Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I certainly agree that we should have concern. If we left more money in the hands and pockets of the American people, they would be charitable, and I do believe we would help them. I believe when we take money from poor people, put it in the hands of government and give it to another government, that is when we get into trouble. If we left more money in the hands of the American people and allowed them to be charitable, I believe the outcome would be much better.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, I am concerned about the same things. I want peace and security for our country. That is our number one responsibility here, not to socialize the world and run a welfare state. But a policy of neutrality has been more consistent with that of peace throughout our history and throughout the history of the world. It is when we are interventionists, when we impose our will on other people; that is how America gets a black eye.

Mr. PAUL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, let me point out that authority came from the United Nations.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned that the Soviet Union disintegration might be attributed to the United Nations, but quite frankly, it was because the U.N. did not deal with them as much as others. Think about the first episode of the U.N. troops going into Korea. We still have a dictator in North Korea, we have a government in South Korea that we protect that is not necessarily civil libertarian. Yet that is as a result of U.N. action. The Soviet system collapsed because they had a failed economic system. I would like to just mention, and I feel very lonely here in the Congress, but take a look at this. This is a stack of petitions, thousands of petitions by the American people who disagree with our policy and would like us to at least address it, and not call it silly.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentlewoman's desire for the United States to be a leader. It is just that my concept of leadership is different. We have troops in 100 countries of the world. That does not have very much to do with our national security. I am for neutrality. I want to be friends with everybody. Some say this is an isolationist viewpoint. It has nothing to do with isolationism, if we combine it with free trade. This whole notion that we are isolating and drawing back, yes, we would like to draw some of our troops back, maybe because we are not authorized, it is not part of our national security, we do not have the funds, and it gets us into trouble. Those are the reasons why the American people are sick and tired of all this adventurism overseas.

Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I think a lot of American people want to feel secure. That is obviously part of our responsibility. But a lot of people in this country now would feel more secure if they could keep more of their own money and we were not so adventurous.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1420, the Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. In an attempt to assist in the fulfillment of important international treaty obligations of the United States, today we are asked to support a bill which reinforces an unconstitutional program of the Johnson administration, the National Wildlife Refuge Act of 1966. Rather than this Congress debating the merits or constitutionality of Federal land management programs and the inherently flawed notion of common ownership and the necessarily resulting tragedy of the commons, this bill would amend the 1966 Act to instill internationally centralized management of these wildlife refuges to include requiring the Interior Department, using sound professional judgment, to prepare comprehensive plans detailing the appropriate use of each refuge. Additionally, this bill instills as the mission of the wildlife system the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats and provides the statutory authority for denying use of the refuges for all noncompatible uses which materially interfere with or detract from the mission. Moreover, H.R. 1420 directs the Interior Secretary to direct the continued growth of the System in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the mission [emphasis added]. Apparently, the era of big government is not over. In fact, in the name of satisfying international treaties, it seems as though even the Great Society is alive and well and growing.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1377, the Savings are Vital to Everyone's Retirement Act [SAVER]. Although I applaud the good intentions of the sponsors of this bill, I must oppose H.R. 1377 for two reasons. First, the proper level of savings should be determined by the free choices of individuals acting in the market. Saving should be a voluntary decision, undertaken because individuals value the greater future rate of return from saving over the value of present consumption not because the Government instructed them that they needed to save. We in Washington cannot judge what the correct level of savings is for any individual much less the entire country. I ask my colleagues, if this program increases the rate of savings beyond the level Congress considers necessary, will we then enact a ``Spending is Vital'' bill to encourage greater consumption? Second, and perhaps more importantly, H.R. 1377 ignores the primary reason Americans forgo savings: Government policies that discourage the American people from saving. Even creating a Department of Labor-run education program and spending a million dollars on a series of White House conferences will further reduce the rate of savings as payment for these new initiatives will come either from taxes paid directly by the American people or from inflating the currency to monetize the national debt, thus eroding American's purchasing power. Either way, working Americans will be left with less funds available for saving. I respectfully suggest that it is not the people who need a savings education. They especially do not need it from a government which, the recent claims of the leadership and the administration notwithstanding, cannot balance its own books. Rather, Congress needs to be educated on how the interventionist policies of this Government are eroding the people's standard of living and making it nearly impossible for many Americans to save an adequate amount for their retirement, or any other vital needs, such as their children's education. Today, the average American pays more than 40 percent of this income in Federal, State, and local taxes. Thus, before the average American even has a chance to consider saving, a substantial portion of his paycheck is stripped from him in order to fund the welfare-warfare state. Federal tax policy further discourages savings through the exorbitant Federal taxes on capital gains, estates taxes, and the double taxation on corporate dividends. Government policy further reduces incentives Americans have available for savings through the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve, which erode the average consumer's purchasing power. The average consumer must spend an ever-increasing share of his or her income purchasing necessities, meaning they have less income available to devote to savings. Today, prices are more than 15 times higher, in normal terms, than when the Federal Reserve was established. This diminishing purchasing power also creates a disincentive to save. When one's earnings will purchase more today than they will in the future, the rational action may very well be to spend the funds in the present. After all, who would trade a dollar's worth of goods today for 50 cents worth of goods in 20 years? Clearly, a major reason why the United States has a low rate of saving is the crushing tax burden imposed on the American people by the Government and the erosion of their purchasing power. Yet, rather than address how Government policy is destroying American's ability to save, Congress is planning to spend more taxpayer money to educate the American people on the importance of saving. Mr. Speaker, the American people neither need nor want Congress to spend another penny of their hard-earned tax dollars on educating them on the importance of savings, and they certainly do not need the Federal Government to spend a million dollars to create a conference on savings. Rather, Congress must cease all unconstitutional spending, cut taxes, and prohibit the Federal Reserve from debasing the currency. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1377, and instead join me in working to eliminate the true obstacle to savings: the unconstitutional leviathan state that is jeopardizing the economic future of America and destroying the American people's incentive to save.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some comments about the Marshall plan because my interpretation is somewhat different than the conventional wisdom of the past 50 years. I happen to believe the understanding of the Marshall plan is probably one of the most misunderstood economics events of the 20th century. The benefits are grossly overstated. The Marshall plan through these many years has been used as the moral justification for all additional foreign aid. And once I hear it, I assume we are on the verge of extending and expanding our foreign aid overseas. When we look at the total amount of money that flowed into Europe following World War II, the amount that came from the American taxpayers was not large. The large amount came from corporations and investors who believed that Europe would be safe and secure, so the large number of dollars then flowed into Europe. It was interesting that the conditions were improved in Europe not so much because of America but sometimes in spite of America, because many of our economists went to Europe at this time and advised them that the most important thing that they do, especially in Germany, was to maintain price controls. Here in this country we did not learn, and hopefully we have finally learned the lesson, but we had not learned until at least 1971 that wage and price controls were not a good idea. Yet Ludwig Erhard at that time defied the strong advice by the American advisers and took off wage and price controls, kept taxes low, kept regulations low, produced political conditions which were very conducive to investment, and this is what caused the real recovery in Europe. Political assistance, funds flowing into a country through political maneuvers, are never superior to those funds that flow into a country for reasons of the political stability. Because Europe did invite capital, this was the real reason why Europe recovered. Foreign aid is used frequently throughout the world to help people. But if we look at Zaire and Rwanda and the many countries of the world, foreign aid has really been a gross failure. As a matter of fact, it does harm because it encourages the status quo. The market is much smarter than we as politicians, because if the market and the political conditions are not right, that country that wants capital must improve those conditions to invite the capital. A good example might be in Vietnam at the current time. They changed their conditions to invite capital. So there must be an incentive for those countries to change their condition. Foreign aid very often and very accurately, I believe, is a condition of taking money from the poor people in a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country. I think there is a lot of truth to that, because the burden of taxation and inflation and the many things that our average citizen and our middle-class citizen suffer comes from overexpenditures and good intentions whether they are here at home or overseas. We believed at that time, and strongly so, I guess, still, that the government's responsibility, whether it is through government expenditures or through the inflationary machinery of the Federal Reserve, that if we stimulate an economy, if we prime the pump, so to speak, that we can stimulate the economy. This was the argument after World War II, that we would prime the pump. That is not a free market notion, that is a Keynesian notion. There has been no proof that this is beneficial. Really what counts is a sound currency. Germany after World War II and even to this date is known to have a harder and sounder currency than any other currency in Europe. Political stability is what is necessary, not taking money from taxpayers of one country and shifting it to another one. Foreign aid very often, not so much the foreign aid that went to Europe, and I would grant my colleagues, the other conditions compensated and did not allow the foreign aid to be damaging so much as the foreign aid, say, to a country like Rwanda. That was so destabilizing, because the politicians get hold of the money and they use it for political reasons. Money to help a country must go in because conditions are beneficial, that encourage investment, that encourage the market to work. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that there is a different interpretation, but I know that the support for this measure is justified.

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think that there could not be an argument made that every dollar that we sent to Europe did not have some beneficial effect. Quite possibly it did. But my point is that if that money from the taxpayer had not been sent, there is nothing that says it might not have been sent through the investors, but it depended on the political climate and what they did. I do not want to deemphasize that. That is the important reason why this foreign aid was not as harmful as it usually is, and it had some benefits, mainly because of the political climate.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would vote to change the taxes, but mainly to lower them for everybody. The point that I am trying to make is that the large amount of capital that helped Europe recover did not come from the taxpayers. That was a small amount. There were a lot of other investors that went into Europe. The key reason was the political stability and the good economic climate which Erhard helped to introduce. I think that is much important. There is a difference between what happened in Europe versus the waste that we had in Rwanda. We did not do the people, the poor people of Rwanda, very many favors by sending money down there that became a political weapon to suppress the poor.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer into the Record two record examples of the fine writing often found in one of district newspapers, The Brazosport Facts. While many find it easy to deride the press as liberal and closed to the notions of liberty, free markets, and constitutional principles, I am pleased to report that The Brazosport Facts in general, and these two authors in specific, seek to bring a fair, even balance to the coverage of news and ideas. Today I enter into the Record an editorial written by Glenn Heath, a former executive editor of The Brazosport Facts and now a retired member of the community active yet active on the paper's editorial board. Also, I enter into the Record a column written by Bill Sturdevant, a frequent contributor to the Facts. Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my fellow Members of Congress to read these principled writings. I offer my congratulations and thanks to these two men for supporting the ideas of liberty; and to the entire staff of The Brazosport Facts for their ongoing dedication to presenting fair coverage of events and ideas. Freedom & Safety A larger principle than the bill itself is involved. The principle applies to many human circumstances where a mandated gain entails a substantial loss. For decades, a safety measure has been before the Legislature, either asking the state to require motorcycle riders to wear a protective helmet, or asking the state to repeal such a law. Riders have been in the gallery in force to oppose one or support the other. This time it's repeal. Sen. Jerry Patterson's bill would relieve all motorcycle riders aged 21 or over of wearing the helmet. Legislators deleted a provision that they must carry added insurance if they did so. The Senate is expected to vote on Patterson's bill Thursday or Friday. From a purely practical standpoint, the arguments for the original bill had merit. In case of an accident, the helmet would help protect against head injuries. Even most riders would admit that motorcycles can be dangerous. In the best of road conditions, their speed capability is often abused; and on slick surfaces or loose surfacings they can be treacherous. In a crash with a four- wheel vehicle, the motorcycles always lose. But motorcycles are designed as much for fun as for practical transportation. Even those who accept the helmet for its safety would agree that using one diminishes the pleasure of motorcycling. More important, the helmet protects no one but the one wearing it. So the effect of the law is to force a person to do something entirely for personal safety. That should be that person's choice. No government should regulate an individual's right to accept risks, and in doing so deprive that person of the freedom to enjoy a pleasure. That doesn't mean there should be no rules of highway safety. Faulty brakes threaten not just the driver of an auto, but every other vehicle on the road. Slick tires, malfunctioning lights endanger others. These are concerns of government. But not air bags. These don't prevent crashes and they don't protect others on the road; they only tend to reduce the injuries to a driver and possibly a passenger after a crash. When air bags were a prospective federal mandate, the estimated cost for each was about $300. Once they were in place, they were said to have saved 1,600 lives. For this to happen, tens of millions of motorists must pay the high cost of the devices. And in a few cases, the air bags have actually killed people. New proposals would soften the impact, and would allow a motorist to have the air bag disabled. Then why shouldn't the motorist be allowed to avoid the expense altogether? These are only two examples. We need protection from the negligence of others, but there should be limits on how much government limits our freedom and pleasure in protecting us from ourselves. Benjamin Franklin had words for it: ``Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1650. At the same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, the work of Mother Teresa, the Missionaries of Charity organization, and each of Mother Teresa's Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian efforts. I oppose the Gold Medal for Mother Teresa Act because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Mother Teresa who dedicated here entire life to voluntary, charitable work, particularly humanitarian. Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, several of my colleagues found it amusing to question me personally as to whether, on this issue, I would maintain my resolve and commitment of the Constitution--a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath. In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for the work of Mother Teresa, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to the well-deserving Mother Teresa. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather than that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to the work of Mother Teresa and have consistently done so. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer's money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate the courage of their so- called convictions and generosity. It is, of course, very easy to be generous with other people's money.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we have just finished the debate on the jobs programs bill, and in the discussion I was referred to as a libertarian, but a very consistent one that voted the same way on each type of legislation. I would like to remind my colleagues that voting for libertarianism is voting for liberty. Also it is a very consistent vote with the doctrine of enumerated powers. It is said in the Constitution that we can only do here in the Congress which is enumerated by the clauses within the document. So therefore, if it is said that I am very consistent and want to be labeled as libertarian, that is one thing, I do not deny that. But in the other sense, I am a strict constitutionalist that obeys and listens very carefully to my pledge to the Constitution as well as paying close attention to the ninth and tenth amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this bill is an attempt to improve the Federal jobs training program. We now have over 700 different programs, and quite literally, it is a mess. This bill is a well-intentioned piece of legislation that does make some token changes and some improvement. They may work, they may not. I would like to address another subject, which is, should we be involved at all? If we have tried it for 30 years and it is not working, when will we ask ourselves, should we be in the business of job training? Quite frankly, I am not very confident that we here in the Congress are smart enough to do it. Always the argument is that if this is a slightly better approach to last year's approach, this is a movement in the right direction. But some day we have to ask the question whether or not endorsing the same philosophic principle of a bad program is really going to solve our problems. We have no evidence that this approach will work. Most likely this will become just a bureaucratic adjustment. There will be a cost in the adjustment, but ultimately Government will once again fail in its attempt to do something that it was not designed to do. This idea of local control and block grants is something that sounds good, it sounds like they are moving in the right direction, but the odds of it really benefiting are very, very slim. Government really is not smart enough to do what is intended in a program like job training. We are not, here in the Congress, smart enough to know what the future is and to make business decisions. It is rather sad to see our business leaders advocating a piece of legislation like this, rather than them understanding and resorting to the market to decide when and how to train workers. Instead, they use their energies to come and transfer funds from one group to another in the pretense that they are able, in partnership with the Government, to design a program that will fit the marketplace. There is no sign, there is no evidence that a program like this has been permitted under the Constitution. But better yet, under today's circumstances, and eventually this will prevail, do we really have the funds to do something that is not working? The funds are not there, and any time we deal with a program like this, we have to think that it is a contribution to the high deficits that we are running. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1385 is flawed in that it endorses the very same principles that have been used for 30 years, arguing that the Federal Government and government bureaucrats know more than what the market knows. I would like to list a few mandates of the bill. No. 1, it mandates that States submit a 35-year plan for adult job training and literacy on the approval of the Secretaries of Education and Labor. It mandates that States establish local work force development boards whose functions and composition are determined by Federal law. It mandates that the local work force board meet Federal core indicators. It mandates that local work force boards be dominated by representatives of the business community. That does not give me a whole lot of encouragement, another step toward replacing the free enterprise system with corporatism. If Members like mandates, they certainly will be pleased with this piece of legislation. It spends taxpayers' dollars, the victims, for skill upgrading for incumbent workers. Those who are still working are required to pay for those who think they are going to get trained, thus creating a new entitlement program for already-employed workers. It spends taxpayers' dollars on grants to business and unions for demonstration projects. It spends taxpayers' dollars on family literacy services. It spends taxpayers' dollars on the National Institute for Literacy, the type of bureaucracy this Congress should be shutting down, not expanding. It spends taxpayers' dollars on job training services which the business community and individual workers should be paying for themselves. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, and I know this would be of the least amount of interest to so many here, but the truth of the matter is, Congress has no constitutional authority to mandate or operate any job training programs.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. After 30 years of Federal Government involvement and two major legislative overhauls, there are now over 160 Federal programs dedicated to job training. The Federal Government has spent approximately $4.5 billion just on the Job Training and Partnership Act of 1997. However, the U.S. Congress cannot measure whether or not they are getting a good return on their investment since both Federal agencies do not even know if their programs are helping people find jobs. The very idea that a government board can somehow determine what occupations will be in demand at any point in the future is an example of what Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek calls The Fatal Conceit. No central board, even one dominated by local officials and businessmen, can predict which jobs will be in demand in 5, 10, or 15 years. It is doubtful that a local work force board in Silicon Valley in 1978 would have tried to link job training services to personal computer markets. In fact, it is highly unlikely that Steve Jobs will be appointed to the work force development board. The very fact that the boards are compiled of already established leaders for business practically ensures that the entrepreneurs creating the jobs of the future will not be represented on the board. In this high-technology information age where financial and, more importantly, intellectual capital can travel around the world in a matter of seconds, the jobs in demand in any area can change faster than any geographical local work force board could conceivably update the skills with which to link job training. The private actions of individual citizens working together in a free market can best build a job training system that meets the needs of its citizens. Private individuals, local communities, and State governments are also more capable than the Federal Government of providing adequate help to those unable to provide training for themselves. If the Federal Government returns to constitutional size and reduces the tax and regulatory burden on the American citizen, Federal job training programs of any sort furthers the destructive idea that the proper role of the Federal Government is to provide for all the needs of the citizens. The belief that Congress has a moral duty to administer to the health and welfare of the populace, both of America and the world, is directly responsible for the growth of the welfare state, which threatens to destroy America's economic prosperity and liberty itself. I am strongly opposed to this legislation, and believe freedom and free choices and the marketplace and the Constitution is a much better approach. i. introduction Congress is once again attempting to repair the broken system of Federal job training. The major Federal role in job training dates back to 1962, with President Kennedy's Manpower Development and Training Act [MDA] and continuing through the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, passed as part of President Johnson's Great Society Consistent with the Great Society philosophy that the Federal Government had the solution to all problems, these bills centralized job training authority in Washington. Soon, however, concerns arose that Federal job training programs were rife with waste and abuse. Congress, therefore, began trying to repair some of the inefficiencies in the job-training program. First, in 1973, Congress, with the support of the Nixon administration, passed the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act [CETA]. CETA was designed to decentralize Federal job training programs. Congress next addressed job training in 1982, with the passage of the Job Training and Partnership Act [JTPA], which promised to turn Federal job-training into a public- private partnership that would operate more efficiently than the three major job-training bills that had previously passed the Congress and failed to accomplish their stated goals. After 30 years of Federal involvement and two major legislative overhauls, there are now over 160 Federal programs dedicated to job training. The Federal Government spent approximately $4.5 billion to just JPTA in 1997. However, the U.S. Congress cannot measure whether or not they are getting a good return on their investment since most Federal agencies do not even know if their programs are helping people find jobs. Congress is once again attempting to repair the Federal job training systems. However, despite the abundant evidence of the failure of the centralized welfare state model of job-training programs, this Congress is planning to continue dictating to all 50 states the composition, content, function, and even the goals and benchmarks of job training programs. The Employment Training and Literacy Act of 1997, [H.R. 1385], tampers with the constitutional principle of federalism. H.R. 1385 redefines the very notion of federalism to mean that States, localities, and individual citizens are given limited flexibility and control over how they fulfill the Federal Government's mandates. ii. h.r. 1385 interferes with state's autonomy and forces taxpayers to subsidize benefits for select businesses and employees in violation of the u.s. constitution Unlike the mandate federalism embodied in H.R. 1385, the federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution allows for no Federal role in job training, or education generally. In fact, the tenth amendment, which reserves the authority for carrying out functions not explicitly granted to the Federal Government, to the States and the people, forbids Federal education programs. Yet, as demonstrated below, H.R. 1385 continues the unconstitutional centralization of education power for the benefit of certain members of society at the expense of the mass of American taxpayers. Under H.R. 1385 States must provide a 3-year plan for adult job training and literacy programs in order to receive Federal job-training funds. These plans must satisfy federally specified content and must be approved by the Secretaries of both the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. Additionally, States are required to establish local work force development boards whose functions and composition are dictated by the Federal law. Furthermore, the boards must meet benchmarks identified by the Governor in negotiation with the schools, the local boards do not even have the authority to determine how their performance should be measured. Rather progress under this bill is measured by predetermined Federal core indicators. Under H.R. 1385, the local work force development boards would be dominated by representatives of the business community. Certainly the input of the business community is important for job training. However, a Federal mandate that representatives of business dominate the job- training boards may provide a means for business to socialize or externalize their training costs. Those businesses which will achieve a direct benefit from a more highly skilled work force should be the ones to finance such programs. Individuals who will benefit from improving their skills could also choose to ultimately pay at least some of the costs of their training. In no instance should the individual taxpayer be forced to subsidize the job training of another person. Not satisfied with wealth transfers to prepare those without employment for business, this bill provides training for skills upgrading for incumbent workers--those already employed. Despite a budget billions of dollars out of balance, this bill creates a new entitlement for already-employed workers and their employers to receive more training courtesy of the American taxpayer. Businesses are not the only institution showered with largess in this bill. Under the provisions of this bill, the Secretary of Labor is empowered to provide taxpayer dollars to labor unions to carry out research and demonstration projects as well as grants to public interest groups. Credible accusations have been made that these groups have often used Federal funds to advance their political agenda. At the very least, Congress should conduct a thorough investigation and take steps to prevent Federal funds from being used to pay for political activity before handing out more grant money. iii. h.r. 1385 infringes on family and individual autonomy In addition to continuing the practice of running job training programs from Washington, DC, this bill expands the State's reach into Americas' families by authorizing Federal funding for family literacy services. These services are to include training for parents on how to teach their children and interactive literacy activities between parents and their children. This history of Federal involvement in family literacy raises questions regarding the effectiveness of government programs to teach anything regarding child raising. From 1963 to 1993, Federal spending on education increased from approximately $900,000 to over $10 billion, while scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test [SAT's] dropped by an average of almost 60 points. Given the poor track record, it is doubtful whether increasing Federal involvement in family literacy is likely to do anything but ensure lower rates of family literacy. Furthermore, Federal involvement in child rearing violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. In a free society, such as that bequeathed to America by the drafters of the Constitution, the family, not the Government, is responsible for the raising of children. State control of child raising is, in fact, one of the hallmarks of totalitarianism. Those of us concerned with expanding and preserving freedom must oppose all measures, including the legislation currently under consideration, which erode the autonomy of the family under the theory that government social workers are better able to address the needs of children than parents. Along similar lines, the language for disadvantaged youth programs mandates the integration of academic, occupation, and work-based learning opportunities. This is also quite objectionable. This language seems to suggest those youth diagnosed as disadvantaged by the social workers and psychologists will be denied a traditional education, instead disadvantaged youth will be herded into State-run job training programs. Such a federally mandated plan is in no way consistent with the core American value of individualism. iv. h.r. 1385 establishes a system incapable of achieving its stated purpose This bill reaches the height of hubris in its mandate that training services be linked to occupations for which there is a demand in the local work force development area. This provision is objectionable for two reasons. First, because business-dominated work force development boards will determine which occupations are in demand, it is very likely that the business represented on the board will be the ones determined to be those for which there is a demand in the local work force. Second, and more important, the very idea that a government board can somehow determine what occupations will be in demand at any point in the future is an example of what Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek called the fatal conceit. No central board, even one dominated by local officials and businessmen, can predict which jobs will be in demand in 5, 10, or even 2 years. It is doubtful that a local work force board in Silicon Valley in 1978 would have to tried to link job training services to the personal computer market. In fact, it's highly unlikely that Steve Jobs--founder of Apple computers--would be appointed to the work force development board in Silicon Valley. The very fact that the boards are comprised of already established leaders for business practically assures that the entrepreneurs creating the jobs of the future will not be represented on this board. In this high-technology information age, where financial and, more important, intellectual capital, can travel around the world in a matter of seconds, the jobs in demand in any area can change faster than any geographical local work force board could conceivably update the skills with which the link job-training. v. conclusion The argument is often made that State-financed job training is necessitated by the failure of the educational system to properly prepare students for the job market. Each of us can understand the frustration of employers unable to find employees capable of adapting to new technologies. As a physician, I have employed many people in critical positions. I certainly understand the importance of having a readily available pool of skilled labor. I would question, however, whether the pool was better prior to the Federal Government's intrusion into education. The private actions of individual citizens, working together in a free-market, can best build a job-training system that meets the needs of its citizens. Private individuals, local communities, and State governments are also more capable than the Federal Government of providing adequate help to those unable to provide for training out of their own resources, if the Federal Government returns to constitutional size and reduces the tax burden on American citizens. Federal job training programs, of any sort, furthers the destructive idea that the proper role of the Federal Government is to provide for all the needs of its citizens. The belief that Congress has a moral duty to minister to the health and welfare of the populace, both of America and the world, is directly responsible for the growth of the welfare-warfare state which threatens to destroy America's economic prosperity, and liberty itself. Job training should be provided, like all other goods and services, by the free-market and voluntary transactions.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it is safe to say that we now live in what we call a command society, we do not live in a free society where social and economic problems are solved through voluntary and free market solution. Whether it is food for the poor, homes for the homeless, medical care for the sick, we endlessly call on the Government to use force to redistribute wealth and distribute our production of welfare, with total disregard for the conditions required to produce the wealth. In this misdirected humanitarianism, great harm is done to the very people who are supposed to be helped, both the recipients, as they are forced into a degrading dependency, and the working poor, who bear the greatest tax and inflation burden. In a command society, the Government continuously says, do this, do that, and we obediently do it. But smoldering anger and resentment results, confusion arises, because all the Government does is supposed to be good and helpful. We are endlessly forced to get licenses for all that we do. Rules and regulations are all around us, from morning till night, cradle to grave. We tax life, we tax death, we tax success, and we tax savings. We suffer from double and triple taxation. Taxes are everywhere, as we work half the time for our Government. We meet Government regulations and rules and paperwork everywhere we go. We cannot walk, talk, pray, or own a gun without a Government permit. We cannot drive a car without bells and buzzers and horns and belts and bags, without being reminded that Big Brother is watching, just waiting for one misstep, while the rapists and murderers go unpunished. We are intimidated by political correctness to the point that an innocent joke is a crime and the laws are a joke. Our businesses are subject to invasion at will by Government bureaucracy without warning, pretending to save us from ourselves, while destroying our freedoms. As the bureaucracy thrives, the command society expands. I see no evidence, sadly, of a reversal of this trend. We continue to tinker with the bureaucracy through disbursement and talk of great benefits of block grants and local controls and never talk of the philosophic or moral principles that permit the command society; that is, the concession that the arbitrary use of force to mold personal behavior in the market in our entire society is permissible. Without change in our philosophic approach to government, we will find all the adjustments and revamping of the command society will not and cannot succeed. It cannot change the course upon which this Nation is set. Placing confidence in pseudo-reform does great harm by postponing the day we seriously consider the moral principles upon which a free society is built. I am anxiously waiting for that day. Mr. Speaker, at this time I enter into the Record this recent commentary by one of America's leading television newsmen, Hugh Downs. During his May 10, 1997, radio program ``Perspective,'' this commentary was broadcast, making many of the same points I have made today. BATF's in the Belfry (By Hugh Downs) Not too long ago, the California State Legislature passed a law permitting women to breast feed their children in public. Legislators felt obliged to pass a law about this despite the fact that courts have already upheld the practice. Also breast feeding has long been recommended to women by their physicians as the feeding method of choice. And quite aside from the legal precedent and the medical advantage, breast feeding is the natural way to feed infants; obviously women are equipped to serve sustenance to their offspring this way and it is the safest way to nourish an infant. So why would we need a law to state the obvious? A law permitting public breast feeding is part of a tradition of inane legal redundancies generated by America's criminal justice empire. I say empire because legislators, by nature, think they possess, like Roman Caesars, the imperium, as if the laws they pass somehow wield supreme power over the universe. For example, in the past, legislators in Arkansas prohibited the river in Little Rock to swell any higher than the bridge. That's right, the river, by law, was ``commanded'' not to flood. Wasn't that wonderful? This inane and redundant bit of arrogance reminds me of Canute, the ancient Danish King of England. Canute put his throne on the beach and commanded the sea to retreat. You will not be surprised to hear that the sea dragged Canute, throne and all, to a watery embarrassment. Legislators, from Canute to Congress, can imagine themselves as imperium, because the power to create law seems as if it should include the laws of nature, or the laws of the universe, or let's be honest about it, the laws of the Almighty. I've also heard that, in the past, legislators once passed a law that forbade chickens to lay eggs before 8 o'clock in the morning and no later than 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I'm told this law is, or at least was, on the books in Norfolk, Virginia. Legislators commanded chickens, under penalty of law, only to lay eggs between the daylight hours of 8 and 4. (If you're looking for ``bird brains'' here, you could have trouble figuring out which species had more of them.) I wonder what the penalty was for laying eggs after 4 o'clock? Maybe criminal chickens were threatened with being ``cooped up.'' To be fair, a lot of stupid laws are just old laws that may have seemed liked a good idea at the time but now seem quaint. When automobiles first appeared around the turn of the century, legislators rushed laws to regulate them. Since early automobiles made enough noise to spook a horse, several states passed laws that required runners to precede automobiles so that horse riders and buggy drivers could be forewarned of the approaching menace. I can only imagine what modern Interstate highways would look like if such laws were enforced today. I heard that in Pennsylvania somewhere, there is still a law requiring motorists to pull over at the sight of a team of horses and cover the vehicle with a cloth that has been painted to match the local foliage. I looked in my trunk the other day and noticed that I don't carry a camouflage cover. I hope I never need one in Pennsylvania. Many old laws seem dumb and dumber today, and are innocently amusing. Who cares if it's against the law in Grand Haven, Michigan to toss an abandoned hoop skirt in the street? It may have happened in the 1860's but it'll never happen today because women don't wear hoop skirts anymore. In addition to antiquated laws, some laws can be ludicrous prohibitions that deal with situations that are patently obvious. Is it really true that someone passed a law in Alabama prohibiting motorists from operating a motor vehicle while blind folded? What was in their beverages? And what about that Florida law prohibiting sex with a porcupine? I'm not kidding. This is supposed to be a real law. What were these lawmakers thinking? At least sex with a porcupine must be one crime with a very low rate of recidivism. Obviously, hubris can propel legislators well beyond the asinine to the really dangerous. America's burgeoning criminal justice empire doesn't just churn out useless laws, it also creates unnecessary law enforcement agencies--whole police forces that we don't need. We don't need them because we already have local police departments. The DEA, or Drug Enforcement Agency is anything but local. The DEA performs a job that used to be done by the War Department during World War II. The DEA sends American GI's into foreign countries and wages war. Prosecution of a drug war sounds like a policy hatched by Dumb and Dumber. Without a war there would be no need for the DEA, or its staggering budget. Of course, the DEA does not police alcohol and tobacco. We have a completely separate police force (the Dumber half of this duo) just to deal with cigarettes and liquor. The BATF, or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, is what you might call an ``offbeat'' police force. The name itself is off the wall? You might wonder why we need a completely separate organization to police things that are all legal, especially when local police already do that. Local police have been doing it for centuries in America. But lawmakers, anxious to serve in the drug war, decided that extra federal agencies were needed too. We may have too many laws and too many agencies. After the catastrophes at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the BATF came under Congressional scrutiny as an unnecessary organization that sometimes over-steps its bounds. When they're not being investigated by Congress, the BATF is tracking down dangerous criminals and keeping America safe. For example, America was recently threatened by a naked angel--that's right a naked angel--and the BATF fought valiantly to repel her. They lost. Kermit Lynch, a wine merchant in northern California, reports that he tried to import some Chianti wine that had a naked angel on the label. The BATF pounced. Agents told Lynch that pictures of naked ladies on containers of alcohol are forbidden. So Kermit Lynch looked up the law. He discovered that pictures of women in the all together are permissible on containers of alcohol if the pictures are art. The BATF had to backtrack when Mr. Lynch demonstrated that the picture wasn't really a naked woman, it was really an artistic nude from a 13th century tapestry. A stunned Kermit Lynch says ``The BATF is in the business of judging art. Can you believe it?'' In an interview, Mr. Lynch told reporter Paul Kilduff that the Kenwood winery in Sonoma County, California hired artist David Goines to do a label. When Mr. Goines came up with a naked woman standing in a vineyard, the BATF pounced again. So, a now angry Mr. Goines submitted a new label with the skeleton of a woman standing in a vineyard. You guessed it. The BATF approved that one. How many useless laws and useless police agencies do we really need? Surely, we should throw out what we don't need and keep what we do. Like the law that I'm told exists in Tennessee, that prohibits shooting game animals from moving vehicles. The law has one exception: whales. It's legal to shoot whales in Tennessee from a moving vehicle. Now there's a law that we need.