Rep. Ron Paul hoped to stop mandatory federal program for children

WorldNetDaily ^ | September 10, 2004

[MikeJ75]

An amendment offered by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in the House of Representatives yesterday that would have remove from an appropriations bill a new mandatory mental-health screening program for America's children failed by a vote of 95-315.

Paul's amendment would have removed the program from the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Ninety-four Republicans and one Democrat sided with Paul, while 118 Republicans, 196 Democrats and one Independent voted against the amendment.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the New Freedom Initiative recommends screening not only for children but eventually for every American. The initiative came out of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which President Bush established in 2002.

Critics of the plan say it is a thinly veiled attempt by drug companies to provide a wider market for high-priced antidepressants and antipsychotic medication, and puts government in areas of Americans' lives where it does not belong.

As WND reported yesterday, Kent Snyder of the Paul-founded Liberty Committee argued strongly against the program:

"The real payoff for the drug companies is the forced drugging of children that will result – as we learned tragically with Ritalin – even when parents refuse."

The congressman, who is known for his strict adherence to the Constitution, wrote in a letter to his colleagues before the vote: "As you know, psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs. Yet some parents have even been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug their children. The federal government should not promote national mental-health screening programs that will force the use of these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin."

The New Freedom Commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental-health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children.

The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders."

Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

Previous stories:

Forced mental screening hits roadblock in House

Bush to screen population for mental illness

[Ed_in_NJ]

Paul is right. W has gone overboard to cater to the drug companies.

The industry lobbying group (see datia.org) is behind the random drug-testing scheme that most parents object to, but the Supremes ruled is OK. This group has no interest in the health or welfare of anyone -- they are simply there to push drug testing, for the profit of their members.

So far, there doesn't seem to be anyone who cares to stop them from pushing their wares on an unsuspecting/unwilling public.

[nomad]

Let them try to enforce this. I know I will refuse and I know many parents who would as well. This may go down to a grasroots effort.

[Jaysun]

Unbelievable. I'm going to see how my Republican Senators voted.

[Jaysun]

Unbelievable. I'm going to see how my Republican Senators voted.

It's in the House. Sorry. Do you know the name of the amendment?

[meenie]

Drug companies should get a boost over this. Physiciatrists should do well too. Unfortunately the need is greater in Congress, Judicial, and Executive branches, rather than our school systems. It is amazing that after two hundred some odd years, we have to start examining the psychic of our citizens. Will gulags be far behind? Indoctrination camps should be set up for those unfortunates that have not the correct political instincts.

[MikeJ75]

A Yes vote means support for the amendment and opposition to the mental screening.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 438(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
      H R 5006      RECORDED VOTE      9-Sep-2004      4:54 PM
      AUTHOR(S):  Paul of Texas Amendment No. 3
      QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Amendment

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Republican	94	118		15
Democratic	1	196		8
Independent		1
TOTALS	95	315		23

---- AYES    95 ---

Aderholt Akin Barrett (SC) Bartlett (MD) Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Bonner Boozman Brady (TX) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Burns Burton (IN) Camp Cantor Chabot Chocola Coble Cole Collins Cox Crane Cubin Culberson Davis, Jo Ann Deal (GA) DeLay DeMint Doolittle Duncan

Everett Feeney Flake Forbes Franks (AZ) Garrett (NJ) Goode Goodlatte Graves Green (WI) Gutknecht Hart Hayes Hefley Hensarling Herger Hoekstra Hostettler Hunter Johnson (IL) Jones (NC) Kennedy (MN) King (IA) Kingston Linder Manzullo McCotter Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Musgrave Myrick

Neugebauer Norwood Ose Otter Paul Pence Petri Pitts Pombo Ramstad Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Simpson Smith (MI) Souder Stearns Sullivan Tancredo Taylor (MS) Terry Thornberry Tiahrt Upton Vitter Whitfield

---- NOES    315 ---

Abercrombie Ackerman Alexander Allen Andrews Baca Bachus Baird Baker Baldwin Barton (TX) Bass Beauprez Becerra Bell Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Boswell Boucher Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (PA) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Burr Butterfield Buyer Calvert Capito Capps Capuano Cardin Cardoza Carson (IN) Carson (OK) Carter Case Castle Chandler Clay Clyburn Conyers Cooper Costello Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cummings Cunningham Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (TN) Davis, Tom DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Deutsch Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Dingell Doggett Dooley (CA) Doyle Dreier Dunn Edwards Ehlers Emanuel Emerson Engel English Eshoo Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Ferguson Filner Foley Ford Fossella Frank (MA) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Gerlach Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gonzalez Gordon

Granger Green (TX) Grijalva Gutierrez Hall Harman Harris Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayworth Herseth Hill Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Holden Holt Honda Hooley (OR) Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hyde Inslee Isakson Israel Issa Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (OH) Kaptur Keller Kelly Kennedy (RI) Kildee Kilpatrick Kind King (NY) Kirk Kleczka Kline Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich LaHood Lampson Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Leach Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lynch Majette Maloney Markey Marshall Matheson Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHugh McIntyre McKeon Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Mica Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller (NC) Miller, George Mollohan Moore Moran (VA) Murphy Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Ney Northup Nunes

Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Osborne Owens Oxley Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pearce Pelosi Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Pickering Platts Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Rahall Rangel Regula Rehberg Renzi Reyes Reynolds Rodriguez Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Ros-Lehtinen Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Sabo Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanders Sandlin Saxton Schakowsky Schiff Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Simmons Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Spratt Stark Stenholm Strickland Stupak Sweeney Tauscher Taylor (NC) Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tiberi Tierney Towns Turner (OH) Turner (TX) Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walden (OR) Walsh Wamp Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Young (FL)

---- NOT VOTING    23 ---

Ballenger Cannon Delahunt Gephardt Goss Greenwood Istook Kanjorski

Langevin Lucas (OK) McInnis McNulty Moran (KS) Nethercutt Quinn Rush

Ryan (OH) Schrock Shuster Tanner Tauzin Toomey Young (AK)

---

[Jaysun]

Thanks Mike. This is a disgrace. I'm not so worried about "catering to pharmaceutical companies" as I'm sickened by the idea of some government employee deciding that kids need to be on drugs. They're already awfully generous when handing out methanphedamines for "ADD" and it'll only get worse from here.

[familyop]

Darn! I posted this one later after a search the main title, "Attempt to dump mental screening fails." You forgot to post the main title, and I forgot to post the subtitle!

Thanks for getting this news out, anyway. Unfortunately, readers aren't seeing it here, because so far, it's been posted in late night and early morning hours.

I'll get the word out through another venue, and we know that Joe's getting it out from WorldNetDaily.

[dljordan]

I would probably tend to think that the drug companies wrote this legislation and their lobbyists paid off the legislators.

[valkyrieanne]

President Bush is *not* a conservative. I'm going to vote for him, but I'm under no illusions that he's a nanny-state Republican who never met a nosy, interfering federal program he didn't like.

[familyop]

"I would probably tend to think that the drug companies wrote this legislation and their lobbyists paid off the legislators."

That was my first thought, too, and the drug companies have much to do with it. But so does the fact that Laura Bush was a public education teacher (if I remember correcty and correct me if I'm wrong).

Laura is very sweet, but IIRC, her education experience was also in a sweet little part of the world. We can't trust psychology, psychiatry and social work people with that much power over families in most of the rest of our country.

First, each local, yocal "mainstreet" Mob will hurt their neighboring families through local psych. "professionals" (mostly pervert witch doctors, although not all), then federal commies will use that power to bring us hard socialism and a final takeover (by killing the voting rights of families with married parents and by other measures).

Many of the psych./soc. freaks use their offices to break families, because they came from disfunctional family situations, themselves. They hate healthier, more traditional, conservative families.

Most singles vote Democrat, which socialist politicians they vote for cater to all who are in it for themselves instead of being in it for their families.

So look, eventually for government by Democrats forever. And the policies that usher them into eternal power over us are being implemented by our own Republican leaders.

[familyop]

"It's in the House. Sorry. Do you know the name of the amendment?"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HZ00739:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.AMDT.739  (A024)
Amends: H.R.5006
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (offered 9/9/2004)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment numbered 3 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit use of funds in the bill to create or implement any new or universal mental health screening program.

STATUS:

      9/9/2004 3:12pm:
          Amendment (A024) offered by Mr. Paul. (consideration: CR H6942-6944, H6953-6954; text: CR H6942-6943)
      9/9/2004 4:52pm:
          On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A024) Failed by recorded vote: 95 - 315 (Roll no. 438).


After the slowdown that will come shortly, when we see this thing go away, the Campaign will commence to victory. But until then,... And no, I'm definitely not a "one issue" voter. I'm a fathers' rights conservative and have already seen the family lose too much through bi-partisan attacks against the family (no-fault divorce, so-called VAWA, so-called Child Support Act, associated propaganda lie campaigns, etc.). I was very faithful to the Campaign until seeing this.

With a move like forced universal mental health screening, it doesn't matter. With the nature of most psych. and soc. "professionals," A move like this will finish the destruction of the family and usher Democrats into office forever (predominant singles vote, and more).

And no, families will not rebel against this move. We've seen it with divorcing moms, the divorce industry and many unconstitutional imprisonments. Huge numbers of dads have been wrongfully imprisoned, huge numbers of others have committed suicide or gone off their rockers to murder laywers, etc. The more tyrannical the measure devised by socialists and implemented with the help of blind conservatives, the more harsh the enforcement of the measure. The government will enforce universal mental health screening as harshly as needed to get it done. Those imprisoned will work for a dollar-something-an-hour to improve our economy for the politically correct singles who remain free.

If you don't think this measure can be enforced against families, just try to recall some of the famous recent murder cases where the populace (including many who call themselves conservatives) is screaming for the death penalty against imprisoned suspects do not have sufficient evidence against them.

The Spectacle will go on, and totalitarian control is on the way.

[meenie]

I think we had better start realizing that there are certain people including our President that have some very authoritarian ideas. The object of this bill runs far deeper than just some contributions and lobbying from the drug industry.

[gorush]

Ron Paul is the closest thing to a strict-constructionist that there is in the federal government. Would that there were more.

[familyop]

"Ron Paul is the closest thing to a strict-constructionist that there is in the federal government. Would that there were more."

...a write-in, huh? I'll have a look at his list of stances on issues. If this is true, then...

[gorush]

Many Freepers take exception to some of his votes against some Republican bills...but he is honest in his adherence to his oath to defend the Constitution.

[PersonalLiberties]

Its sad this bill did not get enough support to overthrow the mental idea in the first place.

[familyop]

It appears that he is at least somewhat conservative on every item except that he's somewhat in favor of keeping our country like a whorehouse (vice issues) and against our national defense during a time when we need to go long on defense.