[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 148 (Friday, October 16, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2219-E2220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            EDUCATION DEBATE

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 16, 1998

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my 
thoughts on the education debate that has consumed much of this 
Congress in recent days. For all the sound and fury generated by the 
argument over education, the truth is that the difference between the 
congressional leadership and the administration are not that 
significant; both wish to strengthen the unconstitutional system of 
centralized education. I trust I need not go into the flaws with 
President Clinton's command-and-control approach to education. However, 
this Congress has failed to present a true, constitutional alternative 
to President Clinton's proposals to further nationalize education.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized 
control of education has failed. Even data from the National Assessment 
of Education Progress [NAEP] shows that students in States where 
control over education is decentralized score approximately 10 
percentage points higher on NAEP's tests in math and reading than 
students from States with highly-centralized education systems. 
Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing 
when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.
  American children deserve nothing less than the best educational 
opportunities, not warmed-over versions of the disastrous educational 
policies of the past. That is why I introduced H.R. 1816, the Family 
Education Freedom Act. This bill would give parents an inflation-
adjusted $3,000 per annum tax credit, per child for educational 
expenses. The credit applies to those in public, private, parochial, or 
home schooling.
  This bill is the largest tax credit for education in the history of 
our great Republic and it returns the fundamental principal of a truly 
free economy to America's education system: what the great economist 
Ludwig von Mises called ``consumer sovereignty.'' Consumer sovereignty 
simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. 
Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most 
successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market 
maximizes human happiness.
  Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education 
``market.'' Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the 
Federal Government. Because ``he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' 
public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the 
dictates of Federal ``educrats'' while ignoring the wishes of the 
parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer 
sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education 
and replacing it with State control. Restoring parental control is the 
key to improving education.
  Of course I applaud all efforts which move in this direction. the 
Gingrich/Coverdell education tax cut, The Granger/Dunn bill, and, yes, 
President Clinton's college tax credits are good first steps in the 
direction I advocate. However, Congress must act boldly, we can ill 
afford to waste another year without a revolutionary change in our 
policy. I believe my bill sparks this revolution and I am disappointed 
that the leadership of this Congress chose to ignore this fundamental 
reform and instead focused on reauthorizing great society programs, 
creating new Federal education programs (such as those contained in the 
Reading Excellence Act and the four new Federal programs created by the 
Higher Education Act), and promoting the pseudo-federalism of block 
grants.
  One area where this Congress was successful in fighting for a 
constitutional education policy was in resisting President Clinton's 
drive for national testing. I do wish to express my support for the 
provisions banning the development of national testing and thank Mr. 
Goodling for his leadership in this struggle. However, I wish this 
provision did no come at the price of $1.1 billion in new Federal 
spending. In addition, I note that this Congress is taking several 
steps toward creating a national curriculum, particularly through the 
Reading Excellence Act, which dictates teaching methodologies to every 
classroom in the Nation and creates a Federal definition of reading, 
thus making compliance with Federal standards the goal of education.
  So, even when Congress resists one proposal to further nationalize 
education, it supports another form of nationalization. Some Members 
will claim they are resisting nationalization and even standing up for 
the 10th amendment by fighting to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on 
block grants. These Members say that the expenditure levels do not 
matter,

[[Page E2220]]

it is the way the money that is spent which is important. Contrary to 
the view of these well-meaning but misguided members, the amount of 
taxpayer dollars spent on Federal education programs do matter.
  First of all, the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority 
to redistribute monies between States and taxpayers for the purpose of 
education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through 
Federal programs or through grants. There is no ``block grant 
exception'' to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Furthermore, the Federal Government's power to treat State 
governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of 
Congress' taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to Federal control is 
the only way State and local officials can recapture any part of the 
monies of the Federal Government has illegitimately taken from a 
State's citizens. Of course, this is also the only way State officials 
can tax citizens of other States to support their education programs. 
It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to Federal dictates 
in exchange for Federal funding!
  As long as the Federal Government controls education dollars, States 
and local schools will obey Federal mandates; the core problem is not 
that Federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the 
real problem is the existence of Federal taxation and funding.
  Since Federal spending is the root of Federal control, by increasing 
Federal spending this Congress is laying the groundwork for future 
Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the States. Because 
State and even local officials, not Federal bureaucrats, will be 
carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the 
transformation of the State governments into mere agents of the Federal 
Government.
  Congress has used block grants to avoid addressing philosophical and 
constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State 
governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of 
devolution. Devolution is said to return to State's rights by 
decentralizing the management of Federal programs. This is a new 1990's 
definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor 
substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.
  While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as 
micro-management at the Federal level, Congress' constitutional and 
moral responsibility is not to make the Federal education bureaucracy 
``less bad.'' Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of 
education and thus make American education once again the envy of the 
world.
  Hopefully the next Congress will be more reverent toward their duty 
to the U.S. Constitution and America's children. The price of Congress' 
failure to return to the Constitution in the area of education will be 
paid by the next generation of American children. In short, we cannot 
afford to continue on the policy road we have been going down. The cost 
of inaction to our future generations is simply too great.

                          ____________________