H.R. 1207 - 32 Co-sponsors!

[tkubic46]

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act

Here's Dr. Paul's statement introducing the bill:

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.
Serious discussion of proposals to oversee the Federal Reserve is long overdue. I have been a longtime proponent of more effective oversight and auditing of the Fed, but I was far from the first Congressman to advocate these types of proposals. Esteemed former members of the Banking Committee such as Chairmen Wright Patman and Henry B. Gonzales were outspoken critics of the Fed and its lack of transparency.
Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed's susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.
The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Fed's negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates.
More importantly, the Fed's funding facilities and its agreements with the Treasury should be reviewed. The Treasury's supplementary financing accounts that fund Fed facilities allow the Treasury to funnel money to Wall Street without GAO or Congressional oversight. Additional funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility, allow the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to enhanced scrutiny. We hear officials constantly lauding the benefits of transparency and especially bemoaning the opacity of the Fed, its monetary policy, and its funding facilities. By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Latest List:
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 2/26/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 3/16/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 2/26/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] - 3/17/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 2/26/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 3/17/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 3/6/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/9/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 3/5/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 3/11/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 2/26/2009
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 2/26/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 3/6/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 3/11/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 2/26/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] - 2/26/2009
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] - 2/26/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 3/6/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/6/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/16/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Young, Don [AK] - 3/6/2009

[Valiant Champion]

Sounds good. I wonder if Rockefeller will even allow it to be voted on.

[Zephyrus]

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act

Here's Dr. Paul's statement introducing the bill:

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.
Serious discussion of proposals to oversee the Federal Reserve is long overdue. I have been a longtime proponent of more effective oversight and auditing of the Fed, but I was far from the first Congressman to advocate these types of proposals. Esteemed former members of the Banking Committee such as Chairmen Wright Patman and Henry B. Gonzales were outspoken critics of the Fed and its lack of transparency.
Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed's susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.
The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Fed's negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates.
More importantly, the Fed's funding facilities and its agreements with the Treasury should be reviewed. The Treasury's supplementary financing accounts that fund Fed facilities allow the Treasury to funnel money to Wall Street without GAO or Congressional oversight. Additional funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility, allow the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to enhanced scrutiny. We hear officials constantly lauding the benefits of transparency and especially bemoaning the opacity of the Fed, its monetary policy, and its funding facilities. By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Latest List:
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 2/26/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 3/16/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 2/26/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] - 3/17/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 2/26/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 3/17/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 3/6/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/9/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 3/5/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 3/11/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 2/26/2009
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 2/26/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 3/6/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 3/11/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 2/26/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] - 2/26/2009
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] - 2/26/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 3/6/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/6/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/16/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Young, Don [AK] - 3/6/2009

If Dr. Paul intends on playing the role of a martyr for the people, he's playing all the right moves.

Undoubtedly, this will be looked at as "more of the same" from him, and be discarded.

[Valiant Champion]

If Dr. Paul intends on playing the role of a martyr for the people, he's playing all the right moves.

Undoubtedly, this will be looked at as "more of the same" from him, and be discarded.

Somehow I doubt that. I think a lot of people are taking notice now more than ever to what's going on.

Ron Paul should have been president. We made the wrong choices and now we are stuck with Lord Barry the Messiah.

[Zephyrus]

Somehow I doubt that. I think a lot of people are taking notice now more than ever to what's going on.

Ron Paul should have been president. We made the wrong choices and now we are stuck with Lord Barry the Messiah.

More like Will Smith in politics.

[Admiral Piett]

More like Will Smith in politics.

Actually that would have been pretty badass. He would make the Men in Black public!

[Zephyrus]

Actually that would have been pretty badass. He would make the Men in Black public!

Ya, that or go Bad Boys 2 against everybody else, for teh lulz!

[Scar Face]

I like Ron Paul. Too bad hes not more of a Social Conservative. Luckily his support has actually gone up quite a bit since the primaries, so if Republicans are smart, they will throw in their towel with him and Libertarianism. It will still be shot down by the Democrats, but maybe it can be a start that means something.

[Admiral Piett]

He is fairly socially conservative personally, he just doesn't necessarily make them publically political because he believes that the role of government shouldn't be too oriented towards social issues. He's pro-life in example and he's against homosexuality - but he doesn't really press for either since he believes that the government shouldn't regulate this behavior.

I'm personally socially liberal, but I'm still rather compatible with Paul because him and I agree about the role of government.

[Scar Face]

He is fairly socially conservative personally, he just doesn't necessarily make them publically political because he believes that the role of government shouldn't be too oriented towards social issues. He's pro-life in example and he's against homosexuality - but he doesn't really press for either since he believes that the government shouldn't regulate this behavior.

I'm personally socially liberal, but I'm still rather compatible with Paul because him and I agree about the role of government.

And well, I guess thats my point. I can understand a lot of his libertarian leanings, but not abortion. Of course a thing like abortion should be regulated by law. It IS a legal issue that should be discussed, period. Just a few things like that irk me- like again, his views on federal drug laws. These things have to be uniform across America, lest one state see drugs and abortion as illegal, and you just skip out a few miles across the border and do them anyways. Inconsistencies in major laws like that, legalizing the morality of your society, is unethical.

[Admiral Piett]

And well, I guess thats my point. I can understand a lot of his libertarian leanings, but not abortion. Of course a thing like abortion should be regulated by law. It IS a legal issue that should be discussed, period. Just a few things like that irk me- like again, his views on federal drug laws. These things have to be uniform across America, lest one state see drugs and abortion as illegal, and you just skip out a few miles across the border and do them anyways. Inconsistencies in major laws like that, legalizing the morality of your society, is unethical.

It is not the role of government to legislate morality. That's where people go overboard with social conservatism. It is the goal of government to protect individual rights.

And I live in a BAD drug area. The drug war has done nothing but inflamed it. Punishing people for harming themselves makes absolutely no sense and facts show that it doesn't do anything to stop the behavior. We are gonna have to just accept prostitution and drug use, some of the oldest blights of civilization as facts of life. There is nothing government can do to stop it. It only makes it worse. If you wanna stop it, we need to rely on our healthcare institutions and rehabilitation. Putting an addict in prison doesn't stop him from getting it.

[Scar Face]

****. I so had no intent in getting on a debate about Abortion right now.

It is not the role of government to legislate morality.

It is the role of Government to enforce stability and order in Society, and a consistent level of morality and decency applied to this law is required. It has always been so.

That's where people go overboard with social conservatism. It is the goal of government to protect individual rights. I'm sorry, but we as men, have absolutely no right to tell a woman what to do with her child.

We absolutely do have a right, as men, or as individuals, to tell a Women not to kill her Child. It's all point of view, please do not do an injustice to the debate, or your own intelligence, by simplifying it to such an idiotic degree.

We aren't the ones that carry it, it is NOT our decision. It should be personal responsibility to make the right choice just as it is with teens to decide whether or not to have sex. And legally, children are not children until they are born.

Which is exactly what the debate on abortion is all about. Is it murder? Well clearly that questions asks, are the babies...babies? Are they humans? Should they be treated as thus? Don't take the status quo and pretend thats an argument FOR the status quo, thats a dizzying degree of circular logic you just got there.

And I live in a BAD drug area. The drug war has done nothing but inflamed it. Punishing people for harming themselves makes absolutely no sense and facts show that it doesn't do anything to stop the behavior.

I have a drug ridden area in the south end of my city. My city is called "the dirty shwa" because of our massive drug population. Canada's lax drug policies have allowed entire neighborhoods where every single person is a prostitute who does and sells drugs, or is simply a druggie. They are violent as hell, and they need to be removed. All other options have failed miserably. They let a guy freeze to death [salting the ice around him] just the other week. Too cracked out of their mind to realize they should help someone.

We are gonna have to just accept prostitution and drug use, some of the oldest blights of civilization as facts of life.

And the soaring crime rates and moral destitution that comes with them? No. Humanity is barbaric in their hearts, but so long as man has reason, so should we seek to preserve Civilization. Hold back the night, even if it is inevitable.

There is nothing government can do to stop it. It only makes it worse. If you wanna stop it, we need to rely on our healthcare institutions and rehabilitation. Putting an addict in prison doesn't stop him from getting it.

Sorry, I come from a country where rehabilitation is the name of the game. You are wrong. Neither system works, but jailing them takes them out of the streets. Rehabilitation does NOTHING. I can not emphasis that enough.

[tkubic46]

Putting an addict in prison doesn't stop him from getting it.

You can actually get more drugs in prison! LOL!

[Admiral Piett]

Okay, I'll remove my abortion statements if you remove yours. I don't know why I commented on it.

And having an explosion of drugs in a community has to do with more factors, such as poverty, just as all crime does. It's the same thing with the gun issue. Having guns doesn't increase crime anymore than relaxing drug laws turns family neighborhoods into crack dens.

However, the simple fact is you believe that government has the responsibility to somehow maintain the moral fiber of society. I do not because it results in big government. I believe government maintaining morality is an oxymoron. Government is force, not eloquence. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do just because a group of people don't like it. Forget that. That's how political correctness came about.

Social conservativism has in many ways fed much of society's ridiculous norms. Not just liberals.

[tkubic46]

Okay, I'll remove my abortion statements if you remove yours. I don't know why I commented on it.

And having an explosion of drugs in a community has to do with more factors, such as poverty, just as all crime does. It's the same thing with the gun issue. Having guns doesn't increase crime anymore than relaxing drug laws turns family neighborhoods into crack dens.

However, the simple fact is you believe that government has the responsibility to somehow maintain the moral fiber of society. I do not because it results in big government. I believe government maintaining morality is an oxymoron. Government is force, not eloquence. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do just because a group of people don't like it. Forget that. That's how political correctness came about.

completely agreed

[Admiral Piett]

Like I said though, I didn't mean to bring abortion into this topic. Pro-life supporters are very radical about the issue and I don't wish to get into it. I don't consider it to that big a deal anyway.

[Scar Face]

Okay, I'll remove my abortion statements if you remove yours. I don't know why I commented on it.

And having an explosion of drugs in a community has to do with more factors, such as poverty, just as all crime does. It's the same thing with the gun issue. Having guns doesn't increase crime anymore than relaxing drug laws turns family neighborhoods into crack dens.

However, the simple fact is you believe that government has the responsibility to somehow maintain the moral fiber of society. I do not because it results in big government.

The statements can stay up, so long as it does not drag out into further debate. I do not like removing things I said, I let my thoughts fly off the cusp as they come, oh well. I do not think that federal laws create, necessarily, a big Government. Certainly bigger than one without them, but to a dangerous extent? I think Government becomes nauseatingly big when it interferes with freedom of Speech and the market. But as I said, I like Ron Paul, I do support him. Just not as enthusiastically as I would like to. To each his own, really.

[tkubic46]

Legislating something as personal as abortion never works. It has never stopped abortions from happening in history.
Tho I would say that the Liberty of the unborn child should be protected, so I am not pro-abortion.
The Federal Gov't should not legislate this, it creates unwinnable battles and tons of anger and frustration. The least we can do is decide this at the state level, as intended by the 10th amendment.

[tkubic46]

If only we had law abiding constitutional gov't....

[Admiral Piett]

Well Paul wants to overturn Roe vs Wade. So I would think you'd agree with that sentiment.

But anyhow I just don't want any government, whether it be federal or state, telling me what I can and can't do with my own body or when I decide to have children. That's just how I see it. I'm pretty adamant about that.

Anyhow, here's the actual bill

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h1207_ih.xml