Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker I rise with great reservations over this legislation. Why is the federal government involving itself in the sale of a private American company? Do we really believe we have this kind of authority? I would remind my colleagues that Unocal is a private company with shareholders and a board of directors. That is the governance of the company--not the U.S. Congress. Do we really believe that we should be the real board of governors of Unocal? If in the United States a private company does not have the right to be sold on the free market, should we really be criticizing the lack of freedom in China? Many conservatives who have decried the recent Supreme Court decision that severely undermines the principle of private property in the United States are now on the other side, cheering this blatant Congressional attempt to do something that may be even worse than Kelo vs. New London. I voted recently against allowing the EximBank to use U.S. taxpayer money to underwrite Chinese construction of nuclear power plants. I do not support subsidizing the Chinese government's economic activities. But I also do not support the U.S. Congress involving itself in the private economic transactions of U.S. companies. Some have raised concerns that the purchase of Unocal by a company tied to the Chinese government will create security problems for the United States. I would argue the opposite. International trade and economic activity tends to diminish, not increase tensions between countries. Increased economic relationships between the United States and China make military conflict much less likely, as it becomes in neither country's interest to allow tensions to get out of hand. Mr. Speaker, we should not criticize a lack of economic freedom in China when Congress, as evidenced in this legislation, attempts to restrict the economic freedom of American citizens.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I would only ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle, where have all the conservatives gone? Where are the fiscal conservatives? A decade or so ago, the conservatives on this side of the aisle voted against all foreign aid. Now they are the champion of foreign aid. We are running a national debt increase right now of nearly $600 billion a year, and the gentleman from this side of the aisle suggests that maybe we can spend $100 million less out of a budget that is over $20.3 billion, suggesting we could save $100 million, which sounds like pretty good sense, and all we hear are complaints about why we need this program. One gentleman asked the question, what are we for if we are against this program down in Colombia, Plan Colombia? Well, I'll tell my colleagues what I am for. I am for the American taxpayer, and I will tell my colleagues one thing. I will bet them I am right on this. I will bet my colleagues, on either side of the aisle ever goes home and ever puts it into their campaign brochure and say, you know what, I voted $20 billion for foreign aid; and I know nobody over here will go home and brag about $100 million that they were able to vote against cutting from this side of the aisle. They will not do it. I was here in 2000 when this debate was going on and strongly opposed it for various reasons, but I remember the pretext for Plan Colombia. The pretext was the drug war and this is what we have heard about today. The evidence is very flimsy. If there was any success on the drug war, production would be down and prices would be up. Production is up and prices are down, and that is an economic absolute. So there has been nothing accomplished. There has been more production in other countries in the Andes, but the pretext there was only the drugs, but I remember so clearly in the year 2000 who lobbied for this bill. Does anybody remember oil companies coming here to get their oil pipelines protected, and we still protect them? This is a little private army that we sent down there. We have 800 troops and advisers in Colombia and spending these huge sums of money. Who else lobbied for Plan Colombia? Do my colleagues remember the debate on who would get to sell the helicopters? Would they be Black Hawks or Hueys? Then we wonder where the lobby is from. It is not from the American people. I will bet my colleagues nobody wrote to anybody on this side and said please make sure you spend this $100 million dollars; this would be tragic if you would not spend it because it is doing so much good. That does not happen. It is the lobbying behind the scenes of the special interests whose interests are served by us being down there. It is part of this military industrial complex which exists, and I do not believe it has had one ounce of success. I think it is a complete waste of money; and besides, just incidentally it is unconstitutional for us to do this.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help working Americans provide for their children's health care needs by introducing the Child Health Care Affordability Act. The Child Health Care Affordability Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child's health care expenses. The tax credit would be available to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions. The credit applies against both income and payroll tax liability. The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition; such as cancer or a physical disability that requires long-term or specialized health care. As an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code-- Congress' failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress' refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low-income jobs; oftentimes, their only recourse for health care is the local emergency room. Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Child Health Care Affordability Act, they would be better able to provide care for their children, and our nation's already overcrowded emergency rooms would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it. According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 per year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 per year. Clearly, this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children. Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling singling mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child's needs, while a working-class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child's medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child? The Child Health Care Affordability Act takes a major step toward helping working Americans meet their health care needs by providing them with generous health care related tax cuts and tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the Child Health Care Affordability Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to help working Americans stricken with cancer or other terminal illnesses, and their families, by introducing the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act. This act exempts people with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act also provides a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness. When stricken with cancer or another terminal disease, many Americans struggle to pay for the treatment necessary to save, or extend, their lives. Even employees with health insurance incur costs such as for transportation to and from care centers, prescription drugs not covered by their insurance, or for child care while they are receiving treatment. Yet, the federal government continues to force these employees to pay for retirement benefits they may never live to see! Many Americans struggle to pay the costs of treating children, a spouse, or a parent with a terminal illness. My bill also provides much needed tax relief for those who are providing care to a loved one with a terminal disease. As a physician who has specialized in women's health issues for decades, I know how critical it is that cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illnesses have the resources they need to combat these illnesses. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act provides a realistic way to help people suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses receive quality health care. It is hard to think of a more compassionate tax policy this Congress could enact than to stop taking the resources away from working Americans that could help them treat cancer, AIDS, or other terrible health problems. I hope all my colleagues will help people suffering from terminal illnesses, and their caregivers, by cosponsoring the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. Relying on negative outcomes insurance instead of litigation will also reduce the costs imposed on physicians, other health care providers, and hospitals by malpractice litigation. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act also promotes effective solutions to the malpractice crisis by making malpractice awards obtained through binding, voluntary arbitration tax-free. The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates. As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts. Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay Federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government ``for the children'' we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today's youth face could be solved by new Federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing. These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government! It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise, leaving many Americans unable to afford health insurance, while those with health care coverage, and their physicians, struggle under the control of managed-care ``gatekeepers.'' Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities. Unfortunately, most health care ``reform'' proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician. Furthermore, the predominance of third-party payers means there is effectively no market for individual health insurance policies, thus those whose employers cannot offer them health benefits must either pay exorbitant fees for health insurance or do without health insurance. Since most health care providers cater to those with health insurance, it is very difficult for the uninsured to find health care that meets their needs at an affordable price. The result is many of the uninsured turn to government-funded health care systems, or use their local emergency room as their primary care physician. The result of this is declining health for the uninsured and increased burden on taxpayer- financed health care system. Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Health Care Savings Accounts (HSA), and Flexible Savings Accounts. By giving individuals tax incentives to purchase their own health care, the Comprehensive Health Care Act will help more Americans obtain quality health insurance and health care. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act: A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes. B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA). C. Makes every American eligible for an Health Savings Account (HSA), removes the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy to open an HSA; allows individuals to use their HSA to make premium payments for high-deductible policy; and allows senior citizens to use their HSA to purchase Medigap policies. D. Repeals the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible. By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80 percent of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Health Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs. Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government's control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals' freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company. As an OB-GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today's health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO. One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals' freedom of contract and association. Under the United States Constitution, the Federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that Federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals' freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses, including a deduction for premiums for a high- deductible insurance policy purchased in combination with a Health Savings Account. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new Federal regulations on the insurance industry. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to America's health care professionals. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar by supporting my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as a physician, having practiced medicine for well over 30 years, let me tell Members, there is a crisis in this country. There is a crisis with illegal drugs, but there is a crisis in this country with an overuse of all drugs, especially in the area of psychiatry. Psychiatrists, if they are honest with you, will tell you that diagnoses are very subjective. It is not like diagnosing appendicitis. It is very, very subjective. If you push on this type of testing, the more testing you have, let me guarantee it, the more drugs you will have. Sure, there are mental diseases. I am not excluding any of this when a person has true mental illness, but I am talking about the overuse of Ritalin and Prozac and many of these drugs that are pushed on these kids. Let me tell Members, there have been some real problems with families who will not let their kids go on drugs because the schools pressure them to. They have been charged with child abuse, and threatened with taking their children away because they will not be put on these drugs. That is the kind of abuse I am calling to Members' attention, and that is why you need to vote for this amendment. It does not change anything. It does not deny anybody testing and treatment. All it does is say universal testing of everybody of all ages in this country is not the direction that we want to go. Please vote for my amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Let me assure Members that you are misconstruing the amendment. It is as if we are banning screening. That is not the case. I am just saying screening everybody is what I am trying to prevent. If there is one person out of 100,000 that commits suicide, why are Members compelled to have a program that may test 99,999 people? This does nothing to the individual that shows the problem. You can still test them, preferably with parental consent. Let me add that the gentleman from Ohio stated that the vote went against this amendment last year. This came up at the last minute. Let me tell Members, people in this country have been well informed about this, and they do not like this program. I also would like to quote from the New Freedom Commission because it is true the New Freedom Commission, which is the guideline the gentleman from Ohio brought up; he brings it up, he cites what it says, so they have some value. They never say ``mandatory,'' but they never say ``voluntary.'' What they say is ``universal.'' How can you have something universal if you are not going to be testing everybody? Also from the Freedom Commission, it should be for consumers of all ages, screen for mental disorders in primary health care across the life span. These are the guidelines of the New Freedom Commission, as well as saying the schools must be partners in the mental health care of our children. Why do they not say the parents should be partners in the health care of our children?

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward: ``None of the funds made available in this a may be used to create or implement any universal mental health screening program.'' This does not deny any funds for any testing of those individuals who may show signs of mental illness. It only denies funding for any universal, read by many as mandatory, which is a bit of overkill as far as I am concerned. There is $26 million in this bill for these programs. Eight States have already been involved, and three more have applied for grants. The main reason why I oppose this is I think there is a lot of overtreatment of young people with psychotropic drugs. This has been going on for a lot of years, and there are a lot of bad results, and once we talk about universal testing of everybody, and there is no age limit, matter of fact, in the recommendation by the New Freedom Commission, there is a tendency for overdiagnosis and overuse of medication. There are as many complications from overuse of medication as there is with prophylactic treatment. There is no evidence now on the books to show that the use of this medication actually in children reduces suicide. Matter of fact, there are studies that do suggest exactly the opposite. Children on psychotropic drugs may well be even more likely to commit suicide. It does not mean that no child ever qualifies for this, but to assume there is this epidemic out here that we have to test everybody is rather frightening to me. Matter of fact, when the State gets control of children, they tend to overuse medications like this. Take, for instance, in Texas, 60 percent of the foster children are on medication. In Massachusetts, it is close to 65 percent. In Florida, 55 percent of the children in foster home care are receiving these kinds of medication. Once again, I want to make the point that this does not deny funding for individual children who show signs that they may need or they have a problem and need to be tested. It is just to make sure that this is not universal and not be mandatory and that parental rights are guarded against and that the parent is very much involved. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Rear Admiral (Lower Half) John D. Butler, a Texas City, Texas, native who retires after 31 years of faithful service from the United States Navy on July 1, 2005. Many of us have come to know and recognize Rear Admiral Butler over the past two years as he has served as the Program Executive Officer (Submarines) since February 2003. During his tenure as the Navy's top submarine acquisition officer, Rear Admiral Butler delivered USS Virginia (SSN 774) and USS Jimmy Carter (USS 23). Virginia's commissioning in October 2004 ended the longest drought of submarine commissioning in that service's 105-year history. Whereas Virginia is the first of her class, Jimmy Carter is the last of the Sea Wolf Class. Jimmy Carter brings a host of new and revolutionary capabilities to the fleet that will help the United States to win the Global War on Terror. Under Rear Admiral Butler's watch, the submarine construction industry has been, virtually, reborn. He was a driving force in transitioning the Virginia Class' second Block Buy contract into a Multi-Year agreement that will save an estimated $80 million per submarine over the five-hull agreement. Currently, there are six Virginia Class submarines under construction and an additional three ships under contract. Admiral Butler has also made great efforts in converting four Ohio Class Trident Ballistic Missile Submarines into the transformation SSGNs. Each of these 560-feet long, 18,000-ton submarines will be able to carry up to 154 precision-guided Tomahawk Land-Attack cruise missiles, 66 Navy S and to support covert Special Operations, each SSGN will be able to carry two Dry-Deck Shelters, two Advanced SEAL Delivery Systems, or one of each top the ships' integrated lock-in/lock-out trunks. With the Ohio Class' inherent stealth, these SSGNs, the first of which delivers in November 2005, will be a potent warfighter in the Global War on Terror. Admiral Butler has also acted as an emissary with allied nation's undersea forces, especially with both the Royal Australian Navy and with Great Britain's Royal Navy. In doing so, he has not only strengthened our bonds with these most trusted allies, but has also enhanced national security. Admiral Butler joined the Navy via the Nuclear Power Officer Candidate Program in 1975 after graduating from the University of Texas at Austin with a Bachelor's of Science in Chemistry. His sea duty assignments have included: Division Officer on board USS Will Rogers (SSBN 659); Navigator/Operations Officer on board USS James K. Polk (SSBN 645); Navigator/Operations Officer on board USS James Madison (SSBN 627); and Repair Officer on board USS Proteus (AS 19). Admiral Butler's shore assignments have included: Attack Submarine Training Head for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Submarine Warfare); AN/BSY-1 Submarine Combat and Acoustic System (PMS417) Chief Engineer for Program Executive Officer, Submarine Combat and Weapons Systems; Sea Wolf Class Submarine (PMS350) Assistant Program Manager (Design and Construction) for Program Executive Officer, Submarines; Strategic and Attack Submarines (PMS392) Major Program Manager for Naval Sea Systems Command; and Executive Assistant and Naval Aide to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition). He has also served in temporary assignments attached to the Applied Physics Laboratory Ice Station, Arctic Ocean; Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Groton, CT, and Newport News, VA; and attached in support of U.S. Embassies at Cairo, Egypt; Moscow, Russia; and Panama City, Panama. Over the course of his career, Admiral Butler has helped to design, build, and deliver a total of 23 submarines--nearly one-third of today's total force. Admiral Butler's personal awards include the Legion of Merit (3 awards), Meritorious Service Medal (3 awards), Navy Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal, in addition to other service and unit awards. Mr. Speaker, Admiral Butler has given 30 years of service to the Navy, to Congress, and to the people of the United States of America. He has served our Nation well and has helped to ensure that our undersea fleet remains the best in the world. He has left a large and meaningful legacy and I am honored to rise today to express my appreciation for Admiral Butler and for his wife Eileen who has served her Nation right along side her husband. Being a Navy wife is not an easy task, and she has been nothing less than a model of courage, patience, and devotion. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, please join me in wishing Admiral and Eileen Butler: ``Fair winds and following seas and long may your big jib draw!''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the Federal government to respect State laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp. Six states--Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia allow the growing of industrial hemp in accord with State laws. However, Federal law is standing in the way of farmers in these States growing what may be a very profitable crop. Because of current Federal law, all hemp included in products sold in the United States must be imported instead of being grown by American farmers. Since 1970, the Federal Controlled Substances Act's inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for uses including as food. The United States is the only industrialized Nation that prohibits industrial hemp cultivation. The Congressional Research Service has noted that hemp is grown as an established agricultural commodity in over 30 nations in Europe, Asia, and North America. My Industrial Hemp Farming Act will relieve this unique restriction on American farmers and allow them to grow industrial hemp in accord with State law. Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our Nation's history. In fact, during World War II, the Federal government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film ``Hemp for Victory'' encouraging the plant's cultivation. In recent years, the hemp plant has been put to many popular uses in foods and in industry. Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil as well as food products containing oil and seeds from the hemp plant. Industrial hemp is also included in consumer products such as paper, cloths, cosmetics, and carpet. One of the more innovative recent uses of industrial hemp is in the door frames of about 1.5 million cars. Hemp has even been used in alternative automobile fuel. It is unfortunate that the Federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained Federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The process may well be legal, but it is unwise. The problem is minimal. This is more like a solution in search of a problem. We just do not need to amend the Constitution for so little a problem that we face in this regard. We are just looking for another job for the BATF to enforce this type of legislation. It was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since the Supreme Court ruled the Texas law unconstitutional. That is not true. There are other alternatives. One merely would be to use State law. There are a lot of State laws, such as laws against arson, disturbing the peace, theft, inciting riots, trespassing. We could deal with all of the flag desecration with these laws. But there is another solution that our side has used and pretends to want to use on numerous occasions, and that is to get rid of the jurisdiction from the Federal courts. We did it on the marriage issue; we can do it right here. So to say this is the only solution is incorrect. It is incorrect. And besides, a solution like that would go quickly, pass the House by a majority vote, pass the Senate by a majority vote, send it to the President. The Schiavo legislation was expedited and passed quickly. Why not do it with the flag? It is a solution, and we should pay attention to it. Desecration is reserved for religious symbols. To me, why this is scary is because the flag is a symbol today of the State. Why is it, our side never seems to answer this question when we bring it up, why is it that we have the Red Chinese, Cuba, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein who support the position that you severely punished those who burn a flag? No, they just gloss over this. They gloss over it. Is it not rather ironic today that we have troops dying in Iraq, ``spreading freedom'' and, yet, we are here trying to pass laws similar to what Saddam Hussein had with regard to the flag? I just do not see where that makes a lot of sense. Mr. Speaker, a question I would like to ask the proponents of this legislation is this: What if some military officials arrived at a home to report to the family that their son had just been killed in Iraq, and the mother is totally overwhelmed by grief which quickly turns to anger. She grabs a flag and she burns it? What is the proper punishment for this woman who is grieved, who acts out in this manner? We say, well, these are special circumstances, we will excuse her for that; or no, she has to be punished, she burned a flag because she was making a political statement. That is the question that has to be answered. What is the proper punishment for a woman like that? I would say it is very difficult to mete out any punishment whatsoever. We do not need a new amendment to the Constitution to take care of a problem that does not exist. Another point: The real problem that exists rountinely on the House floor is the daily trashing of the Court by totally ignoring Act I Sec. 8. We should spend a lot more time following the Rule of Law, as defined by our oath of office, and a lot less on unnecessary constitutional amendments that expands the role of the Federal Government while undermining that extension of the States. Mr. Speaker, let me summarize my views on this proposed amendment. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned state laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state's authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it. However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years. Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First Amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro- flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there were only three incidents of flag desecration in 2004 and there have only been two acts of desecration thus far in 2005, and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement! Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, ``Congress shall make no law.'' That was the spirit of our nation at that time: ``Congress shall make no laws.'' Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun--if your actions do not fit the official definition of a ``patriot,'' we will send somebody to arrest you. Fortunately, Congress has modals of flag desecration laws. For example, Sadam Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of this issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said: Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation. Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom Colin Powell has also expressed opposition to amending the Constitution in this manner: ``I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.'' Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases of flag burning. When we see flag burning on television, it is usually not American citizens, but foreigners who have strong objections to what we do overseas, (burning the flag.) This is what I see on television and it is the conduct that most angers me. One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese prosecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among those Members who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag. Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people's churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom. Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is communally owned? If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word ``desecration,'' which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon. Perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen as interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have ``no king but Christ'' should be troubled by this amendment. We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week H.J. Res. 55 was introduced. This resolution requires the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The plan would be announced before December 31, 2005, with the withdrawal to commence no later than October 1, 2006. The media and the opponents of this plan immediately and incorrectly claimed it would set a date certain for a total withdrawal. The resolution, hardly radical in nature, simply restates the policy announced by the administration. We have been told repeatedly that there will be no permanent occupation of Iraq and the management will be turned over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. The resolution merely pressures the administration to be more precise in its stated goals and make plans to achieve them in a time frame that negates the perception we are involved in a permanent occupation of Iraq. The sharpest criticism of this resolution is that it would, if implemented, give insurgents in Iraq information that is helpful to their cause and harmful to our troops. This is a reasonable concern, which we address by not setting a precise time for exiting Iraq. The critics, though, infer that the enemy should never have any hint as to our intentions. Yet, as we prepared to invade Iraq, the administration generously informed the Iraqis exactly about our plans to use ``shock and awe'' military force. With this information, many Iraqi fighters, anticipating immediate military defeat, disappeared into the slums and hills and survived to fight another day, which they have. One could argue that this information made available to the enemy was clearly used against us. This argument used to criticize H.J. Res. 55, that it might reveal our intentions, is not automatically valid. It could just as easily be argued that conveying to the enemy that we do not plan an indefinite occupation, as is our stated policy, will save many American lives. But what we convey or do not convey to the Iraqi people is not the most crucial issue. The more important issue is this. Do the American people deserve to know more about our goals: the length of time we expect to be in Iraq; how many more Americans are likely to be killed and wounded; will there be a military draft; what is the likelihood of lingering diseases that our veterans may suffer, remember Agent Orange and the Persian Gulf War syndrome; and how many more tax dollars are required to fight this war indefinitely? The message insurgents do need to hear and believe is that we are serious when we say we have no desire for a permanent occupation of Iraq. We must stick to this policy announced by the administration. A plausible argument can be made that the guerrillas are inspired by our presence in Iraq, which to them seems endless. Iraqi deaths, whether through direct U.S. military action, collateral damage, or Iraqis killing Iraqis, serve to inspire an even greater number of Iraqis to join the insurgency. Because we are in charge, justly or not, we are blamed for all the deaths. Continuing to justify our presence in Iraq because we must punish those for 9/11 is disingenuous to say the least. We are sadly now at greater risk than before 9/11. We refuse to deal with our own borders while chastising the Syrians for not securing their borders with Iraq. An end game needs to be in place, and the American people deserve to know exactly what that plan is. They are the ones who must send their sons and daughters off to war and pay the bills when they come due.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 160, legislation commemorating a monumental day in the history of liberty, Juneteenth Independence Day. Juneteenth marks the events of June 19, 1865, when slaves in Galveston, Texas learned that they were at last free men and women. The slaves of Galveston were the last group of slaves to learn of the end of slavery. Thus, Juneteenth represents the end of slavery in America. I hope all Americans will take the time to commemorate Juneteenth. Friends of human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The end of American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are few more blatant violations of America's founding principles, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, than slavery. I am particularly pleased to join the recognition of Juneteenth because I have the privilege of representing Galveston. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor. I thank the House leadership for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to honor the end of slavery by voting for H. Con. Res. 160.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have is very simple, and it tells us exactly what it does, so I am just going to read it. It says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.'' So, very simply, a vote for my amendment would be a vote to defund the United Nations, and it would be a policy statement, obviously. We have had some debate already on the United Nations, and we will be having another debate either later today or tomorrow dealing with reform of the United Nations. Yesterday we had a vote dealing with removing half of the funding from the United Nations. This would be in the same direction, but it would remove all of the funding. The United Nations has been under serious attack, and most Americans know there is a big problem with the United Nations. There is corruption involved with the oil-for-food scandal, as well as the abuse of human rights. There are a lot of people who believe that we can reform the United Nations and make it much more responsive to our principles. I do not happen to share that belief. I have been a longtime opponent of the United Nations not so much because of the goals they seek, but because of their failure to reach these goals, as well as the attack on our national sovereignty. For me, it is a sovereignty issue, and that is the reason that I believe that it does not serve our interests to be in the United Nations, and we should make a statement for the many Americans who share that particular view. But I would like to take a little bit of this time right now to relate my position on the United Nations with the bill that is coming up later today or tomorrow, and that is the reform bill. The reform bill is very controversial. We already have former Republican and Democrat ambassadors, Secretaries of State who are in opposition to this, and our own President has expressed opposition to this. It is not for the same reasons that I am opposed to that reform bill, but they are opposed to it because there is a threat of cutting some funding. But in their attack on the reform bill, they do say they support the policy changes. That is what I would like to emphasize here. Most people see the reform bill as a mere threat to the United Nations to shape up, or we are going to cut half of their funds. Yesterday we had a much more straightforward vote, because if you, also, believe in true reform, all those supporters of the reform bill should have supported the Hayworth amendment and just flat out cut half of the funding. But the reform bill says that, well, if you do certain things, we are going to give you your money. Of course, those who really like the U.N. find that offensive and think that is too intrusive on the functioning of the United Nations. But I, quite frankly, do not believe that if the U.N. reform bill gets anyplace, that there is any way, since the President is opposed to it and so many individuals are opposed to it, that any funds will ever be cut. But I do believe a bill could get passed, and, that bill, also changes policy, which I think that too many of my conservative colleagues on this side of the aisle have failed to look at, and that is what I am concerned about, the policy changes. So instead of tightening up the reins and the financial control of the United Nations and getting them to act more efficiently and effectively, what they are doing, if they do not have the ability to really strike the 50 percent, the bill institutionalizes new policy changes. I want to just mention the policies that I believe that are risky, especially if you are interested in protecting our national sovereignty. The first thing it would do is it would change the definition of terrorism as related to United Nations, and it would change the ability and the responsibility of the United Nations to become involved. Today it is currently understood that if there is an invasion of one country by another, the United Nations is called up, and they assume responsibility, and then they can put in troops to do whatever they think is necessary. But if this new policy is adopted, it will literally institutionalize the policy that was used by our own government to go into Iraq, and that is preemptive war, preemptive strikes, to go in and either support an insurgency, or in order to get rid of a regime, or vice versa. This is a significant change and an expansion of U.N. authority. I, quite frankly, think that this is a move in the wrong direction. Also, the Peacebuilding Commission, I think, is very risky, and also something that we should look at. So not only do I urge my colleagues to vote for my resolution to defund the United Nations, I urge my colleagues to look very cautiously at the U.N. reform bill, because there is a lot more in there than one might think. The one thing we do not need is John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz, the authors of our policy for regime change in Iraq, in charge of the same policy in the U.N.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I do not see any necessity for the amendment. It was put in in the period of time after 9/11 where a lot of people were very frightened; and I think, quite frankly, that we as a Congress overreacted. I just do not understand how anybody would feel safer by the government being able to get a list of books that the American people read. Now, if there is a special condition that exists where they want to know about a particular individual, nothing precludes a legitimate search warrant to find out exactly what this information is about. But I just think that it is totally unnecessary to have this. This morning, the gentleman from Vermont was on C-SPAN; and after he left the studio, a woman called in that I found very fascinating. She was from Russia and she talked about how things were started in Russia and how the police had an ability to come into their homes without search warrants. Then she said her family had an exposure in Germany and the same thing happened. It was unrestrained government's ability to come in and know what people were doing. She spoke about this in generalities; and she was, in an alarmist sense, she was saying, and right now, in America, that is what we are doing with the PATRIOT Act, and she talked about it in general. I might not be an alarmist about it, but I am very concerned. I do think we have moved in the wrong direction and that we should be very cautious and protect the privacy of all American citizens.

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

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