Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as the House of Representatives Member for Galveston, Texas, I have followed the case of Judge Samuel Kent with great interest. My study of the facts of this case has convinced me that the House Committee on the Judiciary made the correct decision in recommending that Judge Kent be impeached. Unfortunately, because of a commitment in my congressional district, I was only able to be on the House floor for the vote on the first count. Had I been on the House floor for the vote, I would have voted for all four counts of impeachment. I hope the Senate expeditiously acts on this matter.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Mr. Steve LeBlanc, City Manager of Galveston Texas, on being named Administrator of the Year by the Texas City Management Association (TCMA). Steve received this award because of the leadership he provided to Galveston in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Since my congressional district includes Galveston, my office has had the opportunity to work closely with Steve. I have always been impressed with his dedication to the people of Galveston, a dedication best exemplified by his tireless efforts to help Galveston rebuild, following the devastation of Hurricane Ike. A longtime resident of Galveston Island, Steve has a Bachelor of Science in Coastal Engineering from Texas A&M and a Master of Business Administration from the University of Houston. He has served as Galveston's city manager since March 1997. Before being named city manager, Steve held several positions with the city including Director of Utilities, Director of Public Works, and Assistant City Manager. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I once again extend my congratulations to Galveston City Manager Steve LeBlanc on being named Administrator of the Year. I also thank him for all he does for the people of Galveston. It is my sincere hope that Galveston benefits from Mr. LeBlanc's services for years to come.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Evacuees Tax Relief Act of 2009, legislation providing tax relief to those forced to abandon their homes because of a natural disaster. This legislation provides a tax credit or a tax deduction, depending on the wishes of the taxpayer, of up to $5,000 for costs incurred because of a government-ordered mandatory or voluntary evacuation. Evacuees could use the credit to cover travel and lodging expenses associated with the evacuation, lost wages, property damages not otherwise compensated, and any other evacuation-related expenses. The tax credit is refundable up to the amount of income and payroll taxes a person would otherwise pay, thus ensuring working people who pay more in payroll than in income taxes are able to benefit from this tax relief. The credit is available retroactive to December of 2007, so it is available to Hurricane Ike evacuees, as well as those who evacuated because of Hurricanes Gustav and Dolly. Just last year, the majority of my district, including my home county, was subject to mandatory evacuation because of Hurricane Ike. Therefore, I have firsthand experience with the burdens faced by those forced to uproot themselves and their families because of a natural disaster. Evacuees incur great costs in getting to safety, as well as loss from the storm damage. It can take many months, and even years, to fully recover from the devastation of a natural disaster. Given the unpredictable nature of natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornados, it is difficult for most families to adequately budget for these costs. The Evacuees Tax Relief Act helps Americans manage the fiscal costs of a natural disaster. Madam Speaker, with the 2009 hurricane season now upon us, it is hard to think of a more timely and more compassionate tax relief proposal than one aimed at helping families cope with the costs associated with being uprooted from their homes, jobs, and communities by a natural disaster. I hope all my colleagues will show compassion for those forced to flee their homes by cosponsoring the Evacuees Tax Relief Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I obtained as part of H.R. 2487. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 2487 Account: NASA Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership Address of Requesting Entity: 2525 Bay Area Blvd., Suite 640, Houston, TX 77058 Description of Request: An earmark of $1,000,000 to fund the Bay Area SATOP program to transfer the knowledge and technology of the U.S. Space Program to small businesses. SATOP provides technical assistance to small businesses.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, ``Pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I obtained as part of H.R. 2892.'' Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 2892 Account: FEMA, State and Local Programs/Emergency Operations Center Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Brazoria County Emergency Management Description of Request: An earmark of $100,000 to fund construction of an Emergency Operating Center in Brazoria County, Texas.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse. This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this ``compromise'' bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version--in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas. As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for ``peacekeeping'' missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a ``potential pandemic flu.'' Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us more safe at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I don't think anybody can argue at all with the intentions of the proposal of this bill. There is no question that cigarettes are very harmful. The question for me here is the process, and I find the process here atrocious because it assumes that authoritarianism is right, proper and that it works and that volunteerism, education, self-reliance and depending on oneself to take care of oneself is a proper approach. We totally reject our free society and assume that if we just have tobacco police roaming the country, that all of a sudden bad habits are going to be cleared up. We're dealing with bad habits, and these are bad for health. But let me tell you, I can bring you a list here of dozens and dozens of bad habits that lead to death. As a matter of fact, one of the things that we ought to consider is, how many people die from our drug war? We have a drug war, and about 3,000 people die from the use of illegal drugs. So we have a drug war going on, and tens of thousands of people die. It's so exasperating at times because we always have two proposals here, or we have two ways of solving problems or dealing with tobacco. For decades, what did we do? We subsidized tobacco, and now we want to prohibit tobacco. Why don't we just let the people decide. This whole idea of either having to subsidize something or prohibit something shows a shallowness that I think we ought to challenge. One part of this bill that I find particularly bad, but it is pervasive in so much of what we do, about 100 years ago we took the First Amendment and freedom of speech and chopped it into two pieces. We have political speech. Of course we like that. We're in the business of politics. But we take commercial speech, and we put it over here, and we regulate the living daylights out of commercial speech. That's not a First Amendment. That's chopping freedom in half, and that just leads to more problems. But this will lead to prohibition, and it won't work. This will just give us a lot more trouble. You say, Well, how will these problems be handled if we just permit people to advertise? Well, you are not allowed to commit fraud; you are not allowed to commit slander; you are not allowed to commit any libel or slander or fraud. So there are prohibitions. But this approach can't work. It is assumed that people are total idiots, that they won't respond to education, that we have to be the nanny state. We want to expand the war on drugs, which is a total failure. And look at what happened to the prohibition of alcohol. You say, Well, no, this is not going to be a prohibition. It is going to be prohibition. This is a form of prohibition. When you have prohibition or even approach prohibition, what do you create? You create the black market. We will see the black market come. Already the taxes are opening up the doors of the black market. All I ask for is people to reconsider, believe that freedom, self- reliance and individualism can solve these problems a lot better than a bunch of politicians, bureaucrats and tobacco police here from Washington, D.C.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me these 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Some are hopeful that this will be a less militaristic approach to our foreign policy. Quite frankly, I don't see any changes. I wish it were something that would represent a humble foreign policy, but when you put an extra $100 million into the military operations of the United Nations, I hardly think this is a change in direction. Actually, it's $18 billion that is going into more meddling, and we don't have $18 billion. The President has now asked us here in the Congress to follow the PAYGO rules. Well, that might be a good idea if we had set aside the idea that we would raise taxes, but we're not going to cut any domestic spending for this foreign spending, so the odds of this following the PAYGO rule are essentially nil. I want to call attention to one provision in this that is rather disturbing to me, and that is the Civilian Stabilization Initiative. This is new. It was not invented by this administration. It was invented by the last administration. This is to set up a permanent standing, nation-building office with an employment of or with the use of nearly 5,000 individuals. So what is the goal of this new initiative going to be? It will facilitate democratic and political transitions in various countries. Now, if you want to talk about interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, that is exactly what this is all about. Facilitating democratic and political transitions? Well, of course. We've been doing that for a long time, but we've gotten ourselves into a lot of trouble doing it. We did it in 1953, and we're still suffering the consequences. This initiative is a little more honest. It's up front. We're actually supporting and funding a facility that would be involved in political transitions. The mandate in this is to ``reconstruct'' societies. That sounds wonderful. There are a lot of societies that need reconstruction, but so many of the societies that we have to reconstruct we helped to destroy or to disrupt. Think of what our troops and our money have done in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq. I think this provision, itself, is enough reason to vote against this authorization.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, before voting on the ``cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists: ``We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.'' Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer- reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproiect.org. The peer-reviewed summary, ``Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition. Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality. In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz--past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world--wrote: ``The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds. This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries. It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.'' We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.'' Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries. Yet, we will soon be considering so-called ``cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. ``Cap and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of ``global warming'' and ``climate change'' advocates--claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,477 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work. It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth--not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters. Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people--the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people--including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise--including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators. While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom. In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the last few years in interviews on the economy, I've been asked what I would do if I were in charge. In answering the question, I usually started with explaining the errors we made that gave us the crisis. The interviewer frequently responded by saying that he wasn't interested in the cause of the problems, only what we should do now to correct it. This is a typical attitude in Washington, but we cannot expect correct policies to be implemented if we don't understand the cause of the crisis. Instead, we have pursued all the wrong policies. Let me list a few mistakes we have made. We have failed to recognize the true cause of the crisis. Instead, free markets and not enough regulations and central economic planning have been blamed. We continue to listen to and give too much credibility to the very people who caused the crisis and failed to predict the onset. A massive single-year debt increase of $2 trillion and a $9 trillion stimulus by Congress and the Federal Reserve verges on madness. This has entailed taxpayers being forced to buy worthless assets, propping up malinvestments, not allowing the liquidation of bad debt, bailing out privileged banking, Wall Street and corporate elites. We promote artificially low interest rates which eliminates information that only the market can provide. Steadily sacrificing economic and personal liberty is accepted as good policy. Socializing American industry offers little hope that prosperity will soon return. Inflating the money supply over 100 percent in less than a year is no way to restore confidence to a failing financial system. Expect huge price increases in the future. We have set the stage for further expanding the money supply many folds over through fractional reserve banking. We deliberately liquidate debt, especially government debt, by debasing the currency. We refuse to accept the fact that the debt cannot be paid, and future obligations are incomprehensible with revenues crashing and unpredictable while expenditures are put on auto pilot with no new request being denied. There's an attitude that the deficit and inflation can be dealt with later on, yet tomorrow will be here sooner than later. Plans are being laid for a super regulator, even if it takes a worldwide government organization like the IMF to impose it. Promising the IMF $100 billion when we can't even take care of our own people's medical needs is obviously absurd. Plans are laid to massively increase taxes, especially with the carbon tax, that when tried in other countries didn't work and had many unintended consequences. A national sales tax, now being planned, sends bad signals to investors, consumers and workers. The deeply flawed neoconservative foreign policy of expanding our militarism in the Middle East and Central Asia continues. There's no end in sight for secret prisons, special courts, ignoring the right of habeas corpus, no penalties for carrying out illegal torture and a new system of preventive detention. We continue to protect the concepts of state secrets and Presidential signing statements. We are enlarging Bagram prison in Afghanistan, and there's no cessation of the senseless war on drugs. Indeed, as former Vice President Dick Cheney has said, we're in greater danger today than under the Bush administration; but it's not because we're not following the Cheney-Bush foreign policy of preventive war, but rather because we are. The Bush doctrine on war is still in place, and the economic failures of the previous administration are being continued and expanded. The policies required to provide a solution to this catastrophic crisis we face are available. We must apply a precise philosophy of liberty along with respect for private property ownership, free markets, voluntary contracts enforced by law and free minds. Also required is the adoption of a commonsense foreign policy that requires us to stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. Pretending that politicians, central bankers and regulators have the knowledge to centrally plan the economy and police the world only makes things worse. Realizing this provides the necessary first step to salvage our economy and liberty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this unnecessary and counter-productive resolution regarding the 20th anniversary of the incident in China's Tiananmen Square. In addition to my concerns over the content of this legislation, I strongly object to the manner in which it was brought to the floor for a vote. While the resolution was being debated on the House floor, I instructed my staff to obtain a copy so that I could read it before the vote. My staff was told by no less than four relevant bodies within the House of Representatives that the text was not available for review and would not be available for another 24 hours. It is unacceptable for Members of the House of Representatives to be asked to vote on legislation that is not available for them to read! As to the substance of the resolution, I find it disturbing that the House is going out of its way to meddle in China's domestic politics, which is none of our business, while ignoring the many pressing issues in our own country that definitely are our business. This resolution ``calls on the People's Republic of China to invite full and independent investigations into the Tiananmen Square crackdown, assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross . . .'' Where do we get the authority for such a demand? I wonder how the U.S. government would respond if China demanded that the United Nations conduct a full and independent investigation into the treatment of detainees at the U.S.-operated Guantanamo facility? The resolution ``calls on the legal authorities of People's Republic of China to review immediately the cases of those still imprisoned for participating in the 1989 protests for compliance with internationally recognized standards of fairness and due process in judicial proceedings.'' In light of U.S. government's extraordinary renditions of possibly hundreds of individuals into numerous secret prisons abroad where they are held indefinitely without charge or trial, one wonders what the rest of the world makes of such U.S. demands. It is hard to exercise credible moral authority in the world when our motto toward foreign governments seems to be ``do as we say, not as we do.'' While we certainly do not condone government suppression of individual rights and liberties wherever they may occur, why are we not investigating these abuses closer to home and within our jurisdiction? It seems the House is not interested in investigating allegations that U.S. government officials and employees approved and practiced torture against detainees. Where is the Congressional investigation of the U.S.-operated ``secret prisons'' overseas? What about the administration's assertion of the right to detain individuals indefinitely without trial? It may be easier to point out the abuses and shortcomings of governments overseas than to address government abuses here at home, but we have the constitutional obligation to exercise our oversight authority in such matters. I strongly believe that addressing these current issues would be a better use of our time than once again condemning China for an event that took place some 20 years ago.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I certainly support efforts aimed at removing the stigma associated with mental health, increasing public awareness of the need to support those with mental health problems and their families, and the other goals of Mental Health Month. However, I am concerned that certain language in H. Res. 437 appears to endorse all of the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, even though certain of the commission's recommendations threaten individual liberty and the wellbeing of American children. In particular, the commission recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally- funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as ``ADD'' or ``hyperactive'' and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes. Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication. Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation. Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists ``intolerance'' as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because ``intolerance'' is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a ``mental disorder.'' In order to protect America's children from being subject to ``universal mental screening'' I have introduce the Parental Consent Act (H.R. 2218). This bill forbids federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. H.R. 2218 protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Protect Patients' and Physicians' Privacy Act. This legislation protects medical privacy, as well as quality health care, by allowing patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals the sections of Federal law establishing a ``unique health identifier'' and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a third party. Congress has refused to fund the development of a unique health identifier every year since 1998. Clearly, the majority of my colleagues recognize the threat this scheme poses to medical privacy. It is past time for Congress to repeal the section of law authorizing the Federal unique health identifier. Among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill, which was rushed through Congress earlier this year, was funding for electronic medical records. Medicare providers have until 2015 to ``voluntarily'' adopt the system of electronic medical records, or face financial penalties. One of the major flaws with the federally mandated electronic record system is that it does not provide adequate privacy protection. Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the Federal ``medical privacy rule.'' This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent. Even if the law did not authorize violations of medical privacy, patients would still have good reason to be concerned about the government's ability to protect their medical records. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. My colleagues should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties and ask themselves what would happen if unscrupulous politicians gain the power to access their political enemies' electronic medical records. As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality health care is the patient's confidence that all information the patient shares with his or her health care provider will remain confidential. Forcing physicians to place their patients' medical records in a system without adequate privacy protection undermines that confidence, and thus undermines effective medical treatment. A physician opt out is also necessary in order to allow physicians to escape from the inefficiencies and other problems that are sure to occur in the implementation and management of the Federal system. Contrary to the claims of the mandatory system's proponents, it is highly unlikely an efficient system of mandatory electronic health records can be established by the Government. Many health technology experts have warned of the problems that will accompany the system of mandatory electronic medical records. For example, David Kibbe, a top technology adviser to the American Academy of Family Physicians, warned President Obama in an open letter late last year that existing medical software is often poorly designed and does a poor job of exchanging information. Allowing physicians to opt out provides a safety device to ensure that physicians can avoid the problems that will inevitably accompany the government-mandated system. Madam Speaker, allowing patients and providers to opt out of the electronic medical records system will in no way harm the practice of medicine or the development of an efficient system of keeping medical records. Instead, it will enhance these worthy goals by ensuring patients and physicians can escape the inefficient, one-size-fits-all government-mandated system. By creating a market for alternatives to the government system, the op-out ensures that private businesses can work to develop systems that meet the demands for an efficient system of electronic records that protects patients' privacy. I urge my colleagues to stand up for privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Protect Patients' and Physicians' Privacy Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Coercion is Not Health Care Act. This legislation forbids the Federal Government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, and from conditioning participation in any Federal program, or receipt of any Federal benefit, on the purchase of health insurance. While often marketed as a ``moderate'' compromise between nationalized health care and a free market solution, forcing every American to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled health care system. If Congress requires individuals to purchase insurance, Congress must define what insurance policies satisfy the government mandate. Thus, Congress will decide what is and is not covered in the mandatory insurance policy. Does anyone seriously doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered will be determined by who has the most effective lobby. Or that Congress will be incapable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that will fit the unique needs of every individual in the United States? The experience of States that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes health insurance more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely create yet another fiscally unsustainable entitlement program to help cover the cost of insurance. When the cost of government-mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals and small employers, and the government, Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments will be reimbursed by the mandatory insurance. The result will be an increasing number of providers turning to ``cash only'' practices, thus making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find health care. Anyone who doubts that result should consider the increasing number of physicians who are withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Madam Speaker, the key to effective health care reform lies not in increasing government control, but in increasing the American people's ability to make their own health care decisions. Thus, instead of forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance, Congress should put the American people back in charge of health care by expanding health care tax credits and deductions, as well as increasing access to Health Savings Accounts. Therefore, I have introduced legislation, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (H.R. 1495), which provides a series of health care tax credits and deductions designed to empower patients. I urge my colleagues to reject the big government-knows-best approach to health care by cosponsoring my Coercion is Not Health Care Act and Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Affordable Gas Price Act. This legislation reduces gas prices by reforming government polices that artificially inflate the price of gas. While the price of gas has not yet reached the record levels of last year, over the last 2 months the average price of gas has risen approximately 16 percent. In some areas, the price of gas is approaching $3.00 per gallon. There is thus a real possibility that the American people while soon by once again hard hit by skyrocketing gas prices. High gas prices threaten our fragile economy and diminishes the quality of life for all Americans. One industry that is particularly hard hit is the trucking industry. The effects of high gas prices on the trucking industry will be reflected in increased costs for numerous consumer goods, thus further harming American consumers. Unfortunately, many proposals to address the problem of higher energy prices involve increasing government interference in the market through policies such as price controls. These big government solutions will, at best, prove ineffective and, at worst, bring back the fuel shortages and gas lines of the seventies. Instead of expanding government, Congress should repeal Federal laws and polices that raise the price of gas, either directly through taxes or indirectly though regulations that discourage the development of new fuel sources. This is why my legislation repeals the Federal moratorium on offshore drilling and allows oil exploration in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. My bill also ensures that the National Environmental Policy Act's environmental impact statement requirement will no longer be used as a tool to force refiners to waste valuable time and capital on nuisance litigation. The Affordable Gas Price Act also provides tax incentives to encourage investment in new refineries. Federal fuel taxes are a major part of gasoline's cost. The Affordable Gas Price Act suspends the Federal gasoline tax any time the average gas prices exceeds $3.00 per gallon. During the suspension, the Federal Government will have a legal responsibility to ensure the Federal highway trust fund remains funded. My bill also raises the amount of mileage reimbursement not subject to taxes, and, during times of high oil prices, provides the same mileage reimbursement benefit to charity and medical organizations as provided to businesses. Misguided and outdated trade polices are also artificially raising the price of gas. For instance, even though Russia and Kazakhstan allow their citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate, they are still subject to Jackson-Vanik sanctions, even though Jackson-Vanik was a reaction to the Soviet Union's highly restrictive emigration policy. Eliminating Jackson-Vankik's threat of trade-restricting sanctions would increase the United States' access to oil supplies from non-Arab countries. Thus, my bill terminates the application of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to Russia and Khazaskin, allowing Americans to enjoy the benefits of free trade with these oil-producing nations. Finally, the Affordable Gas Price Act creates a Federal study on how the abandonment of the gold standard and the adoption of freely floating currencies are affecting the price of oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar's last connection to gold. The system of fiat money makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Affordable Gas Price Act and end government polices that increase the cost of gasoline.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Sanctity of Life Act. This legislation provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Since the Supreme Court invented a ``right'' to abortion in Roe v. Wade, federal judges have repeatedly thwarted efforts by democratically elected officials at the state and local level to protect the unborn. However, the federal courts have no legitimate authority to tell states and local communities what restrictions can and cannot be placed on abortion. Even some intellectually honest supporters of legalized abortion acknowledge that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state's ability to protect unborn life. Madam Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of using the power granted to the Congress by the Constitution to protect the ability of individual states and the people to restore respect for the sanctity of human life.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Could it all be a bad dream, or a nightmare? Is it my imagination, or have we lost our minds? It's surreal; it's just not believable. A grand absurdity; a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions; based on preposterous notions; and on ideas whose time should never have come; simplicity grossly distorted and complicated; insanity passed off as logic; grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff; evil described as virtue; ignorance pawned off as wisdom; destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism; violence, the tool of change; preventive wars used as the road to peace; tolerance delivered by government guns; reactionary views in the guise of progress; an empire replacing the Republic; slavery sold as liberty; excellence and virtue traded for mediocracy; socialism to save capitalism; a government out of control, unrestrained by the Constitution, the rule of law, or morality; bickering over petty politics as we collapse into chaos; the philosophy that destroys us is not even defined. We have broken from reality--a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom. Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press or escalating deficits. We're now in the midst of unlimited spending of the people's money, exorbitant taxation, deficits of trillions of dollars--spent on a failed welfare/warfare state; an epidemic of cronyism; unlimited supplies of paper money equated with wealth. A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper. Yet, cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and Detroit. We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed, as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century. We assume that by keeping the already-known torture pictures from the public's eye, we will be remembered only as a generous and good people. If our enemies want to attack us only because we are free and rich, proof of torture would be irrelevant. The sad part of all this is that we have forgotten what made America great, good, and prosperous. We need to quickly refresh our memories and once again reinvigorate our love, understanding, and confidence in liberty. The status quo cannot be maintained, considering the current conditions. Violence and lost liberty will result without some revolutionary thinking. We must escape from the madness of crowds now gathering. The good news is the reversal is achievable through peaceful and intellectual means and, fortunately, the number of those who care are growing exponentially. Of course, it could all be a bad dream, a nightmare, and that I'm seriously mistaken, overreacting, and that my worries are unfounded. I hope so. But just in case, we ought to prepare ourselves for revolutionary changes in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today we passed the supplemental bill. And I'm deeply disappointed about that. I was disappointed also that I wasn't able to get any time to enter into the debate because the time was rather limited and it was a closed rule. But I did want to make a couple of comments and the concerns that I have had about this supplemental. When the President sent the supplemental over, it was $84.9 billion. And there were some of us that were hoping that we wouldn't be funding the war through supplementals, but it looks like that hasn't changed, the process would continue, even though there were some that believed there would be a change in the way we funded these wars. When that bill came to the House, there was a lot of expression about concern about spending too much money. But by the time it got to the floor, it was $96.7 billion. And things were added, for instance, $2 billion for the flu epidemic that didn't occur, but still, we are going to spend $2 billion trying to figure out whether we are ever going to have an epidemic. It was very disappointing that even though it was a closed rule, the minority had one chance to do something about it and maybe reduce some of the spending. But lo and behold, when that amendment was offered, it was offered to increase the spending by $2.9 billion. There was a lot of expression of the outcry about this spending and the deficits we have and the deficits exploding and the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid underfunded, and we are in the midst of a crisis. But it doesn't seem to bother anybody about spending. But the truth is, the Treasury is bare. The Treasury is empty. And yet we continue to spend all this money. So where do they think they are going to get this money? Well, we can't tax the people any more. The people are broke. And yet still we resort to more borrowing and more printing of money which will not last forever. It will eventually come to an end. And I think that is what we are witnessing. This process bothers me a whole lot that we come to the floor with the supplementals. We rush them through. We talk about this excessive spending. And lo and behold, when we finally vote, we get a total of 60 people who would say, Enough is enough. And besides, what are we doing? Where are we spending this money? I thought we were supposed to, with this change in administration, that we would be fighting less wars. But no. The war in Iraq continues. We expand the war in Afghanistan. We spread the war into Pakistan. And we always have on the table the potential danger of Iran. So when will it ever end? We can't even define the enemy. Who exactly is the enemy over there? Is it the al Qaeda? The Taliban? Is it the Government of Pakistan? If you can't define the enemy, how do you know when the war is over? If we are in war, which we are, how can this be anything other than war? When was this war declared? Oh, well, we got this authority 5 or 10 years ago. Who knows when? Perpetual war. This is what we are involved with. Perpetual spending. And then we say, well, we have to do that to be safe. That is what is preposterous. It is the very policy that makes us unsafe. We pursue this policy, and the more we do, the less safe we are. There is a big argument now about whether we are safer now with the new administration or is it making us less safe? The truth is the policies of the last 10, 15, 20 years have made us less safe. And as long as we occupy countries, as long as we kill other people and civilians are being killed, we are going to build enemies. And as long as we are known throughout the world that we torture people, we will incite people to hate us and want to come here to kill us. So we aren't more safe. We are less safe by this foreign policy. And some day we have to wise up, change our ways and not be the policeman of the world, not to pretend that we can be the nation builder of the world, swear off and make sure we don't torture, because you don't get worthwhile information from torture. All it does is incite people against us. And the occupations can never be of any benefit to us. What about the financial calamity that is coming? I'm afraid this is the way this will end, through another financial crisis much bigger than the one we currently have, because you can't create $2 trillion of new money every year and expect this system to continue. The Soviet system collapsed because they couldn't afford it. Their economic system was a total failure. We did not have to fight the Soviets. Even though they were a nuclear power, they collapsed and disintegrated. And that is what we have to be concerned about, because we cannot continue to finance this system and pursue a policy which endangers us. So if we care about the American people and care about our liberties and care about our Constitution, we ought to look seriously at our foreign policy and not continue to pursue the supplemental appropriations where we continue to spend money that we don't have.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to help Americans struggling with consumer debt by excluding discharges of debt from the definition of taxable income. Currently, when someone is relieved of consumer debt, such as credit card debt, they are taxed on the forgiven debt. So, for example, if a credit card company agrees to forgive $12,000 of a $15,000 debt, the debtor's taxable income increases by $12,000--even though the debtor does not actually have an additional $12,000 in his or her bank account. The only way for Americans to avoid turning cancelation of debt into a taxable event is by declaring bankruptcy or insolvency. Thus, the tax code's perverse incentives could cause more Americans to declare bankruptcy, which is neither in the best interest of the debtor or their creditors. Madam Speaker, the tax code should not punish Americans who work out a settlement with their creditors that enables them to avoid bankruptcy. This is unfair to both the debtors and their creditors. I therefore encourage my colleagues to cosponsor my legislation removing discharged debt from the definition of taxable income.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on May 17, 2009, the congregation of First Union Baptist Church in Galveston, Texas will celebrate Reverend David L. Everson, Sr.'s ten years of service as pastor with special ``Tenth Anniversary/Appreciation Services.'' I am pleased to join the First Union Baptist congregation in congratulating Reverend Everson. First Union Baptist has had numerous achievements under Reverend Everson's leadership. For example, First Union Baptist's Hall Chapel was repaired and adapted to serve as a computer school and resource center for youth and adult literacy. Reverend Everson also led efforts to repair the church parsonage. Currently, Reverend Everson is leading efforts to perform major renovations to repair the damage the church suffered during Hurricane Ike. Reverend Everson has also ordained three ministers and three deacons. He will be ordaining another minister and deacon during his tenth anniversary celebration on May 17. Reverend Everson has contributed greatly to both the church and the entire Galveston community by being there for all who need a friend, comforter, and spiritual counselor. Reverend Everson not only cares for those in his congregation, he is always seeking to bring new people into the First Union Baptist congregation. The people of First Union Baptist, and all of Galveston, are certainly lucky to have such a dedicated man as Reverend Everson in their community. I, therefore, again extend my congratulations and best wishes to Reverend Everson on the occasion of his ten year anniversary as the pastor of First Union Baptist Church.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Res. 401, which honors the legacy of former Representative Jack Kemp. I became friends with Jack when we served together in the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1985. Our friendship was based on our shared conviction that low taxes and sound monetary policy are essential to liberty and prosperity. Jack is probably best known for the key role he played in the ``supply side revolution'' that led to the tax rate reductions of the early eighties. However, what I most remember about Jack was that he was one of the few politicians I have met who understood how fiat money harms Americans. Jack was passionate about reforming monetary policy so America would again have, as Jack memorably put it, a ``dollar as good as gold.'' It was largely due to Jack's efforts that the Republican Party platform of 1980 endorsed a return to the gold standard. Jack's support was instrumental in me being named to the U.S. Gold Commission in 1982. While I was not always in total agreement with Jack's views on monetary policy, I always appreciated his interest in the issue. In his later years, Jack was critical of the idea that the best way to promote human liberty was through an aggressively militaristic foreign policy. In his 1996 campaign for Vice President, Jack attacked the Clinton Administration's aggressive foreign policy, famously quipping that the United States government should not ``bomb before breakfast.'' In my last conversation with Jack, he shared with me his opposition to the Iraq war. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 401 and honor the best of Jack Kemp's legacy by working for low taxes, sound money, and a sensible foreign policy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Malinda Smith Wright will turn 100 on May 17, 2009. Malinda was born and raised in Brazoria County, TX, which is in my congressional district, and has spent all of her life there. Malinda was married to Alex C. Wright for over seventy years. Together, Malinda and Alex raised six children. A lifelong lover of reading, Malinda continues to read the newspaper every day, and I understand that she is particularly interested in the stock market. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Malinda Wright as she prepares to celebrate her 100th birthday with her friends and family.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people's hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the Federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution. The 16th Amendment gives the Federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax. Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the Federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the Federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor. The Founding Fathers realized that ``the power to tax is the power to destroy,'' which is why they did not give the Federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the Federal government. Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on compliance with an ever- more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that question the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) ``withholding'' system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent ``pro-taxpayer'' reforms. Madam Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a Federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as ``ADD'' or ``hyperactive'' and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes. Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication. Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation. Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists ``intolerance'' as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because ``intolerance'' is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a ``mental disorder.'' Madam Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents' right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as ``mentally ill'' or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation's parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation that raise the pay of teachers and other educators by cutting their taxes. I am sure that all my colleagues agree that it is long past time to begin treating those who have dedicated their lives to educating America's children with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals, educators are under-appreciated and under-paid. This must change if America is to have the finest education system in the world! Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we continue to undervalue educators, it will become harder to attract, and keep, good people in the education profession. While educators' pay is primarily a local issue, Congress can, and should, help raise educators' take home pay by reducing educators' taxes. This is why I am introducing the Teachers Tax Cut Act. This legislation provides every teacher in America with a $3,000 tax credit. I am also introducing the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act, which extends the $3,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel involved in any aspect of the K-12 academic program. The Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act increase the salaries of teachers and other education professionals without raising federal expenditures. By raising the take-home pay of professional educators, these bills encourage highly qualified people to enter, and remain in, education. These bills also let America's professional educators know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. I hope all my colleagues join me in supporting our nation's teachers and other professional educators by cosponsoring the Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act.