, it makes the U.N. look irrelevant. Now NATO is using the U.N. to seek a peace settlement by including the Russians, who agree to play the game as long as additional American tax dollars flow to them through the IMF. The U.N. looks weak, irrelevant, ignored, and used. The truth is winning out. Number two, NATO is on the verge of self-destruction. Since the purpose of NATO to defend against a ruthless Soviet system no longer exists, that is good, NATO, in choosing to break its own rules looks totally ineffective and has lost credibility. The U.S. can get out of NATO, come home, save some money and let Europe tend to its own affairs, and we can then contribute to peace, not war. Number three, Tony Blair's true character has now become known to the world. He has not only annoyed many Americans, but many Germans, French, Italians and Greeks as well. By Blair demanding more American bombs, money and the introduction of ground troops, many have become skeptical of his judgment. It is much easier now to challenge his influence over Bill Clinton and NATO, and that is not only good, but necessary. Number four, more Americans every day are discovering that military spending is not equivalent to defense spending. This is a good start. It is clearly evident that when useless immoral wars are pursued, money is wasted, weapons are consumed, and national security is endangered, opposite to everything that is supposed to be achieved through defense spending. A foolish policy of foreign interventionism, no matter how much money is spent on the military, can never substitute for a sensible, pro-American policy of friendship and trade with all those countries willing to engage. Number five, the ill-gotten war has shown once again that air power alone, and especially when pursued without a declaration of war and a determination to win, serves no useful purpose. Although most military experts have stated this for years, it is now readily apparent to anyone willing to study the issue. Many more Americans now agree that war not fought for the defense of one's country and for the preservation of liberty is immoral and rarely brings about victory. If we remember that in the future, that would be good. Number six, NATO's war against Yugoslovia has made it clearly apparent that world leaders place relative value on human life. This is valuable information that should be helped to restore U.S. national sovereignty. According to NATO's policy, the lives of the Kosovars are of greater value than the Serbs, Rwandans, Kurds, Tibetans, or East Timorans. Likewise, oil and European markets command more bloodshed in support of powerful financial interests than the suffering of millions in Asia and Africa. This knowledge of NATO's hypocrisy should some day lead to a fair and more peaceful world. Number seven, the issue of whether or not a President can initiate and wage an unconstitutional war without declaration and in violation of the War Powers Resolution has prompted a positive and beneficial debate in the Congress and throughout the Nation. This is a necessary first step to get Congress to regain its prerogatives over the issue of war. Number eight, interventionism in the affairs of other nations when our national security is not threatened serves no benefit and causes great harm. Our involvement with NATO and Yugoslovia has once again forcefully shown this. Although our Founders knew this and advised against it, and American Presidents for over 100 years acted accordingly, this rediscovery of a vital truth can serve us well in future years. Number nine, NATO's arrogance has once again restated another truth worth remembering: Might does not make right. Number ten, the 19 nations' military actions against a tiny state shows that alliances to promote aggression do not work. The moral high ground is not achieved because despite the pronouncements of concerns for the suffering of the innocent, when survival is not at stake and when the defense against an aggressor is not an issue, war by committee is doomed to fail. This is a lesson that needs restating. Number 11: NATO's blundering policy ironically will leave a legacy that will allow rebuilding after the new world order disintegrates. To the bewilderment of their own leaders NATO has forcefully supported the notion of autonomy and independence for ethnic states. Instead of huge governments demanding ethnic diversity, the goal of establishing Kosovo's independence provides the moral foundation for an independent Kashmir Kurdistan, Palestine, Tibet, East Timor, Quebec, and North Ireland and anyone else that believes their rights as citizens would be better protected by small local government. This is in contrast to huge nation states and international governments that care only about controlling wealth, while forgetting about the needs and desires of average citizens. 12. Another lesson that will be learned from this misadventure, but unfortunately not soon enough, is that empires self-destruct out of their own weighty arrogance and blindness to the truth. Inevitably powerful empires--and it is said we are the only super power left and have great world-wide responsibilities--pursue a march of folly, a course upon which we inextricably find ourselves. If these lessons are remembered, we will have a much better chance of achieving peace and prosperity throughout the world.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I would like to point out that this is a rule of which I do not believe the authors should be proud. This rule, I believe, strictly limits a serious debate with regards to our national defense and our involvement in war at this particular time. Today, the International War Crimes Tribunal decided to indict Milosevic. Milosevic is obviously a character that deserves severe criticism, but at this particular junction in the debate over this erroneous and ill-gotten war in Yugoslavia, this indicates to most of the world that there is no attempt whatsoever on the part of NATO to attempt any peace negotiations. This is a guarantee of the perpetuation of war. Milosevic is going to be further strengthened by this. He will not be weakened. It was said the bombing would weaken Milosevic, and yet he was strengthened. This same move, this pretense that this kangaroo court can indict Milosevic and carry this to fruition indicates only that there are some who will enjoy perpetuating this war, because there is no way this can enhance peace. This is a sign of total hypocrisy, I believe, on the part of NATO. NATO, eventually, by history, will be indicted. But today we are dealing with this process, and this is related to the bill that is about to be brought to the floor because, specifically, as this bill came out of committee, it said that monies in this bill should be used for defense, not for aggressive warfare in Kosovo, and yet that was struck in the Committee on Rules. That is a serious change in the bill. I think all our colleagues must remember this when it comes time to vote for the final passage. We could have had a bill that made a statement against spending this money to perpetuate this illegal NATO war, and yet it was explicitly removed from the bill. I think this is reason to question the efforts on this rule. Certainly it should challenge all of us on the final passage of this bill, because much of this money will not be spent on the national defense, but to perpetuate war, which is a direct distraction from our national defense because it involves increasing threats to our national security. It does not protect our national security. It might be well to also note that this bill does not do much more for fiscal conservatives. The President asked for a certain amount for the defense of this country, but we have seen fit to raise him more than $8 billion, spend more money, more money that is so often not spent in our national defense. At the same time, we must also remember that when we vote on this bill, and this rule allows it, more than $10 billion will be in excess of the budget agreement of 1997.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children should be commended and supported for their work on this critical issue. However, I must oppose this legislation as it is outside the proper Constitutional role for the federal government to spend money in this way; such spending is more appropriate coming from the states and private donations. As always, I am amazed that Members of Congress are so willing to be generous with their constituent's tax dollars, yet do not seem willing to support such causes out of their own pockets. This legislation would spend more than $268 million on issues that are simply outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. In addition, legislation like this blurs the lines between public and private funds, and opens good organizations to needless regulatory control for Congress. The legislation even opens the door to public money being used to support sectarian organizations, in direct violation of the First Amendment. The moral decay of our nation is a serious issue that must be addressed. However, after some forty years of federal meddling in education and other social issues, it is clear politicians on Capitol Hill have made matters worse for our children, not better.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, a joint resolution disapproving a Postal Service Regulation which tramples on the privacy of the two million Americans who rent mailboxes from Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies. Under this regulation, any American currently renting, or planning to rent, a commercial mailbox will have to provide the receiving agency with personal information, including two items of valid identification, one of which must contain a photograph of the applicant and one of which must contain a ``serial number--traceable to the bearer.'' Of course, in most cases that number will be today's de facto national ID number--the Social Security number. The receiving agency must then send the information to the Post Office, which will maintain the information in a database. Furthermore, the Post Office authorizes the Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies to collect and maintain photocopies of the forms of identification presented by the box renter. My colleagues might be interested to know that the Post Office is prohibited from doing this by the Privacy Act of 1974. I hope my colleagues are as outraged as I am by the Post Office's mandating that their competitors do what Congress has forbidden the Post Office to do directly. Thanks to the Post Office's Federal Government-granted monopoly on first-class delivery service, Americans cannot receive mail without dealing with the Postal Service. Therefore, this regulation presents Americans who wish to receive mail at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency with a choice: either provide the federal government with your name, address, photograph and social security number, or surrender the right to receive communications from one's fellow citizens in one's preferred manner. This regulation, ironically, was issued at the same time the Post Office was issuing a stamp honoring Ayn Rand, one of the twentieth century's greatest champions of liberty. Another irony connected to this regulation is that it comes at a time when the Post Office is getting into an ever increasing number of enterprises not directly related to mail delivery. So, while the Postal Service uses its monopoly on first-class mail to compete with the private sector, it works to make life more difficult for its competitors in the field of mail delivery. This regulation also provides the Post Office with a list of all those consumers who have opted out of the Post Office's mailbox service. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to get a list of their competitor's customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box. Coincidentally, this regulation will also raise the operating cost on the Post Office's private competitors for private mailbox services. Some who have examined this bill estimate that it could impose costs as high as $1 billion on these small businesses during the initial six- month compliance period. The long-term costs of this rule are incalculable, but could conceivably reach several billion dollars in the first few years. This may force some of these businesses into bankruptcy. During the rule's comment period, more than 8,000 people formally denounced the rule, while only 10 spoke generally favor of it. However, those supporting this rule will claim that the privacy of the majority of law-abiding citizens who use commercial mailboxes must be sacrificed in order to crack down on those using commercial mailboxes for criminal activities. However, I would once again remind my colleagues that the Federal role in crime, even if the crime is committed in ``interstate commerce,'' is a limited one. The fact that some people may use a mailbox to commit a crime does not give the Federal Government the right to treat every user of a commercial mailbox as a criminal. Moreover, my office has received a significant number of calls from battered women who use these boxes to maintain their geographic privacy. I have introduced this joint resolution in hopes that it will be considered under the expedited procedures established in the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. This procedure allows Congress to overturn onerous regulations such as the subject of this bill. Mr. Speaker, the entire point of this procedure to provide Congress with a means to stop federal actions which pose an immediate threat to the rights of Americans. Thanks to these agency review provisions, Congress cannot hide and blame these actions on the bureaucracy. I challenge my colleagues to take full advantage of this process and use it to stop this outrageous rule. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which uses the Agency Review Procedures of the Contract with America Advancement Act to overturn Post Office's regulations requiring customers of private mailboxes to give the Post Office their name, address, photographs and social security number. The Federal Government should not force any American citizen to divulge personal information as the price for receiving mail. I further call on all my colleagues to assist me in moving this bill under the expedited procure established under the Congressional Review Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the best drill team in the nation and in the world: the Victoria High School Victoriadores from Victoria, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of D.J. Jaynes, Victoriadore Director, assisted by Laura Klimist, Choreographer, this outstanding group of ladies and gentlemen won many national honors at the marching Auxiliaries/Seaworld National Championship Competition. Their awards include the Choreography Award for all dances--jazz, high kick, military, lyrical and show production; Winner's Circle (all dances scored 95 or above from all judges); named Best in Class for having the highest overall scores in the competition; and the National Champion Jacket Winners for earning the highest score from all categories and all dances. After this impressive victory, the Victoriadores aimed for the championship at the Miss Dance/Drill Team USA Pageant and Competition. They easily took first place in military, high kick and show production and second place in lyrical, and they earned the Producers Award for the best overall presentation. The taste of victory was so sweet, the Victoriadores decided to take the International Championship, competing against Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Channel Islands, Mexico and South America. The team won first and second place in Military and High Kick, with New Zealand placing third. This group of students deserves the honors it has earned. I commend each one of them to you: Brooke Adams Chelsea Akin Andrea Alvarez Jennifer Alvarez Pia Arifiles Iza Arifiles Rachel Barber Samantha Bernal April Blackwell Liz Boldt Meredyth Bryant Lisa Buckler Monica Canchola Misty Cavazos Stephanie Cernosek Krysta Chacon Melissa Chavez Cody Cole Kyra Coleman Cari Collett Kristin Creech Carrie Dahlstrom Nichol Dally Katie Dayoc D'Lisa DeLuna Joey Dominquez Cash Donahoe Wendy Dry Carly Dunnam Jamie Dybala Dyann Erwin Bianca Estrada Nicole Garcia Michelle Garcia Mandy Gaskamp Clarisa Gonzales Valarie Gonzales Amber Grunewald Lacey Hall Erin Hanzelka Megan Hearn Theresa Hernandez Brandy Hill Blair Hunt Amy Innocenti Melissa Jecker Laura Jecker Eric Jentsch Ida Jimenez Kelly Johnson Allison Jones Morgan Kallus Jill Kauffman Lindsey Klein Hilary Koenig Emily Loeb Amanda Lott Aimee Lovik Waverly Lynch Tara Marek Kelly Martin Ashley Martin Erin Martin Nina Martinez Stacy McCants Sarah McKay Taysha McKibbon Tyler Meador Valerie Medina Corie Meinke Garrett Middleton James Miller Lori Monclova Tammy Newbern Jamie O'Quinn Jennifer Padilla Dusty Patek Aaron Pearson Matina Pflaum Sara Quitta Melissa Ragsdale Katie Reimann Natalie Ricks Brandi Roth Jennifer Salinas Brianne Schmidt Penny Schumacher Sara Schweke Jamie Sedlacek Tenille Shafer Loren Shafer Heather Shannon Justin Sheppard Brett Shoemaker Amanda Stewart Stacey Talley Juli Teeters Bianca Tilley Amanda Trevino Lauren Tuso Elane Urbano Pam Urbish Jessica Vaughan Whitney Wilkinson Lindsey Williams Laura Windwehen Melanie Winston D.J. Jaynes, Victoriadore Director/Choreographer Laura Klimist, Choreographer I am proud to have these national and international championships in the 14th Congressional District of Texas. I am proud of the commitment to excellence and perserverance shown by each student which was necessary to reach these goals. I am proud of the support shown by the parents and guardians of these students which helped them reach their goals. I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the Victoria High School Victoriadores on these impressive achievements.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will later today vote on the conference report to H.R. 1141, the bill to further fund NATO's aggression in Yugoslavia. The President has requested $7.9 billion but Congress has felt compelled to give him $15 billion. Congress does not endorse the war. We voted overwhelmingly against declaring war and yet we are giving the President twice the amount he requested to wage the war. It does not make any sense. We are asking the President to seek reimbursement from NATO members since we have assumed the financial burden for fighting this war. This has tremendous appeal but cannot compensate for the shortsightedness of spending so much in the first place. The money may well never be recouped from our allies, and even if some of it is it only encourages a failed policy of military adventurism. If this policy works, the United States, at Congress' urging, becomes a hired gun for the international order, a modern day government mercenary. This is not constitutional and it is a bad precedent to set. Reimbursement for the Persian Gulf War has helped to perpetuate that conflict now going on for nearly a decade. It is time to think about a more sensible foreign policy. We should not encourage the senseless and immoral NATO aggression against Serbia. The funding of this war should not be approved, no matter what special interest appropriations have been attached to the initial request to gain support for this special spending measure. Our bombing continues to complicate the mess we helped create in Yugoslavia. Just about everyone concedes that the war cannot be won without massive use of ground troops, which fortunately no one is willing to commit. So the senseless bombing continues while civilian casualties mount. And whom are we killing? It looks like we are killing as many innocent Albanians for whom we have gone to war as innocent Serbs. Why are we killing anybody? There has been no aggression against the United States and no war has been declared. It is time to stop this senseless bombing. The U.S. has become the world's bully. In recent months we have bombed Serbia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and China; and in recent years, many others. The fetish we have with bombing anybody who looks cross-eyed at us has preoccupied our leaders for several decades regardless of which party has been in power. We may not be willing to admit it, but it is hardly the way to win friends and influence people. It is lousy diplomacy. It must stop. The only reason we get away with it is because we are the military and economic superpower, but that only leads to smoldering resentment and an unsustainable financial commitment that will in due time come to an end. Our superiority is not guaranteed to last. NATO, through their daily briefings, has been anxious to reassure us that its cause is just. Yet NATO cannot refute the charge that the refugee problem was made much worse with the commencement of the bombing. Yesterday it was reported in the Los Angeles Times by Paul Watson, in stark contrast to NATO's propaganda, that in Svetlje, Yugoslavia, 15,000 Albanians displaced by the bombing remain near their homes in north Kosovo, including hundreds of young military age men, quote, strolling along the dirt roads or lying on the grass on a sunny day. There were no concentration camps, no forced labor and no one serving as human shields according to an Albanian interviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Many admitted they left their homes because they were scared after the bombing started. Some of the Albanians said the only time they saw the Serb police was when they came to sell cigarettes to the Albanians. We should not be in Yugoslavia for obvious constitutional and moral reasons, but the American people should not believe the incessant propaganda that is put out by NATO on a daily basis. NATO's motives are surely suspect. I meet no one who can with a straight face claim that it was NATO's concern for the suffering of the refugees that prompted the bombing and demands by some to escalate the war with the introduction of ground troops. Even with NATO's effort to justify its aggression, they rarely demonstrate a hit on a military target. All this fine star wars technology and we see reruns of strikes with perfect accuracy hitting infrastructures like bridges and buildings. I have yet to see one picture of a Serbian tank being hit, and I am sure if they had some classy film like that we would have seen it many times on the nightly television. NATO must admit its mistake in entering this civil war. It violates the NATO treaty and the U.N. Charter, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The mission has failed. The policy is flawed. Innocent people are dying. It is costing a lot of money. It is undermining our national security and there are too many accidents. I am sick and tired of hearing NATO's daily apologies. There's nothing America can be proud of in this effort and if we don't quickly get out of it, it could very well escalate and the getting out made impossible. The surest and quickest way to do this is for Congress today to reject the funding for this war. The only answer to senseless foreign intervention is a pro-American constitutional policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations; a policy of friendship and trade with those who are willing and neutrality with others who are involved in conflict. This is the only policy that makes sense and can give us the peace and prosperity all Americans desire.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enlist support for a bill I have introduced to repeal statutes which have now resulted in more than one hundred years of government intervention in the marketplace. In 1890, at the behest of Senator Sherman, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed allowing the federal government to intervene in the process of competition, inter alia, whenever a firm captured market share by offering a better product at a lower price. The Market Process Restoration Act of 1999, H.R. 1789, will preclude such intervention. Antitrust statutes governmentally facilitate interference in the voluntary market transactions of individuals. Evaluation of the antitrust laws has not proceeded from an analysis of their nature or of their necessary consequences, but from an impressionistic reaction to their announced gain. Alan Greenspan, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, described the ``world of antitrust'' as ``reminiscent of Alice's Wonderland: Everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn't, simultaneously.'' Antitrust is, according to Greenspan ``a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet, `too much' competition is condemned as `cutthroat'. * * * A world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as `enlightened' when initiated by government. A world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict--after the fact.'' And, of course, obscure, incoherent, and vague legislation can make legality unattainable by anyone, or at least unattainable without an unauthorized revision which itself impairs legality. The Sherman Act was a tool used to regulate some of the most competitive industries in America, which were rapidly expanding their output and reducing their prices, much to the dismay of their less efficient (but politically influential) competitors. The Sherman Act, moreover, was used as a political fig leaf to shield the real cause of monopoly in the late 1880's--protectionism. the chief sponsor of the 1890 tariff bill, passed just three months after the Sherman Act, was none other than Senator Sherman himself. One function of the Sherman Act was to divert public attention from the certain source of monopoly--Government's grant of exclusive privilege. But, as George Reisman, Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University's Graziadio School of Business and Management in Los Angeles, explains ``everyone, it seems, took for granted the prevailing belief that the essential feature of monopoly is that a given product or service is provided by just one supplier. On this view of things, Microsoft, like Alcoa and Standard Oil before it, belongs in the same category as the old British East India Company or such more recent instances of companies with exclusive government franchises as the local gas or electric company or the U.S. Postal Service with respect to the delivery of first class mail. What all of these cases have in common, and which is considered essential to the existence of monopoly, according to the prevailing view, is that they all represent instances in which there is only one seller. By the same token, what is not considered essential, according to the prevailing view of monopoly, is whether the sellers position depends on the initiation of physical force or, to the contrary, is achieved as the result of freedom of competition and the choice of the market.'' Microsoft, Alcoa,and Standard Oil represent cases of a sole supplier, or at least come close to such a case. However, totally unlike the cases of exclusive government franchises, their position in the market is not (or was not) the result of the initiation of physical force but rather the result of their successful free competition. That is, they became sole suppliers by virtue of being able to produce products profitably at prices too low for other suppliers to remain in or enter the market, or to produce products whose performance and quality others simply could not match. Even proponents of antitrust prosecution acknowledge this. In the Standard Oil case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in its 1911 decision breaking up the company: ``Much has been said in favor of the objects of the Standard Oil Trust, and what it has accomplished. It may be true that it has improved the quality and cheapened the costs of petroleum and its products to the consumer.'' It is the dynamic model of competition under which only ``free'' entry is required that insures maximization of consumer welfare within the nature-given condition of scarcity and reconciles the ideal of pure liberty with that of economic efficiency. The free market in the world of production may be termed ``free competition'' or ``free entry'', meaning that in a free society anyone is free to compete and produce in any field he chooses. ``Free competition'' is the application of liberty to the sphere of production: the freedom to buy, sell, and transform one's property without violent interference by an external power. As argued by Alan Greenspan, ``the ultimate regulator of competition in a free economy is the capital market. So long as capital is free to flow, it will tend to seek those areas which offer the maximum rate of return.'' The purpose of my bill is to restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law which currently prevents efficiency-maximizing voluntary exchange.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in strong opposition to the supplemental appropriation. The President came to us and asked us to fund the NATO war, asked for $7.9 billion, but we in the conservative Congress have decided that not only would we give it to him, but we would bump that up to $15 billion, which does not make a whole lot of sense, especially if Congress has spoken out on what they think of the war. And Congress has. We have had several votes already. We have voted and said that we did not think that ground troops should be sent in. And most military people tell us that the only way we are going to win the war is with ground troops. So we have taken a strong position. We have had a chance to vote on declaration of war and make a decision one way or the other. We have strongly said we are not going to declare war. We have spoken out on the air war. We did not even endorse the air war. And the President has spent a lot of money. They are hoping to get a lot of this money back from the European nations, but all that makes us are professional mercenaries fighting wars for other people, which I do not agree with. But here we are getting ready to fund Europe, fund a war that is undeclared. It does not make any sense. We are giving more money to the President than he asked for in a war that cannot be won and a war that we are not even determined to fight. It just does not make any sense. So in order to get enough votes to pass the bill, of course we put a little bit of extras on there to satisfy some special interests in order to get some more votes. But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This does not make any sense. We have to finally say, ``enough is enough.'' This is how we get into trouble. This is how we make mistakes. And every day we hear of another mistake and apologies being made, innocent people dying. We should not vote for this supplemental funding.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have come forward in the past to suggest that the history of this century has shown us that the foreign policy of so-called ``pragmatic interventionists'' has created a disastrous situation. Specifically, I have pointed to the unintended consequences of our government's interventions. Namely, I have identified how World War One helped create the environment for the holocaust and how it thus helped create World War Two and thermonuclear war. And, I've mentioned how the Second World War resulted in the enslavement of much of Europe behind an iron curtain setting off the cold war, and spread the international communism and then our own disastrous foray into Vietnam. Yes, all of these wars and tragedies, wars hot and cold, were in part caused by the so-called ``war to end all wars.'' Today I do not wish to investigate yet again the details of this history but rather to examine, at a deeper level, why this sort of policy is doomed to fail. The base reason is that pragmatism is illogical and interventionism does not work. The notion that we can have successes without regard to the ends to be sought is absurd. It should be obvious to practical people that you cannot have ``progress,'' for example, without progressing toward some end. Equally as apparent ought to be the fact that human effectiveness cannot occur without considering the ends of human beings. Peace, freedom and virtue are ends toward which we ought to progress, but all reference to ends is rejected by the so-called pragmatists. Because of this lack of clarity of purpose we come to accept an equally unclear contortion of our language. Our military is ``too thin,'' it has been ``hollowed out'' and it is ``unprepared.'' But for what are we unprepared? And what policy is our army ``too hollow'' to carry out? If we remain unprepared to conduct total warfare across the globe, we should be thankful of this fact. If we are unprepared to police the world or to project power into every civil war, or ``to win two different regional conflicts,'' this is good. We are distracted by these dilemmas which result from unclear thought and unclear language. We convince ourselves that we need to be effective without having a goal in mind. Certainly we have no just end in mind because our pragmatic interventionists deny that ends exist. ``Preparedness'' is a word that has been thrown around a lot recently, but it begs the question ``prepared for what?'' No nation attacked ours, no nation has threatened ours, no sane leader would do so as it would be the death warrant of his own nation, his own people, and likely his own self. We are prepared to repel an attack and meet force with force but not necessarily to protect our nation and the populace. We are still vulnerable to a missile attack and have done little to protect against such a possibility. Thus or contortions and distortions that have led to dilemmas in our thoughts and dilemmas in our policy have led also to real paradoxes. Because our policy of globaloney is so bad, so unprincipled and so bound up with the notions of interventionism, we now face this strange truth: we ought to spend less on our military but we should spend more on defense. Our troops are underpaid, untertrained and poorly outfitted for the tasks we have given them. We are vulnerable to missile attack, and how do we spend our constituents money? What priorities have we set in this body? We vote to purchase a few more bombs to drop over Serbia or Iraq. Our policy is flawed. Our nation is at risk. Our defenses are weakened by those people who say they are ``hawks'' and those who claim they ``support the troops.'' Our policy is the end to which we must make ourselves effective, and currently our policy is all wrong. Our constitution grants us the obligation to defend this nation, and the right to defend only this nation. I should hope that we will never be prepared to police the world. We should not be militarily prepared nor philosophically prepared for such a policy. We need to refocus our military force policy and the way to do that is clear. It is to return it to the constitutionally authorized role of defending our country. Again, this is not simply a question of policy, and not merely a political question. No Mr. Speaker, the source of our quandary is the minds and hearts of human beings. Bad philosophy will always lead to bad policy precisely because ideas do have consequences. Here the bad idea to be found at the source of our malady is absurd pragmatism, a desire to be ``effective'' without having any idea what the end is that we trying to affect. It becomes evident in our policy and in our language. ``Now we are in it we must win it.'' But we know not what ``win'' means, other than ``be effective.'' But we are ``unprepared,'' but unprepared for what? Unprepared to be effective! But what is it, we are ineffective at achieving? ``Well, winning,'' is the reply. Without ends our policies become tautological. And with the wrong policy, our execution becomes disastrous. We must reject this absurd pragmatism and reestablish a military policy based on the defense of our nation. Only then we will be able to take the steps necessary for effectiveness, and preparedness. No billions in appropriations can make our present policy effective.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook amendment. I think that this would send a strong message that we do not endorse this war. It was said that this is the same vote that we had last week, but last week's vote is sitting on the table and it is going to sit there. This one may well go someplace and have an effect. So this is a much more important vote that we had last week. It is very important that we vote the same way as we did last week. I think it is interesting, I think we have an interesting constitutional question here, because I agree with the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that it is not the prerogative of the Congress to micromanage a war. That is correct. It is the job of the Congress to declare the war. But here we have a Congress involved in diplomacy and micromanaging a war that has not been declared. That is the issue. The issue is not the micromanaging. I can support this amendment because the war has not been declared. The issue is how do we permit the President to wage a war without us declaring the war. Once we declare the war, it is true, we should not be talking about whether or not we use airplanes or foot soldiers or whatever. We do not micromanage. We do not get involved in diplomacy maneuvers. But today we have things turned upside down. We have the President declaring where and we say nothing and the Congress micromanaging the war that should not exist. We need to consider that. And we can straighten this mess out by rejecting these funds. It is suggested that this amendment would go a long way to doing it. I am not all that optimistic. For us to say to the President ``thou shalt not use these funds for the ground war,'' well, he has not had the authority to wage his air war. Why would he listen to us now? Can we trust him and say that he is going to listen to what we tell him? Of course not. He is already fighting his air war and he will continue to. And he has set the standard, and not he alone, all our Presidents from World War II have set the standard that they will do what they darn well please. This is why I have been encouraged in the last couple weeks that this debate has been going on, because it is an important debate. I have finally seen this Congress at least addressing the subject on whether or not they should take back the prerogatives of war and not allow it to remain in the hands of the President. This is very, very good. I have come to the House floor on numerous occasions since February, taking this position that we should not be involved. As a matter of fact, we had a couple dozen, maybe three dozen Members in this Congress who signed on a bill in February, a month or so before we even saw the bombs dropping in Yugoslavia, that would have prevented this whole mess if we would have stood up and assumed our responsibilities. It is said that we must move in now to help the refugees. Have we looked at the statistics? How many refugees did we have before the bombing started? Others say, well, we must move in because Milosevic is so strong. Prior to the bombing, Milosevic was weak. Talk about unintended consequences. They are so numerous. What about the unintended consequence of supporting the KLA who are supported by Osama Bin Laden? How absurd can it get? Osama Bin Laden was our good friend because he was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan and we gave him our weapons and supported him. But then we found out he was not quite so friendly, so we captured a few of his men and he retaliated by bombing our embassies. Of course, we retaliated by bombing innocent chemical plants as well as people in Afghanistan that had nothing to do with it. So where are we now? We are back to supporting and working hard and just deliberating over whether we should give weapons to the KLA. I mean, the whole thing is absurd. There is only one thing that we should do, and that is stop this funding and stop the war. My colleagues say, oh, no, we are already too far in that we cannot. It is not supporting the troops. Well, who wants to get down here and challenge me and say that I do not support our troops? I support our troops. I served in the military for 5 years. That is not a worthwhile challenge. We all support our troops. They say, well, no, they are in a quagmire and we have to help them and this is the only way we can do it. So the President comes and asks us for $6 billion and then, in Congress's infinite wisdom, we give him $13 billion. And yet, we do not declare war. This appropriation should be defeated.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is far from perfect, but it allows adequate debate, and it will certainly allow us who think that it is unwise to increase the spending to vote against the spending. It certainly allows an opportunity for those who think that we should double the spending to explain why we should spend so much money on a war that we have not declared. Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that this war has been pursued for over a month. We have not appropriated the funds, so whether or not we act today, the war will continue, unfortunately. The war has not been declared, but if we go ahead and fund it, we become partners in this war. I do not think that is a wise policy. We should not provide the funding. Mr. Speaker, there is a fallacy, that floats around this House that says that if we increase the funding for the military, we will have greater defense. That reminds me of the accusation from the right that always challenges the left that says, if there is a social problem, all you want ever to do is throw more money at it. The worse the problem gets, the more money they want to spend on the social problem. It seems like the worse our defense gets and the more we get into quagmires around the world and the more we accept the policy of policing the world, all we seem to do is come back and say, well, if we just put more money in it, everything is going to be okay. But if we are in a quagmire, if we are following a policy that is unwise, the money might just make conditions much worse. I think this is why we must defeat the spending on this program, because the problems with what is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq will be compounded as long as the administration has the money to fund the war. Yes, I am for a strong national defense, but if the policy is wrong, it will undermine all the spending. The money will actually be wasted. Funding encourages a policy that is in error. Funding is an endorsement of the war. We must realize that it is equivalent to it. We have not declared this war. If we fund it, we essentially become partners in this ill-advised war.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Teacher Appreciation week by expressing my appreciation for the valuable work of America's teachers and to ask my colleagues to support two pieces of legislation I have introduced to get the government off the backs, and out of the pockets, of America's teachers. Yesterday I introduced legislation to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for national teacher testing or certification. A national teacher test would force all teachers to be trained in accordance with federal standards, thus dramatically increasing the Department of Education's control over the teaching profession. I have also introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act (HR 937) which provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. The Teacher Tax Cut Act thus increases teachers' salaries without raising federal expenditures. It lets America's teachers know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by raising teacher take-home pay, the Teacher Tax Cut Act encourages high-quality people to enter, and remain in, the teaching profession. Mr. Speaker, these two bills send a strong signal to America's teachers that we in Congress are determined to encourage good people to enter and remain in the teaching profession and that we want teachers to be treated as professionals, not as Education Department functionaries. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for national teacher testing and to give America's teachers a $1,000 tax credit.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Jack C. Hays School Rebel Band of Buda, Texas, recently earned the distinct honor of being selected for the 1999 ``Sudler Flag of Honor'' award from the John Philip Sousa Foundation. This award is the highest recognition of excellence in concert performance that a high school band can receive. During the 17 years the award has been in existence, only 39 bands from the entire United States and Canada have been selected for the Flag of Honor award. Conductor Gerald Babbitt and his Rebel band deserve our praise and recognition on the occasion of receiving this prestigious award. The John Philip Sousa Foundation designed this award to identify and recognize high school concert band programs of very special excellence at the international level. To be eligible for nomination, a band must have maintained excellence over a period of many years in several areas including concert, marching, small ensemble and soloists. The director must have been the conductor of the band for at least the previous seven consecutive years including the year of the award. Each recipient receives a four-by-six foot ``Flag of Honor'' which becomes the property of the band. The flag is designed in red, white and blue and bears the logo of the John Philip Sousa Foundation. The conductor receives a personal plaque and each student in the band receives a personalized diploma. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to have such an outstanding high school band in the 14th Congressional District. I am delighted to extend my hearty congratulations to them. Their hard work and dedication is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how many innocent civilians must die before we stop bombing Serbia? We rightfully cherish the lives of our three servicemen and rejoice in their return, but how many Serbs will never rejoice because of all the death and destruction we have rained down upon them by casually dismissing as necessary mistakes of war a war that is not real to us yet only too real to those who are needlessly killed. Serb victims are people, too, who love their families and hate the war, yet become the victims of this ill-conceived policy of NATO aggression. It is a strange argument, indeed, that the capture of our three soldiers was illegal and yet our bombing of civilians is not. Violence, when not in one's own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation. It only makes things worse. The goal of peace and harmony can never be achieved by bombs and intimidation. That goal can only be achieved by honest friendship and trade when permissible and neutrality when armed conflict prevents it. We must not fund this senseless bombing.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop the bombing. NATO's war against Serbia left the Congress and the American people in a quandary, and no wonder. The official excuse for NATO's bombing war is that Milosevic would not sign a treaty drawn up by NATO, which would have taken Kosovo away from the Serbs after the KLA demanded independence from Serbia. This war is immoral because Serbia did not commit aggression against us. We were not attacked and there has been no threat to our national security. This war is illegal. It is undeclared. There has been no congressional authorization and no money has been appropriated for it. The war is pursued by the U.S. under NATO's terms, yet it is illegal even according to NATO's treaty as well as the U.N. charter. The internationalists do not even follow their own laws and do not care about the U.S. Constitution. The humanitarian excuse for the war is suspect. Economic interests are involved, as they so often are in most armed conflicts. NATO's vaguely stated goals have not been achieved. For the most part, the opposite has. Let me give my colleagues a few examples. Number one. Milosevic is now more powerful than ever; the Serb's more unified. Number two. Russia is now alienated from the west. Their hold on a nuclear arsenal is ignored. Along with Russia's economic desperation and political instability, NATO is pushing Russia into a new alliance against the west. Number three. Innocent Serbs and Albanian citizens are routinely being killed by our bombs. Number four. Civilian targets are deliberately hit, including water, power and sewer plants, fuel storage and TV stations. Number five. An economic embargo is now being instituted to starve children and prevent medications from reaching the sick, just as we have been doing for a decade against Iraq. Number six. This war institutionalizes foreign control over our troops. Tony Blair now tells Bill Clinton how to fight a NATO war, while the U.S. taxpayers pay for it. Number seven. Greater instability in the region has resulted. Number eight. We are once again supporting Osama bin Laden and his friends in the KLA. Number nine. We have bombed Bulgaria. By mistake, of course. Sorry. Number ten. Our weapons are being depleted, our troops spread too thin, resulting in further undermining of our national defense. Number eleven. Billions of dollars are thrown down a rat hole and Congress is about to vote for more. Number twelve. The massive refugee problem, which is essentially a result of NATO's bombing, continues. Up until now, general defense funds have been spent to wage this war without permission. The President wants to catch up and is asking for $6 billion, but Congress, in its infinite wisdom, wants to give him $13 billion for a war Congress rejects. Once we directly fund the war we will be partners in this misadventure. The votes last week were symbolic. They had no effect of law, but appropriations do. Saying the new appropriations will be used to beef up a neglected defense does not make it so. Defense funds are fungible. The President has proven this by waging a war for a month without any authorization or appropriation. Congress will no more control the next $13 billion than the money the President has already spent on the war. Appropriating funds to fight a war, even without a declaration, provides a much more powerful legal and political endorsement of the war than the public statements made against it by nonbinding resolutions passed by the House last week. Declaring war and funding war are two powerful tools of the Congress to restrain a president from waging an unwise and illegal war. If the President pursues an undeclared war and we fund it, we become partners, no matter what justification is given for the spending. Only chaos can come from ignoring the strict prohibition by the Constitution of a president unilaterally waging war. If a president ignores the absence of a declaration, and we are serious, the only option left to Congress is the power of the purse, which is clearly the responsibility of the Congress. We should not fund this illegal and immoral NATO war.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to forbid the use of federal funds to develop or implement a national system of teacher certification or a national teacher test. My bill also forbids the Department of Education from denying funds to any state or local education agency because that state or local educational agency has refused to adopt a federally-approved method of teacher certification or testing. This legislation in no way interferes with a state's ability to use federal funds to support their chosen method of teacher certification or testing. Having failed to implement a national curriculum through the front door with national student testing (thanks to the efforts of members of the Education Committee under the leadership of Chairman Goodling), the administration is now trying to implement a national curriculum through the backdoor with national teacher testing and certification. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching certificate. Therefore, I call on those of my colleagues who oppose a national curriculum to join me in opposing national teacher testing and certification with the same vigor with which you opposed national student testing. Many educators are already voicing opposition to national teacher cerification and testing. The Coalition of Independent Education Associations (CIEA), which represents the majority of the over 300,000 teachers who are members of independent educators associations, has passed a resolution opposing the nationalization of teacher certification and testing; I have attached a copy of this resolution for insertion into the Congressional Record. As more and more teachers realize the impact of this proposal, I expect opposition from the education community to grow. Teachers want to be treated as professionals, not as minions of the federal government. Legislation has already been introduced in the Texas State Legislature prohibiting the use of any national certification or national examination to determine if someone is qualified to teach in Texas. While I applaud this legislation, I wonder if Texas would change its' policies if the Department of Education threatened to deny Texas federal funds if Texas failed to adopt the Department's chosen method of teacher certification and testing. It is up to Congress to see that the Department of Education does not bully the states into adopting the method of teacher certification and testing favored by DC-based bureaucrats. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to join me in opposing national teacher certification or national teacher testing. Training and certification of classroom teachers is the job of state governments, local school districts, educators, and parents; this vital function should not be usurped by federal bureaucrats and/or politicians. Please stand up for America's teachers and students by signing on as a cosponsor of my legislation to ensure taxpayer dollars do not support national teacher certification or national teacher testing. Coalition of Independent Education Associations--Statement on National Teacher Licensure, February 26, 1999 The licensure of teachers should remain the responsibility of each state's Board of Education and any attempt to authorize the federal government to govern this process should be opposed. Secretary of Education Richard Riley's proposal (February 16, 1999) to empower a teacher panel to grant licenses for teaching would remove the separate state's authority to protect the welfare of the general public. Teaching is a public enterprise and not a private profession. Such high stakes licensure decisions must be controlled by a body that is responsible to the public and has accountability for the quality of the decision. The current education reform movement has compelled states' Boards of Education to revamp and improve teacher licensure programs. This right should be left to the states to best determine how they license state teachers. Congress should oppose any movement toward federalizing educator licensure, teacher appraisal, and employment contracts. The undersigned representatives of the Coalition of Independent Education Associations strongly urge our members of the Congress and the Senate to vigorously defend the rights of states to control their educational destiny. Arizona Professional Educators, Association of American Educators, Association of Professional Educators of Louisiana, Association of Professional Oklahoma Educators, Association of Texas Professional Educators, Kentucky Association of Professional Educators, Keystone Teachers Association, West Virginia Professional Educators, Mississippi Professional Educators, National Association of Professional Educators, Palmetto State Teachers Association, Professional Educators Network of Florida, Professional Educators of Iowa, Professional Educators of North Carolina, Professional Educators of Tennessee.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H. Con. Res. 84, the resolution calling for full-funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). My opposition to this act should in no way be interpreted as opposition to increased spending on education. However, the way to accomplish this worthy goal is to allow parents greater control over education resources by cutting taxes, thus allowing parents to devote more of their resources to educating their children in such a manner as they see fit. Massive tax cuts for the American family, not increased spending on federal programs should be this Congress' top priority. The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/ or local level! This bill further assures that control over the education dollar will remain centered in Washington by calling for Congress to ``meet the commitment to fund existing Federal education programs.'' Thus, this bill not only calls on Congress to increase funding for IDEA, it also calls on Congress to not cut funds for any program favored by Congress. The practical effect of this bill is to place yet another obstacle in the road of fulfilling Congress' constitutional mandate to put control of education back into the hands of the people. Rather than increasing federal spending, Congress should focus on returning control over education to the American people by enacting the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K-12 education expenses. Passage of this act would especially benefit parents whose children have learning disabilities as those parents have the greatest need to devote a large portion of their income toward their child's education. The Family Education Freedom Act will allow parents to develop an individualized education plan that will meet the needs of their own child. Each child is a unique person and we must seriously consider whether disabled children's special needs can be best met by parents, working with local educators, free from interference from Washington or federal educrats. After all, an increase in expenditures cannot make a Washington bureaucrat know or love a child as much as that child's parent. It is time for Congress to restore control over education to the American people. The only way to accomplish this goal is to defund education programs that allow federal bureaucrats to control America's schools. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to reject H. Con. Res. 84 and instead join my efforts to pass the Family Education Freedom Act. If Congress gets Washington off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of parents, American children will be better off.