Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue. I am pleased to have this opportunity to reiterate my strong support for the National Right to Work Act, HR 59. Unlike much of the legislation considered before this Congress, this bill expands freedom by repealing those sections of federal law that authorize compulsory unionism, laws that Congress had no constitutional authority to enact in the first place! Since the problem of compulsory unionism was created by Congress, only Congress can solve it. While state Right to Work laws provide some modicum of worker freedom, they do not cover millions of workers on federal enclaves, in the transportation industries, or on Indian Reservations. Contrary to the claims of Right to Work opponents, this bill in no way infringes on state autonomy. I would remind my colleagues that, prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, no state had a law requiring workers to join a union or pay union dues. Compulsory unionism was forced on the people and the states when Congress nationalized labor policy in 1935. It strains logic to suggest that repeal of any federal law is somehow a violation of states' rights. I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this bill does not in any way infringe on the rights of workers to voluntary join or support a labor union or any other labor organization. Nothing in HR 59 interferes with the ability of a worker to organize, strike, or support union political activity if those actions stem from a worker's choice. Furthermore, nothing in HR 59 interferes with the internal affairs of unions. All the National Right to Work Bill does is stop the federal government from forcing a worker to support a labor union against that worker's will. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join a union should be made by the worker, not by the government. No wonder the overwhelming majority of the American people support the National Right to Work Act, as shown both by polling results and by the many postcards and petitions my office has received asking for Congressional action on this bill. I once again thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership on this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing an establishment of Federal standards for birth certificates and drivers' licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the Federal Government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform State drivers' licenses into national ID cards. If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their second amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight until they can produce a State driver's license that is the equivalent of conforming to Federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may be forced to present a federally approved driver's license before consulting their doctors for medical treatment. My fellow colleagues, make no doubt about this, this is a national I.D. card. We do not need it. Please join me in an effort to stop it.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for offering it. Certainly, if nothing else, we ought to protect the rights of individuals and groups to distribute voter guides. There is an argument here whether or not it is actually doing this. But, obviously, the Member from California feels strongly that this is necessary in order to protect this right. There has been a lot of talk here about soft money. I just often wonder about soft money. I know something about hard money. But this business of soft money and soft money automatically being bad is something we should think seriously about. Because so often when we are talking about soft money, we are talking about the people's money, their money, their property. Sure, it is a first amendment right. But there is also a property rights issue here. When people have money, they have a right to spend it; and if they want to spend it on a voters guide, they certainly ought to be able to do this. So I think it is a very important amendment and we should pay close attention to this to make sure that we pass this amendment. The problem with attacking big money without knowing why there is big money involved in politics I think is the problem that we face. Big money is a problem. They are spending $100 million a month to lobby us in the Congress and hundreds of millions of dollars in the campaign, but nobody ever talks about why they are doing it. There is a tremendous incentive to send all this money up here. Unless we deal with the incentive, we cannot deal with the problem. So, so far, almost all the talk that we have heard on this campaign finance reform is dealing with the symptom. The cause is Government is too big. Government is so big there is a tremendous incentive for people to invest this money. So as long as we do not deal with that problem, we are going to see a tremendous amount of money involved. But what is wrong with people spending their own money to come here and fight for their freedom? What if they are a right-to-life group? What if they are a pro-gun-ownership group? What if they are a pro- property-ownership group? Why should they not be able to come and spend the money like the others have? It just seems like they have been able to become more effective here in the last few years, and it seems like now we have to clamp down on them because they have an effective way to come here and fight for some of their freedoms back again. So I think that we are misguided when we talk only about the money and not dealing with the incentive to spend the money, and that is big government. All the rules in the world will not change these problems. We had a tremendous amount of rules and laws written since the early 1970s and all it has done is compounded our problems. So I think openness and reporting requirements to let people know where we are getting the money, let the people decide if we are taking too much from one group. But to come down hard and attack on individual liberty and the right for people to spend their money and the right for the people to distribute voters guides, I cannot say see how that is going to solve any problems. I mean, what are we doing here? I think it is total foolishness. So I strongly endorse this amendment, and let us hope we can pass this amendment.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express skepticism regarding H.R. 4105, The Internet Tax Freedom Act. The stated goal of H.R. 4105 certainly is noble: ``A bill to establish a national policy against State and local interference with interstate commerce on the Internet, to exercise congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce by establishing a moratorium on the imposition of exactions that would interfere with the free flow of commerce via the Internet, to establish a national policy against federal and state regulation of Internet access and online services, and for other purposes.'' The bill's name, ``Tax Freedom,'' also expresses a laudable notion. One must always be wary of misnomers in Washington--the Justice Department comes to mind as one quick example. The late economic historian, Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D., so warned when he stated ``when someone in government mentions the word `fairness', grab your wallet and run for the hills.'' I am, nevertheless, always suspicious when a recently-crafted bill comes to the House floor not only having bypassed the Committee process but without any advance warning. Such was the case with this bill. Moreover, this bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules which does not allow for amendments and which limits the debate time to twenty minutes on each side. I, in fact, was denied an opportunity to speak by those managing the limited time allowable under this process. However laudable the stated goal of tax freedom this bill still encroaches on state's right to raise revenue and reserves instead (establishes) an exclusive right for national and international governments to instead impose the ``proper'' form of taxation and distribute it to local governments as these larger governmental bodies ultimately see fit. At the same time, this particular bill rewards those states which were quick to tax their citizens by ``grandfathering'' their taxes while excluding other States' rights to do so certainly making this a bill that lacks uniformity. If the intended purpose of the legislation was simply to keep the internet tax free, a three paragraph bill would have been adequate to accomplish this. Instead, H.R. 4105 is significantly more complex. It, in fact, creates a new 30-member federal commission tasked with, among other things: Examining model State legislation relating to taxation of transactions using the Internet and Internet access, including uniform terminology, definitions of the transactions, services, and other activities that may be subject to State and local taxation, procedural structures and mechanisms applicable to such taxation, and a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between States regarding matters involving multiple taxation; Examining a simplified system for administration and collection of sales and use tax for remote commerce, that incorporates all manner of making consumer payments, that would provide for a single statewide sales or use tax rate (which rate may be zero), and would establish a method of distributing to political subdivisions within each State their proportionate share of such taxes, including an examination of collection of sales or use tax by small volume remote sellers only in the State of origin; Examining ways to simplify the interstate administration of sales and use tax on remote commerce, including a review of the need for a single or uniform tax registration, single or uniform tax returns, simplified remittance requirements, and simplified administrative procedures; and Examining the need for an independent third party collection system that would utilize the Internet to further simplify sales and use tax administration and collection; These H.R. 4105-established ``duties'' suggest that the Commission's real purpose is to design a well-engineered system of taxation (efficient tyranny) rather than keep citizens in a state of ``Tax Freedom'' as the bill's name suggests. I encourage my colleagues in this House as well as citizens of this country to be wary of federal and international encroachment upon the privacy and efficiency currently available to individuals around the globe via the internet.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it has recently come to my attention that James Grant has made a public warning regarding monetary crises. In an Op-Ed entitled ``Every Currency Crumbles'' in The New York Times on Friday, June 19, 1998, he explains that monetary crises are as old as money. Some monetary systems outlive others: the Byzantine empire minted the bezant, the standard gold coin, for 800 years with the same weight and fineness. By contrast, the Japanese yen, he points out, is considered significantly weak at 140 against the U.S. dollar now to warrant intervention in the foreign exchange markets but was 360 as recently as 1971. The fiat U.S. dollar is not immune to the same fate as other paper currencies. As Mr. Grant points out, ``The history of currencies is unambiguous. The law is, Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.'' Mr. James Grant is the editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, a financial publication, and editorial director of Grant's Municipal Bond Observer and Grant's Asia Observer. He has also authored several books including the biographical ``Bernard Baruch: Adventures of a Wall Street Legend'', the best financial book of the year according to The Financial Times ``Money of the Mind: Borrowing and Lending in America from the Civil War to Michael Milken'', ``Minding Mr. Market: Ten Years on Wall Street with Grant's Interest Rate Observer'' and ``The Trouble with Prosperity: The Loss of Fear, the Rise of Speculation, and the Risk to American Savings''. He is a frequent guest on news and financial programs, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. [From the New York Times, June 19, 1998] Every Currency Crumbles (By James Grant) Currencies, being made of paper, are highly flammable, and governments are forever trying to put out the fires. Thus a half decade before the bonfire of the baht, the rupiah and the yen, there was the conflagration of the markka, the lira and the pound. The dollar, today's global standard of value, was smoldering ominously as recently as 1992. Monetary crises are almost as old as money. What is different today is the size of these episodes. It isn't every monetary era that features recurrent seismic shifts in the exchange values of so-called major currencies. On Wednesday morning, after coordinated American and Japanese intervention, the weakling yen became 5 percent less weak in a matter of hours. People with even a little bit of money ought to be asking what it's made of. J.S.G. Boggs, an American artist, has made an important contribution to monetary theory with his lifelike paintings of dollar bills. So authentic do these works appear--at least at first glance, before Mr. Boggs' own signature ornamentation becomes apparent--that the Secret Service has investigated him for counterfeiting. ``All money is art,'' Mr. Boggs has responded. Currency management is a political art. The intrinsic value of a unit of currency is the cost of the paper and printing. The stated value of a unit of currency derives from the confidence of the holder in the promises of the issuing government. It cannot undergird confidence that the monetary fires are becoming six- and seven-alarmers. Writing in 1993 about the crisis of the European Rate Mechanism (in which George Soros bested the Bank of England by correcting anticipating a devaluation of the pound), a central bankers' organization commented: ``Despite its geographical confinement to Europe, it is probably no exaggeration to say that the period from late 1991 to early 1993 witnessed the most severe and widespread foreign exchange market crisis since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods System 20 years ago.'' But the European crisis has been handily eclipsed by the Asian one. Monetary systems have broken down every generation or so for the past century. The true-blue international gold standard didn't survive World War I. Its successor, a half- strength gold standard, didn't survive the Great Depression. The Bretton Woods regime--in which the dollar was convertible into gold and the other, lesser currencies were convertible into the dollar--didn't survive the inflationary period of the late 1960's and early 1970's. Today, the unnamed successor to Bretton Woods is showing its years. The present-day system is also dollar-based, but it differs from Bretton Woods in that the dollar is no longer anchored to anything. It is defined as 100 cents and only as 100 cents. Its value is derived not from a specified weight of gold, as it was up until Aug. 15, 1971, but from the confidence of the market. For the moment, the market is highly confident. So is the world at large. In 1996, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that some 60 percent of all American currency in existence circulates overseas. The dollar has become the Coca-Cola of monetary brands. However, as Madison Avenue knows as well as Wall Street, brand loyalties are fickle. In the early 1890's, the United States Treasury was obliged to seek a bailout from the Morgan bank. During the great inflation of the 1970's, Italian hotel clerks, offered payments in dollars, rolled their eyes. The yen, today reckoned dangerously weak at 140 or so to the dollar, was 360 as recently as 1971. The tendency of the purchasing power of every paper currency down through the ages is to regress. Is there any good reason that the dollar, universally esteemed today, should be different? None. Certainly, the deterioration of the American balance- of-payments position doesn't bode well for the dollar's long- term exchange rate. Consuming more than it produces, the United States must finance the shortfall. And it is privileged to be able to pay its overseas bills with dollars, the currency that it alone can legally produce. Thailand would be a richer country today if the world would accept baht, and nothing but baht, in exchange for goods and services. It won't, of course. America and the dollar are uniquely blessed. Or were. France and Germany have led the movement to create a pan-European currency, one that would compete with the dollar as both a store of value and a medium of exchange. The euro, as the new monetary brand is called, constitutes the first serious competitive threat to the dollar since the glory days of the pound sterling. In a world without a fixed standard of value, a currency is strong or weak only in relation to other currencies. The dollar's ``strength,'' therefore, is a mirror image of--for example--the yen's ``weakness.'' It is not necessarily a reflection of the excellence of the American economy. And no degree of excellence can forestall a new monetary crisis indefinitely. Some monetary systems are better than others, and some last longer than others, but each and every one comes a cropper. The bezant, the standard gold coin of the Byzantine empire, was minted for 800 years at the same weight and fineness. The gold may still be in existence (in fact--no small recommendation for gold bullion--it probably is), but the empire has fallen. After the 1994 crisis involving the Mexican peso, the world's financial establishment vowed to stave off a recurrence. Even as the experts delivered their speeches, however, Asian banks were overlending and Asian businesses were overborrowing; the credit-cum-currency eruption followed in short order. Naturally, officials and editorialists are now calling for even better fire prevention systems. But ``stability,'' the goal so sought after, is ever unattainable. The history of currencies is unambiguous. The law is, Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3853, The Drug- Free Workplace Act. Certainly there are many things the Federal Government can do to minimize the negative impact illicit drug users have upon society. Further expanding a philosophically bankrupt national drug war policy with the creation of yet another costly federally-funded program is not the answer. Specifically, this bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 1999 thus further shifting the cost burden from the irresponsible drug user to the taxpayer. Allowing the cost of drug use to fall on the irresponsible drug user rather than allowing that user to socialize his or her costs upon the innocent taxpayer would be a worthwhile step in the right direction. The dangerous socialization of costs is a consequence of various Federal actions. A Federal Government which reduces the cost of drug use by supplying free needles is one example. But this practice is but a minor example of exactly how the Federal Government has made matters worse by lowering the costs and encouraging the expansion of risky behavior. We must, once and for all, expose the fallacy that problems can be solved simply by cost spreading--in other words, that all risky behavior should be socialized by the government. A Federal Government that accepts responsibility for paying the rehabilitation costs and medical costs of its citizens who act irresponsibly is certain to do only one thing--increase the number of those who engage in such behavior. If we lower the cost of anything, we necessarily increase the incidence. But this is not only true when we are dealing with drugs. It has to do with cigarettes, alcohol, and all risky behavior. The whole tobacco legislation controversy is the natural consequence of the same flawed policy. That is, because government ``must'' pay the health costs of people who get sick from dangerous behavior with cigarettes, government must also regulate the tobacco companies and deprive all citizens of liberties which may at times involve risky behavior. Once the taxpayer is called upon to pay, costs skyrocket. Moreover, the Federal Government further makes matters worse by imposing employment regulations which make it difficult to terminate employees who engage in drug or alcohol abuse. Such a regulatory regime further socializes the costs of irresponsibility upon innocents by forcing employers to continue to pay the salaries and/or health benefits of unsavory employees during rehabilitation periods. Private employers should already be free to require drug testing as a condition or term of employment. This legislation, however, unnecessarily brings the Federal Government into this process. The threat of liability law suits will dictate that drug testing will be prevalent in jobs where abstinence from drug use is most critical. However, setting up taxpayer-funded federal programs here are not only unnecessary but ill-advised. The newspapers are replete with examples of various lawsuits filed as a consequence of false positives resulting from both scientific and human errors. This legislation involves the Federal Government so far as to require drug testing be completed by only a few government-favored drug testers. This bill also requires those small businesses who participate to mandatorily test employees for drug and alcohol abuse. This proposition treads dangerously on grounds violative of the fourth amendment. While the bill of rights is a limitation upon actions by the Federal Government, it does not restrict the voluntary actions of private employers and their employees. The case becomes far less clear when the Federal Government involves itself in what should simply be a matter of private contract. In fact, government involvement may actually constitute a hindrance upon employers ability to adequately test those employees for whom they feel testing may be a necessary job component. It should never go unnoticed that, as is so often the case in this Congress, constitutional authority is lacking for the further expansion of the Federal Government into the realm of small business and the means by which they hire reliable employees. The Report on H.R. 3583 cites Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 as the Constitutional authority. This clause reads ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof'' (emphasis added). The authority cited requires a foregoing Power which not only is missing from the authority cited for this bill but in my close examination of Article I, Section 8, simply seems not to exist.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in recent months there has been a lot of discussion on the House floor dealing with campaign finance reform. I have spoken out on this issue, and once again I want to make some comments about how I see this problem and what we might do about it. Also I want to mention an amendment that I will be bringing up. I suspect we will be talking about campaign finance reform for a couple more months. I see this somewhat differently than others. Others see that all we have to do is regulate the money and we are going to solve all our problems. But all governments are prone to be influenced by special interests. That is the nature of government. So the smaller government that you have, the less influence you have and the less effort there is made to influence the government. But when you have a big government, there will be a lot of people and a lot of groups that will want to influence government, and that is where I see the problem. Twenty-five years ago in the 1970s, after Watergate, the Congress wrote a lot of rules and regulations. Hundreds of candidates have filled out forms and have done all kinds of things that have been very complicated but have achieved very little. The problem is every bit as bad as it was before, and most people admit that. I think there is a good reason for that. They were addressing the symptoms rather than the cause. And the cause is, of course, that big government is involved in every aspect of our lives, our personal lives, our economic lives, and also around the world, influencing almost every government in the world. So not only is there an incentive for business people to come here to influence our government, but there are labor groups that come to influence our government. We have international groups and other governments coming to influence us. And until that is settled, we can rest assured that we will continue to have these problems. But there is another problem that I want to address, and that is the decreased interest in campaigns and elections. Thirty years ago we would have 30 some percent of the people would turn out in the primary elections. Today it is less than 20 percent. It is a steady decline. There is good reason for this because as government gets bigger and as money becomes more influential, and money talks, the little people who have their desires and their voices unheard and want to be heard, they feel very frustrated. So it is understandable and expected that there will be lower and lower turnout in our elections. That is exactly what is happening. Now, why is this the case? Is it just because they are apathetic? I do not think so. I think a lot of people make wise choices and say it does not make a lot of difference; my vote does not really count because so much money is influencing what happens in Washington with legislation. And yet we have rules and laws throughout the country that make it just about impossible for anybody outside the ordinary two- party system to be represented. Twenty percent of the people do not bother registering because of the frustration, 20 percent of the people who do register, register as Independents. So that leaves about 60 percent of the vote split between Republicans and Democrats, each getting 30 percent. They are a minority. The people who are really shortchanged are the majority, that 40 percent who feel unrepresented and very frustrated about the situation. How does this come about? It just happens that Republicans and Democrats tend to control every legislative body in the country, every State legislative body. And, therefore, they write rules and regulations and have high fees for people getting on ballots, and you do not have any competition. And there is lack of interest, and there is a lot of frustration. Take, for instance, some of the groups that have tried in the past to get on and become known but are frustrated by all these rules. There are Independents, Socialists, Greens, Taxpayers Party, Populists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reform Party, Natural Party, American Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Right to Life, Citizens Party, New Alliance Party, Prohibition Party, States Rights Party. All these people have been totally frustrated because they have so many obstacles put in their way by the requirement of huge numbers of signatures on ballots. I would like to quote from Richard Winger, who writes a letter called the Ballot Access News. He cites one of the worst examples. He says Florida now requires 242,000 valid signatures to get a minor party or Independent candidate on the ballot of any State-wide office other than President. Only one signature is permitted on each petition sheet. He goes on. And the payment that is required is $8,250. This is what needs to be changed. I have an amendment to the bill that will change this. I hope all my colleagues will pay attention to it.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose the Conference Report of the Parent and Student Saving Account Act (H.R. 2646). This, despite having been an original cosponsor, and having been quite active in seeking support, of the original House bill. I remain a strong supporter of education IRAs, which are a good first step toward restoring parental control of education by ensuring parents can devote more of their resources to their children's education. However, this bill also raises taxes on businesses and expands federal control of education. I cannot vote for a bill that raises taxes and increases federal power, no matter what other salutary provisions are in the legislation. I certainly support the provision allowing parents to contribute up to $2,000 a year to education savings accounts without having to pay taxes on the interest earned by that account. This provision expands parental control of education, the key to true education reform as well as one of the hallmarks of a free society. Today the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit is increasingly eroded by the excessive tax burden imposed on America's families by Congress. Congress then rubs salt in the wounds of America's hardworking, taxpaying parents by using their tax dollars to fund an unconstitutional education bureaucracy that all too often uses its illegitimate authority over education to undermine the values of these same parents! I also support the provisions extending the exclusion of funds received from qualified state tuition programs, and excluding monies received from an employer to pay for an employee's continuing education from gross income. Both of these provisions allow Americans to spend more of their resources on education, rather than hand their hard- earned money over to the taxman. Returning control over educational resources to the American people ought to be among Congress' top priorities. In fact, one of my objections to this bill is that is does not go nearly far enough in returning education dollars to parents. This is largely because the deposit to an education IRA must consist of after-tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, education IRAs would be so much more beneficial if parents could make their deposits with pretax dollars. Furthermore, allowing contributions to be made from pretax dollars would provide a greater incentive for citizens to contribute to education IRAs for others' underprivileged children. Furthermore, education IRAs are not the most effective means of returning education resources to the American people. A much more effective way of promoting parental choice in education is through education tax credits, such as those contained in H.R. 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act, which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for elementary and secondary expenses incurred in educating a child at public, private, parochial, or home schools. Tax credits allow parents to get back the money they spent on education, in fact, large tax credits will remove large numbers of families from the tax roles! Therefore, I would still support this bill as a good first (albeit small) step toward restoring parental control of education if it did not further expand the federal control of education and raise taxes on American businesses! In order to offset the so-called ``cost to government'' (revenue loss) H.R. 2646 alters the rules by which businesses are taxed on employee vacation benefits. While I support efforts to ensure that tax cuts do not increase the budget deficit, the offset should come from cuts in wasteful, unconstitutional government programs, such as foreign aid and corporate welfare. Congress should give serious consideration to cutting unconstitutional programs such as ``Goals 2000'' which runs roughshod over the rights of parents to control their children's education, as a means of offsetting the revenue loss to the treasury from this bill. A less than 3% cut in the National Endowment for the Arts budget would provide more funding than needed for the education IRA section of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have no moral nor scientific means by which to determine which Americans are most deserving of tax cuts. Yet, this is precisely what Congress does when it raises taxes on some Americans to offset tax cuts for others. Rather than selecting some arbitrary means of choosing which Americans are more deserving of tax cuts, Congress should cut taxes for all Americans. Moreover, because we have no practical way of knowing how many Americans will take advantage of the education IRAs, or the other education tax cuts contained in the bill, relative to those who will have their taxes raised by the offset in this bill, it is quite possible that H.R. 2646 is actually a backdoor tax increase! In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation would have increased revenues to the Treasury by $24 million over the next eight years! It is a well-established fact that any increase in taxes on small businesses discourages job creation and, thus, increases unemployment! It is hard to see how discouraging job creation by raising taxes is consistent with the stated goal of H.R. 2646--helping America's families! Mr. Speaker, this bill not only raises taxes instead of decreasing spending, it increases the federal role in education. For example the conference report on H.R. 2646 creates a new federal program to promote literacy, the so-called Reading Excellence Act. This new program bribes the states with monies illegitimately taken from the American people, to adapt programs to teach literacy using methods favored by Washington-based ``experts.'' Mr. Speaker, enactment of this literacy program will move America toward a national curriculum since it creates a federal definition of reading, thus making compliance with federal standards the goal of education. I ask my colleagues how does moving further toward a national curriculum restore parental control of education? This bill also creates a new federal program to use federal taxpayer funds to finance teacher testing and merit pay. Mr. Speaker, these may be valuable education reforms; however, the federal government should not be in the business of education engineering and using federal funds to encourage states to adopt a particular education program. While the stealth tax increase and the new unconstitutional programs provide significant justification for constitutionalists to oppose this conference report, the new taxes and spending are not even the worst parts of this legislation. The most objectionable provision of H.R. 2646 is one that takes another step toward making the federal government a National School Board by mandating that local schools consider a student's bringing a weapon to school as evidence in an expulsion hearing. The issue is not whether local schools should use evidence of possessing a weapon as evidence in a discipline procedure. Before this Congress can even consider the merits of a policy, we must consider first whether or not the matter falls within our constitutional authority. The plain fact is as the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights makes clear, Congress is forbidden from dictating policy to local schools. The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that to allow the federal government to meddle in the governance of local schools, much less act as a national school board, would inevitably result in the replacement of parental control by federal control. Parents are best able to control education when the decision making power is located closest to them. Thus, when Congress centralized control over education, it weakens the ability of parents to control, or even influence, the educational system. If Congress was serious about restoring parental control on education, the last thing we would even consider doing is imposing more federal mandates on local schools. In conclusion, although the Conference Report of Parent and Student Savings Account Act does take a step toward restoring parental control of education, it also raises job-destroying taxes on business. Furthermore, the conference report creates new education programs, including a new literacy program that takes a step toward nationalizing curriculum, as well as imposes yet another mandate on local schools. It violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and reduces parental control over education. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and instead support legislation that returns education resources to American parents by returning to them monies saved by deep cuts in the federal bureaucracy, not by raising taxes on other Americans.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have long held that the real victims of U.S. trade policy, and specifically of our various trade embargoes, are American citizens who hope to sell goods abroad, most especially our agricultural producers. The intended victims of sanctions are corrupt foreign rulers but they always find a way to get goods from our competitors and when they fail to do so they simply pass along any suffering to their internal political opponents. But, as I said, somebody is negatively affected. A recent issue of the American Farm Bureau Federation's ``Farm Bureau News'' contains a headline story which does a fabulous job of explaining how these embargoes adversely affect our American Farmers and Ranchers. In this front page story the Farm Bureau News masterfully details the true impact of trade embargoes. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a very rural, agriculturally- based district. My constituents are well aware of the importance of opening export markets for America's agricultural producers. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to place in the Record this story from the Farm Bureau News in hopes that people in the Administration, as well as in this Congress will begin to reconsider destructive embargo policies which only harm our nation's farmers and other producers including my constituents. Ag Takes Biggest Hit From Embargoes Trade sanctions and embargoes for the purpose of social reform or other reasons hurt American farmers and ranchers more than any other sector of the economy, Farm Bureau told a House Agriculture subcommittee last week. ``Farm Bureau strongly opposes all artificial trade constraints such as embargoes or sanctions except in the case of armed conflicts,'' said Ron Warfield, president of the Illinois Farm Bureau. ``We believe that opening trading systems around the world and engagement through trade are the most effective means of reaching international economic stability.'' President Clinton imposed sanctions against India and Pakistan after those countries detonated nuclear devices. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R-Ore.) and ranking minority member Charlie Stenholm (D-Texas) have urged Clinton to exempt food and agricultural commodities from those sanctions. Pakistan is an important market for U.S. agricultural products, ranking third in purchases of U.S. wheat. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have also asked Clinton to exclude agricultural exports from the sanctions. Warfield, a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors, told the panel that when sanctions are imposed, agriculture typically bears the brunt through lost sales and gains a reputation as an unreliable supplier. While American agriculture loses through sanctions and embargoes, its toughest competitors win by picking up those markets. Warfield noted that when the United States placed a grain embargo against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, American farmers lost $2.3 billion in farm exports. He said the effects continue to be felt. ``When the United States cut off sales of wheat to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, other suppliers--France, Canada, Australia and Argentina--stepped in,'' Warfield said. ``They expanded their sales to the Soviet Union, ensuring that U.S. sanctions had virtually no economic impact. Russia still appears to restrict purchases of American wheat, fearing the United States may again use food exports as a foreign policy weapon.'' Just the threat of sanctions can provoke trading partners into a retaliatory stance and threaten U.S. agricultural exports, the farm leader pointed out. Warfield said Farm Bureau supports a bill (H.R. 3654) by Re. Tom Ewing (R-Ill.) that would prevent selective agricultural embargoes. The legislation, he said, would prevent useless embargoes that destroy American export markets while creating opportunities for other countries. Warfield said engagement with other nations, not sanctions and embargoes, should be the preferred option. ``The United States, as the leader in world trade, has an unprecedented opportunity to promote its values throughout the world by peaceful engagement through trade,'' Warfield said, ``Reaching out through engagement and trade, not withdrawing behind embargoes, is the best way to achieve positive change--not by denying ourselves access to the markets and creating opportunities for our competitors.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H. Res. 399, 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. 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. 1816), 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. Res. 399 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.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform has been a major topic for months on the House floor and, I understand, will continue to be a major debate. The last time the Congress has passed any major reforms dealing with campaigning was in the 1970s, and every problem that we had back then we have today, only it is much worse. Today, in order to comply with the law, we fill out tens of thousands of pages of forms, there is total misunderstanding of what the rules and regulations are, there are numerous fines being levied against many Members and many candidates, there are many inaccuracies put into the record mainly because a lot of people cannot even understand the rules and regulations, and I would not be surprised if just about everybody who ever filled out a financial reform at one time or the other inadvertently had some inaccuracies. All the challenges to these records have always been done by opponents and usually politicized, and it has not been motivated for the best of reasons. New reforms are now being proposed, and I predict they will be no more successful than the numerous rules and regulations that we imposed on candidates in the 1970s. The reason I say this is that we are treating a symptom and not the cause. The symptom, of course, is very prevalent. Everybody knows there is a lot of big money that influences politics. I understand that there is $100 million a month spent by the lobbyists trying to influence our votes on the House floor and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to influence our elections. So some would conclude, therefore, that is the case, we have to regulate the money, the money is the problem. But I disagree. Money is not the problem. The basic problem is that there is so much to be gained by coming to Washington, lobbying Congress and influencing legislation. The problem is not that we have too much freedom. The problem is that we have too much government, and if we think that just more regulations and more government will get rid of the problem, we are kidding ourselves. What we need is smaller government, less influence of the government on everything that we do in our personal lives as well as our economic lives. The Congress is always being involved. Not only domestically, but Congress is endlessly involved in many affairs overseas. We are involved by passing out foreign aid, getting involved in programs like the IMF and World Bank. We are interfering in internal affairs militarily in over a hundred countries at the present time. So there is a tremendous motivation for people to come here and try to influence us. They see it as a good investment. More rules and regulations, I believe, will do one thing if the size of government is not reduced. What we will do is drive the influence under ground. That is a natural consequence as long as there is an incentive to invest. Under the conditions that we have today the only way we can avoid the influence is not ourselves, we, the Members of Congress, being a good investment. We should be independent, courageous and do the things that are right rather than being influenced by the money. But the rules and the regulations will not do very much to help solve this problem. Attacking basic fundamental rights would certainly be the wrong thing to do, and that is what so much of this legislation is doing. It is attacking the fundamental right to speak out to petition the government to spend one's money the way he sees fit, and this will only make the problems much worse. Mr. Speaker, government is too big, our freedoms are being infringed upon, and then we come along and say those individuals who might want to change even for the better, they will have their rights infringed upon. There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. They have a legitimate right to come here. Sometimes I wonder if those individuals who are now motivated to put more regulations on us might even fear the fact that some of the good guys, some of the good groups who are coming here to influence Washington to reduce the size of government are no longer able to.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. This bill, if passed, will further expand the authority of this country's national police force and further ``justify'' the federal Justice Department's intrusion into mail, telephone and Internet communications. Mr. Chairman, today the Congress will collectively move our nation yet another step closer to a national police state by further expanding the notion of federal crimes and paving the way for a deluge of federal criminal justice activity. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federally ``criminalizing'' all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a process by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on child-related sexual crime irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach. In the name of the politically popular cause of protecting children against sex crimes, the Members of Congress will vote on whether to move the Nation further down the path of centralized-Government implosion by appropriating yet more Federal taxpayer money and brandishing more U.S. prosecutors at whatever problem happens to be brought to the floor by any Members of Congress hoping to gain political favor with those embracing some politically popular cause. The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998 is no exception. Who, after all, can stand on the house floor and oppose a bill which is argued to make the world safer for children with respect to crimes? It is a sad commentary when members of this body only embrace or even mention federalism when it serves their own political purposes and, at the same time, consciously ignore federalism's implications for these politically popular causes. It seems to no longer even matter whether governmental programs actually accomplish their intended goals or have any realistic hope of solving problems. No longer does the end even justify the means. All that now seems to matter is that Congress pass a new law. Crimes committed against children (as well as adults) are a problem that should concern all Americans. As a doctor of obstetrics I have enjoyed the privilege of bringing more than 3,000 new lives into the world. I know there are few things more tragic than crimes committed against young people. In fact, the types of crimes this bill attempts to federally punish are among the most despicable criminal acts committed. Undoubtedly, strong measures and penalties need to be imposed to deter and punish these criminal actors. Nevertheless, the threshold question in Congress must always be: ``under what authority do we act?'' Should we cease to concern ourselves about the Constitution in all that we do and moved by emotion speak only of vague theoretical outcomes? Any federal usurpation of criminal law, no matter how flexible, violates the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th amendment limits the Federal Government to those functions explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Other than in these few areas, the States are sovereign. Therefore the Federal Government has no authority to federalize crimes whether committed against children, women, or some specific race. Additionally, ours is an individual Bill of Rights rather than a system of rights dependent upon to which group (gender, race, or age) one happens to belong. The drafters of the Bill of Rights knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. The founders also understood that centralized federal involvement in crime prevention and control was dangerous and would lead to a loss of precious liberty. The bill's implication of federal monitoring of conversation on phone lines, the Internet, and U.S. mail is frightening and opens the door to unlimited government snooping. Some will argue that federal legislation is necessary because communications cross state lines. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another and in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. I too find most despicable the criminal acts this bill attempts to make federal crimes, but under the U.S. Constitution criminal law jurisdiction lies with the States. This is why I oppose yet another step toward a national police state. And because I fear the bill's implications regarding federal monitoring of voice, mail and data communications, I cannot support H.R. 3494.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond by saying I certainly do recognize responsibility of the U.S. Congress in dealing with national legislation dealing with bankruptcy and that bankruptcy laws should be uniform and fair. But this does not preclude us from thinking about the particulars of a piece of legislation designating the importance of the different governmental bodies, so everything I say about emphasizing local government over Federal Government is certainly legitimate and does not contradict in any way the notion that we should not deal with this at all because certainly we have this authority to do so. And it still remains to be seen with much of a cost at all involved here; I happen to think not very much, but I would like to emphasize once again the importance of dealing with cutting spending rather than always resorting to say how do we pay something, pay for something, by merely raising taxes elsewhere if we happen to work in a benefit on a program such as this. So I would say that it is very important that we do think about local government over Federal government, think about less taxes and less bureaucracy, because unless we change our mind set on this, we will continue to put the priorities of the Federal Government and the IRS up at the top. I want them at the bottom. That is where they deserve. They do not know how to spend their money. They do not know how to spend their money, and we ought to see to it that they get a lot less of it.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not a complicated amendment. It merely redesignates the priorities of governments as they line up in the receiving end of a bankruptcy. These are unsecured debts. Basically the way the law states now and the way the bill is written is that the IRS is the top government agency that is going to receive the money, and then the State and then the local government. My suggestion in my amendment is very simple and very clear and makes a very strong philosophic point, is why should we hold the IRS in such high esteem? Why should they be on top of the list? Why should the money leave the local districts and go to Washington? Why should it go into the coffers of the IRS, funding programs that are basically unconstitutional when there are so many programs that we are not doing and take it out of our school districts? If we reverse the order, the local government gets the money first, the money that would be left over from the bankruptcy, then the State government, and then the Federal Government. This merely states the point, which I hope we can get across someday in this Congress, that the priority in government should be local government, not a big, strong Federal Government. Indeed, today there is a lot of resentment in this country against the IRS and the way we spend money up here, and this emphasizes a very important point, that money should be left in the district, money should be left in the States, and at last resort, the money should come here to the Federal Government. One of the arguments used against this amendment is, ``Uh-oh, it is going to cost the Government some money.'' Cost the Government some money by leaving the money in the State or locally, or leaving it in the pockets of the American people as that same argument is used in tax increases? Hardly would it be difficult for the small amounts, I do not even know the exact amount of money that might be lost to the Treasury because some of these funds might not flow here in this direction, but it cannot be a tremendous amount. But what is wrong with the suggestion that we just cut something? There are so many places that we can cut. Instead, all we do around here is look around for more places to spend money. Today we are even talking about increasing taxes by three- quarters of a trillion dollars on a tobacco program. We are always looking for more revenues and more spending programs and we are worried about paying for a little less revenues coming into the Federal Government. Once again, this amendment is very clear. It states that in the order of designating these funds on unsecured creditors, local government would get the money first, then State government, and then the Federal Government. In the 1980s, in the early 1990s, when Texas and California had trouble, money flowed up here in the middle of bankruptcies at the same time school districts were suffering, putting a greater burden on local school districts. So this is to me a very clear principled position to state that we should have local government, not Federal Government, that we should not enhance the power and the authority of the Federal Government and certainly should not put the IRS and the Federal Government on the top of the pecking order. They should be at the bottom where they deserve to be. So I would ask my colleagues to endorse this legislation and this amendment to this legislation. I support the legislation. I am hopeful that this amendment will be passed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Today we are having a debate on a very serious problem that does deserve our attention. We can do this by supporting this rule. I am in entire agreement with the authors of this amendment in their concern for the systematic attack on religious expression throughout the country. There is no doubt hostility exists, especially against conservative religious expression. It is pervasive and routinely expressed in our courts. Those who attack religious values are, unfortunately, not doing it in the defense of constitutional liberty. Secular humanism, although equivalent to a religion, is passed off as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs, and yet too often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs. This is indeed a problem deserving our close attention, but the approach through this constitutional amendment is not the solution. I was a cosponsor of the original version of the amendment, but after serious reconsideration, especially after the original version was changed, I now am unable to vote for it. The basic problem is that our courts are filled with judges that have no understanding or concern for the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, or property rights. As long as that exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will be likewise abused. This amendment opens the door for further abuse. Most of those who support this amendment concede that, quoting the authors of the amendment, ``Because government is today found everywhere, this growth of government has dictated a shrinking of religion.'' This is true, so the solution should be to shrink the government, not to further involve the Federal Government on how States and school districts use their property. This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of religious expression, will be protected. Another recourse, less complicated than amending the Constitution, is for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction from the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most abusive of free expression. Unfortunately, this amendment encourages a government solution to the problems by allowing the Federal Government and Federal courts to instruct States and local school districts on the use of their property. This is in direct contrast to the original purpose of the Constitution, to protect against a strong central government and in support of State and local government. Until our judges and even our Congress have a better understanding of the current Constitution and a willingness to follow it, new constitutional amendments will do little to help and will more likely make things worse.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet system, along with the Berlin Wall, came crashing down in 1989, the same year the new, never-to-end, era came to a screeching halt in Japan. The Japanese economic miracle of the 1970's and the 1980's, with its ``guaranteed'' safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. Today the Nikkei (Tokyo) stock average is still down 57% from 1989, and the Japanese banking system remains vulnerable to its debt burden, a weakening domestic economy and a growing East Asian crisis spreading like a wild fire. That which started in 1989 in Japan--and possibly was hinted at even in the 1987 stocke market ``crash'' here--is now sweeping the Asian markets. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe, and then to America, should not be summarily dismissed.