[Jan 26]: Ron Paul reintroduced Audit the Fed bill today (H.R. 459)

[Maximus]

Yes time to start up the phone calls and getting this through.

This is why Rand Paul was a critical candidate for the liberty movement

 

[kah13176]

I'll contact my representative and Senator within the next few days.

 

[ClayTrainor]

It only failed last time because Bernie Sanders, the sponsor of the Senate bill, caved at the last minute. There were enough votes if he hadn't changed the legislation. You can expect that Rand Paul will not compromise on this bill.

I certainly hope you are correct, but if I was to bet money, I'd be all in on this not passing. The interests against it are heavy handed and an awful lot of political clout. Either way, it's a great thing for waking up some more people.

 

[Promontorium]

This is great news. Nancy and Bernie blocked Ron long enough to sell his bill out last time. Obviously Pelosi can't stop it this time, if it receives enough co-sponsors. What about sub-committee and committee, have those changed? Do you think the crying orange man would put it in the floor without destroying it first?

 

[TheTyke]

 

[ElCount]

It only failed last time because Bernie Sanders, the sponsor of the Senate bill, caved at the last minute. There were enough votes if he hadn't changed the legislation. You can expect that Rand Paul will not compromise on this bill.

Not true. You're right that Bernie Sanders caved but Senator Vitter proposed the "REAL" Audit the Fed amendment, and the amendment failed having garnered only 37 yes votes. Rand Paul made this point several weeks ago in a TV interview when he was asked about his and his father's plans to re-introduce legislation for a Fed audit. And he said with more republicans in the Senate it would be likely they can get more of the Senate on board.

 

[Brian in Maryland]

I just sent an email to my representative, Roscoe Bartlett, thanking him for co-sponsoring H.R. 459. Now I need to light a fire under the tails of Maryland’s 2 illustrious senators, Mikulski and Cardin and ask them to co-sponsor S. 202 ( I’m sure that will happen ).

 

[tsai3904]

Not true. You're right that Bernie Sanders caved but Senator Vitter proposed the "REAL" Audit the Fed amendment, and the amendment failed having garnered only 37 yes votes. Rand Paul made this point several weeks ago in a TV interview when he was asked about his and his father's plans to re-introduce legislation for a Fed audit. And he said with more republicans in the Senate it would be likely they can get more of the Senate on board.

This was my post back in May 2010 when the Senate was about to vote on the legislations.

"First of all, the amendments to the financial reform bill only require 50 votes to pass rather than the 60 votes that some people were assuming (according to the roll call votes). There were 37 senators who voted in favor of Vitter's amendment, which doesn't include the 6 senators who co-sponsored S604 but did not vote for Vitter's amendment (Bennett, Harkin, Cardin, Leahy, Boxer, and Landrieu). Then, there was Jeanne Shaheen who signed onto the Sanders amendment as a cosponer on May 4 prior to Sanders watering it down, but voted against Vitter's amendment. This makes 44 senators who have supported, on the record, for a full audit prior to Sanders' compromise. There were also more senators who were on the fence and hinted at voting for a full audit.

Now if Sanders never compromised, I truly believe 6 more senators would have voted for a full audit given the option of a full audit or no audit at all. Sanders had the leverage of the public's outrage if no audit were to be passed to convince 6 more senators to vote in favor of his amendment. He had to have received some type of support from the White House for him to cave when he was so close to passing his bill. "

 

[tsai3904]

Here is the list of the 55 co-sponsors:

Rodney Alexander [R-LA5]
Spencer Bachus [R-AL6]
Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
Joe Barton [R-TX6]
Gus Bilirakis [R-FL9]
Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]
Paul Broun [R-GA10]
Michael Burgess [R-TX26]
Dan Burton [R-IN5]
Ken Calvert [R-CA44]
John Campbell [R-CA48]
Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3]
Mike Coffman [R-CO6]
Bill Flores [R-TX17]
Randy Forbes [R-VA4]
Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE1]
Elton Gallegly [R-CA24]
Scott Garrett [R-NJ5]
Jim Gerlach [R-PA6]
Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
Tom Graves [R-GA9]
Dean Heller [R-NV2]
Bill Huizenga [R-MI2]
Walter Jones [R-NC3]
Marcy Kaptur [D-OH9]
Dennis Kucinich [D-OH10]
Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
Leonard Lance [R-NJ7]
Steven LaTourette [R-OH14]
Frank LoBiondo [R-NJ2]
Kenny Marchant [R-TX24]
Michael McCaul [R-TX10]
Tom McClintock [R-CA4]
Howard McKeon [R-CA25]
David McKinley [R-WV1]
Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R-WA5]
Gary Miller [R-CA42]
Jeff Miller [R-FL1]
Sue Myrick [R-NC9]
Thomas Petri [R-WI6]
Bill Posey [R-FL15]
Tom Reed [R-NY29]
Dennis Rehberg [R-MT]
Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA46]
Dennis Ross [R-FL12]
Aaron Schock [R-IL18]
Michael Simpson [R-ID2]
Adrian Smith [R-NE3]
Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Glenn Thompson [R-PA5]
Rob Wittman [R-VA1]
Rob Woodall [R-GA7]
Lynn Woolsey [D-CA6]
Bill Young [R-FL10]
Donald Young [R-AK]

 

[tsai3904]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r112:3:./temp/~r112BeO440::

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2011

* Mr. PAUL. Mr. 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 98% 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 largely 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 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 because the Fed has operated swap lines with foreign central banks and provided hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts to foreign commercial banks, the Fed's negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other foreign institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. Given the currency crisis in Europe and the prospect of the Fed propping up foreign governments or bailing out American banks invested in European debt, this issue is of especially pressing concern.

* 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 that have allowed the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms should be scrutinized, as well as the Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program, which has subsidized banks by transferring trillions of dollars of worthless debt off their books.

* 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 2012, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

 

[Matt Collins]

Join the S.202 and H.R.459 Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-HR-459-S-202/177556262281813

 

[ElCount]

This was my post back in May 2010 when the Senate was about to vote on the legislations.

"First of all, the amendments to the financial reform bill only require 50 votes to pass rather than the 60 votes that some people were assuming (according to the roll call votes). There were 37 senators who voted in favor of Vitter's amendment, which doesn't include the 6 senators who co-sponsored S604 but did not vote for Vitter's amendment (Bennett, Harkin, Cardin, Leahy, Boxer, and Landrieu). Then, there was Jeanne Shaheen who signed onto the Sanders amendment as a cosponer on May 4 prior to Sanders watering it down, but voted against Vitter's amendment. This makes 44 senators who have supported, on the record, for a full audit prior to Sanders' compromise. There were also more senators who were on the fence and hinted at voting for a full audit.

Now if Sanders never compromised, I truly believe 6 more senators would have voted for a full audit given the option of a full audit or no audit at all. Sanders had the leverage of the public's outrage if no audit were to be passed to convince 6 more senators to vote in favor of his amendment. He had to have received some type of support from the White House for him to cave when he was so close to passing his bill. "

Alrighty then, but I'm still not convinced it failed solely because Sanders caved. The White House was against it, the entire Democratic leadership was against it, the Fed was lobbying and arm-twisting etc...I do think we may have a better shot this time around, not because Republicans are good transparency loving people, but because it will seemingly be a more partisan issue.

The major drawback is we don't have Alan Grayson. He specifically said he was the Democrat who went around telling all the other Democrats that this bill was safe to touch. Kucinich and whoever else won't work nearly as hard as Grayson did to lobby the Democrats in Congress.

Anyway, 56 ain't a bad number to start with. Let's hope we break 320 again.