1998 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should
reject HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments
of 1998 because it furthers the federal
stranglehold over higher education. Instead of
furthering federal control over education, Congress
should focus on allowing Americans to
devote more of their resources to higher education
by dramatically reducing their taxes. There are numerous proposals to do this before
this Congress. For example, the Higher
Education Affordability and Availability Act (HR
2847), of which I am an original cosponsor, allows
taxpayers to deposit up to $5,000 per
year in a pre-paid tuition plan without having
to pay tax on the interest earned, thus enabling
more Americans to afford college. This is
just one of the many fine proposals to reduce
the tax burden on Americans so they can afford
a higher education for themselves and/or
their children. Other good ideas which I have
supported are the PASS A+ accounts for higher
education included in last year’s budget,
and the administration’s HOPE scholarship
proposal, of which I was amongst the few
members of the majority to champion. Although
the various plans I have supported differ
in detail, they all share one crucial element. Each allows individuals the freedom to
spend their own money on higher education
rather than forcing taxpayers to rely on Washington
to return to them some percentage of
their tax dollars to spend as bureaucrats see
fit.
1998 Ron Paul 49:2
Federal control inevitably accompanies federal
funding because politicians cannot exist
imposing their preferred solutions for perceived
“problems” on institutions dependent
upon taxpayer dollars. The prophetic soundness
of those who spoke out against the creation
of federal higher education programs in
the 1960s because they would lead to federal
control of higher education is demonstrated by
numerous provisions in HR 6. Clearly, federal
funding is being used as an excuse to tighten
the federal noose around both higher and elementary
education.
1998 Ron Paul 49:3
Federal spending, and thus federal control,
are dramatically increased by HR 6. The entire
bill has been scored as costing approximately
$101 billion dollars over the next five years; an
increase of over 10 billion from the levels a
Democrat Congress Congress authorize for
Higher Education programs in 1991!. Of
course, actual spending for these programs
may be greater, especially if the country experiences
an economic downturn which increases
the demand for federally-subsidized
student loans.
1998 Ron Paul 49:4
Mr. Chairman, one particular objectionable
feature of the Higher Education Amendments
is that this act creates a number of new federal
programs, some of which where added to
the bill late at night when few members where
present to object.
1998 Ron Paul 49:5
The most objectionable program is “teacher
training.” The Federal Government has no
constitutional authority to dictate, or “encourage,”
states and localities to adopt certain
methods of education. Yet, this Congress is
preparing to authorize the federal government
to bribe states, with monies the federal government
should never have taken from the
people in the first place, to adopt teacher
training methods favored by a select group of
DC-based congressmen and staffers.
1998 Ron Paul 49:6
As HR 6 was being drafted and marked-up,
some Committee members did attempt to protect
the interests of the taxpayers by refusing
to support authorizing this program unless the
spending was offset by cuts in other programs. Unfortunately, some members who
might have otherwise opposed this program
supported it at the Committee mark-up because
of the offset.
1998 Ron Paul 49:7
While having an offset for the teacher training
program is superior to authorizing a new
program, at least from an accounting perspective,
supporting this program remains unacceptable
for two reasons. First of all, just because
the program is funded this year by reduced
expenditures is no guarantee the same
formula will be followed in future years. In fact,
given the trend toward ever-higher expenditures
in federal education programs, it is likely
that the teacher training program will receive
new funds over and above any offset contained
in its authorizing legislation.
1998 Ron Paul 49:8
Second, and more importantly, the 10th
amendment does not prohibit federal control of
education without an offset, it prohibits all programs
that centralize education regardless of
how they are funded. Savings from defunded
education programs should be used for education
tax cuts and credits, not poured into
new, unconstitutional programs.
1998 Ron Paul 49:9
Another unconstitutional interference in
higher education within HR 6 is the provision
creating new features mandates on institutes
of higher education regarding the reporting of
criminal incidents to the general public. Once
again, the federal government is using its
funding of higher education to impose unconstitutional
mandates on colleges and universities.
1998 Ron Paul 49:10
Officials of the Texas-New Mexico Association
of College and University Police Departments
have raised concerns about some of
the new requirements in this bill. Two provisions
the association finds particularly objectionable
are those mandating that campuses
report incidents of arson and report students
referred to disciplinary action on drug and alcohol
charges. These officials are concerned
these expanded requirements will lead to the
reporting of minor offenses, such as lighting a
fire in a trash can or a 19-year-old student
caught in his room with a six-pack of beer as
campus crimes, thus, distorting the true picture
of the criminal activity level occurring as
campus.
1998 Ron Paul 49:11
The association also objects to the requirement
that campus make police and security
logs available to the general public within two
business days as this may not allow for an intelligent
interpretation of the impact of the
availability of the information and may compromise
an investigation, cause the destruction
of evidence, or the flight of an accomplice. Furthermore, reporting the general location,
date, and time for a crime may identify victims
against their will in cases of sexual assault,
drug arrests, and burglary investigations. The
informed views of those who deal with campus
crime on a daily basis should be given their
constitutional due rather than dictating to them
the speculations of those who sit in Washington
and presume to mandate a uniform reporting
system for campus crimes.
1998 Ron Paul 49:12
Another offensive provision of the campus
crime reporting section of the bill that has
raised concerns in the higher education community
is the mandate that any campus disciplinary
proceeding alleging criminal misconduct
shall be open. This provision may discourage
victims, particularly women who have
been sexually assaulted, from seeking redress
through a campus disciplinary procedures for
fear they will be put “on display.” For example,
in a recent case, a student in Miami University
in Ohio explained that she chose to
seek redress over a claim of sexual assault
“* * * through the university, rather than the
county prosecutor’s office, so that she could
avoid the publicity and personal discomfort of
a prosecution * * *”
Assaulting the privacy
rights of victimized students by taking away
the option of a campus disciplinary proceeding
is not only an unconstitutional mandate but immoral.
1998 Ron Paul 49:13
This bill also contains a section authorizing
special funding for programs in areas of so-called
“national need” as designated by the
Secretary of Education. This is little more than
central planning, based on the fallacy that omnipotent
“experts” can easily determine the
correct allocation of education resources. However, basic economies teaches that a bureaucrat
in Washington cannot determine
“areas of national need.” The only way to
know this is through the interaction of students,
colleges, employers, and consumers
operating in a free-market, where individuals
can decide what higher education is deserving
of expending additional resources as indicated
by employer workplace demand.
1998 Ron Paul 49:14
Mr. Chairman, the Higher Education Amendments
of 1998 expand the unconstitutional
role of the federal government in education by
increasing federal control over higher education,
as well as creating a new teacher training
program. This bill represents more of the
same, old “Washington knows best” philosophy
that has so damaged American education
over the past century. Congress should therefore
reject this bill and instead join me in working
to defund all unconstitutional programs
and free Americans from the destructive tax
and monetary policies of the past few decades,
thus making higher education more
readily available and more affordable for millions
of Americans.
Notes:
1998 Ron Paul Chapter 49
The text of this chapter was inserted in CongressionalRecord as an extension of remarks, and was not spoken on the House floor.
1998 Ron Paul 49:3 1991!. probably should be 1991! (without a period) and does not denote a factorial (i.e. all the integers 1 through 1991 multiplied together).
1998 Ron Paul 49:3
Ungrammatical federally-subsidized should be federally subsidized (without a hyphen).
1998 Ron Paul 49:11 the requirement that campus make police and security logs available probably should be plural,
the requirement that campuses make police and security logs available.
1998 Ron Paul 49:12 a campus disciplinary procedures perhaps should be possessive,
a campus’s disciplinary procedures or singular a campus
disciplinary procedure.
1998 Ron Paul 49:13 basic economies perhaps should be basic economics.
