Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee came out with a procedural resolution for the farm bill that violates both the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. Just when you thought Congress couldn't get any swampier, we continue to exceed even the lowest expectations.

Section 2 of House Resolution 1176, the rule for the farm bill, says that the provisions of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution shall not apply during the remainder of the 115th Congress to any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

What this means is that our leadership has decided that the House just doesn't need to vote on whether U.S. soldiers, personnel, weapons, and taxpayer dollars should go toward assisting Saudi Arabia with its brutal war on civilians in Yemen, a war that has caused the world's worst famine in over 100 years.

This isn't the first time that our leadership, using the Rules Committee, has swept under the rug the War Powers Act. They did it last month. What they did is they hid the vote inside of another resolution, a procedural resolution for a bill called Manage our Wolves Act. So, many Members of Congress swept under the rug the War Powers Act without even knowing it, because it was in a procedural resolution.

But think about what they are doing this time. Instead of specifying a certain resolution that they are going to suspend the War Powers Act for, they are saying any resolution for all of Congress.

In my opinion, this violates both the U.S. Constitution and statutory law. But, apparently, this doesn't matter to our leadership and the majority of the Rules Committee.

Just as a remainder, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says that Congress and Congress alone, not the executive branch, possesses the power to declare war. Although the Constitution's language unequivocally gives this power solely to Congress, Presidents, nevertheless, continued to launch military action abroad prior to receiving Congressional approval. This is why Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973.

Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act requires the President to remove United States forces at any time, if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution, and Section 7 establishes priority procedures for consideration of such a removal resolution. It requires the Committee on Foreign Affairs to report out that resolution within 15 days. You can't let this thing die in committee. It has to come back to the floor within 15 days, according to the law since 1973.

Then it directs that the House must vote on the resolution within 3 calendar days. It can't die on the floor. There has to be a vote within 3 days.

But, instead of following the law, instead of following the Constitution, the Rules Committee last night snuck language into the rule for the farm bill, and this should upset farmers who are depending on the farm bill. They snuck into the rule for the farm bill a resolution that deprives the entire House of Representatives of its constitutional right to decide when and where our soldiers should be sent into harm's way.

So let me sum this up. Even if you think we should be involved in Yemen, even if you think soldiers should go there, even if you think we should give the bombs to Saudi Arabia to drop on civilians, you shouldn't want to sneak that into an unrelated bill. You shouldn't want to hide that in a farm bill. What good could you be up to by hiding that in another bill?

But let's say you are okay with hiding it in another bill because you don't want your constituents to find out where you stand on this issue: I had to vote for the farm bill. Sorry.

Well, even if you are okay with hiding it in another bill, this is the wrong way to do it. Last time, when they snuck it--when they swept it under the rug last month, they specified that the resolution wouldn't have the powers of the War Powers Act, wouldn't have the privileges of the War Powers Act.

This time, not only are they sweeping it under the rug, they are preemptively sweeping all of the power of Congress under the War Powers Act under the rug for the entire remainder of this congressional session. It sets a horrible precedent. It is a dangerous precedent.

The Speaker is grabbing more powers using the Speaker's committee, the Rules Committee. He is doing so and jeopardizing the power of the House of Representatives, because for him to grab more power requires us to give more power to the executive branch, to abdicate our constitutional responsibility to decide when and where our military should go.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this illegal and unconstitutional action today by voting ``no'' on the rule for the farm bill. That is House Resolution 1176

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to imagine this scenario: a heavily armed Federal SWAT team dressed in black from head to toe with body armor on, guns blazing, military-style assault weapons, extra magazines loaded, come in intent on crushing all opposition.

Now, what crime could they possibly be going after? Is it a human trafficking ring? Is it a drug bust? No. They are after an Amish farmer for selling milk straight from the cow.

I would like to tell you this is an imaginary scenario, but it has happened and it keeps happening. Unfortunately, this isn't a joke.

So what is interesting about this is that Congress has never passed a ban on raw milk, yet the FDA has imposed a ban on raw milk.

So what I seek to do today, and my colleagues, with this amendment is to allow States which have legalized raw milk, to allow the interstate transport of that raw milk between two States that have made it legal to sell unpasteurized milk.

It is a very commonsense amendment. There are millions of people who drink raw milk in this country. They drink it safely. They believe it is much healthier for them than pasteurized milk. The Greatest Generation in our country grew up drinking raw milk that was unpasteurized. Twenty-eight States allow the sale of unpasteurized raw milk.

So it is ridiculous for us, I believe, the Federal Government, to go in and keep people from buying raw milk or transporting raw milk across State lines so long as it is legal in those two States.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. This has been a very partisan debate over a lot of these amendments over the farm bill, and I think it is time that we have something that is supported by both sides of the aisle.

This amendment is modeled after a stand-alone bill that has over a dozen cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, and the sponsors of this amendment are Congressman Polis and Congressman Rohrabacher in addition to me.

It is very simple. If you understand federalism, you can understand this bill. It says that, if two States have legalized the sale of unpasteurized milk, no Federal department, agency, or court may take any action to prohibit or restrict the interstate traffic of milk or milk products between those two States. There are 28 States that have legalized the sale of raw milk.

With a debt of over $21 trillion, the Federal Government doesn't have the time, the money, or the resources to chase down and prosecute peaceful farmers. This is an issue of both personal freedom and smart government.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for mentioning Louis Pasteur and the pasteurization process, because what we have today is pasteurization without representation here in this country.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my friend.

Madam Chair, I know Big Milk opposes raw milk. The milk lobby doesn't like my amendment. In fact, the lactose lobby is very intolerant of freedom.

But I am here today to take up for consumers and small farmers and States' rights, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this. Reject pasteurization without representation. Vote to allow the interstate transport of raw milk between two States where it is legal.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize outstanding students in my district from Highlands High School in Fort Thomas. These exceptional students competed in the ``We the People'' State- level competition, and they will represent our State at the national competition here in D.C. this weekend. This is their 15th State championship win.

The ``We the People'' program is directed by the Center for Civic Education, and its goal is to increase students' knowledge of constitutional history and government--I think some of my colleagues could stand to participate in this program--and to provide a foundation in civics education that will prepare them for future leadership roles.

The program sponsors student debates and hearings. This year, some of the national hearing questions for discussion include: What are classical republicanism and natural rights philosophy, and how did they influence the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights? How has the relationship among the three branches of government changed in the course of the history of our country? It has changed quite a bit.

I am proud of my constituent students' hard work and dedication. I wish them the very best of luck in this competition this weekend and congratulate them for their outstanding work representing the State of Kentucky.

President Macron's Brand of Socialism

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I let the statements and the speech of our guest yesterday go unanswered. The President of France was here, right at this microphone, delivering his own brand of socialism. It is new and improved.

We have all seen the inefficiencies of socialism play out in Europe over the decades and the horrors of national socialism. But the French President has a new brand of socialism that we are all supposed to be enamored with. I would call it global socialism, maybe even global corporate socialism.

I hope none of my colleagues were seduced by his ideas. Ironically, they are motivated by fear, an irrational fear of the carbon dioxide molecule. Carbon dioxide is a necessary ingredient for all life on this planet.

For instance, let me give you the equation for photosynthesis. Basically, plants take six CO2 molecules and react them with six water molecules, in the presence of sunlight, to create one sugar molecule and six oxygen molecules.

Take CO2 off this planet, and what happens? Nearly everything dies and we die.

So I think it is very interesting that this new socialism has a twist to it, this global socialism, and that is, it is motivated by an irrational fear of one of the two chemical compounds that form the basis of our food chain. Very ironic.

It is also motivated by something else that the Europeans have had a penchant for for centuries, that has bankrupted nearly every country over there, and that is a penchant for war, for interventionism. Nearly all of them, at one point or time, have sought to build an empire.

So the President of France was over here saying that we should also be interventionists; that we need to get involved in the Middle East more; that we need to be involved in all of the countries.

I reject this. I would urge my colleagues to stick with the plan we have got. Stick with the policy that we have had since the beginning of this country. Stick with the Constitution. Stick with capitalism. Stick with the idea that if you build something you own it, and reject European socialism.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, 4 legislative days after passing a $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that is going to blow the deficit through the roof. And what are we going to do today? Oh, don't worry. We are going to fix it all. We are going to vote for the balanced budget amendment. That is right. This is going to tie our hands. This balanced budget amendment will cure everything that ails Congress. It is going to balance the budget. It is going to make us balance the budget.

Mr. Speaker, there is a dictionary over here in the House of Representatives, 30 feet from me. I suggest we go in there and rewrite the definition of ``audacity,'' because it is that quality of Congress that leads them to believe that 4 legislative days after they blow the budget they can pass a balanced budget amendment and think that will convince America that they are serious about balancing the budget. That is the definition of audacity.

Look, this is an unserious vote. We know this balanced budget amendment is going nowhere in the Senate. But this is a very serious topic. This is the Constitution we are talking about amending. This is the document we swore an oath to uphold, support, defend. Our Founding Fathers died for it.

What is wrong with this balanced budget amendment? Well, first of all, let me tell you, it has got a loophole you could drive a truck through. Section 1, the very first part of this balanced budget amendment, says, if three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress pass a budget that is unbalanced, that is fine, but you have got to get three-fifths vote. Okay. Higher threshold. That will cause us to balance the budget. Three-fifths is hard to get, isn't it?

How many? What is three-fifths? Sixty percent. How many Members of Congress voted for that omnibus bill 4 legislative days ago? 60.5 percent in the House. How many in the Senate? More than that.

This balanced budget amendment wouldn't have stopped the omnibus bill. There is something worse in this balanced budget amendment. Any year that we are at war, it does not apply. Let's think about that.

The first day of Congress, we elect the Speaker. We are going to elect a new one this time. We elect the Speaker. We adopt the rules. The third order of business will be to declare war so we don't have to follow the balanced budget amendment. That is a loophole right there, but it is a dangerous one.

Some people say: Well, at least we will start declaring wars. We haven't declared a war since World War II. Maybe it will get Congress to do its job, its constitutional duty.

Well, I don't think so. We have been at war in Afghanistan for 17 years, and this article in the balanced budget amendment says: Well, you don't have to be at war as long as there is a conflict with our national security at stake. Oh, you can forget the balanced budget amendment.

What does that mean? For the last 17 years, this balanced budget amendment wouldn't apply to the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, where we have racked up trillions of dollars of debt. The balanced budget amendment would do nothing to stop that.

Look, I am not against the concept of an amendment to the Constitution that limits the growth of government. This government is so much bigger than it was when our Founders started this country, and for many years thereafter, but that is not what this balanced budget amendment does. It is not carefully crafted.

The thought that our Founders put into the Constitution has not been put into this document. It has not even been debated in a committee. Yet, today, we are going to vote on it. How ridiculous is that?

So here is what I think we need to do. Instead of having a balanced budget amendment that encourages you to go to war, that is toothless, that encourages you to raise taxes instead of cut spending, we need a balanced budget amendment that somehow limits the growth of government. Frankly, what we need are people here that are serious about balancing the budget, not another document, not an unserious proposal.

So I would just say this. I know this is a popular concept to have a balanced budget amendment. I am not going to urge a ``yes'' vote or a ``no'' vote or a ``present'' vote. I am going to vote ``no'' because it is an unserious approach to a serious topic, and it should be called ``the CYA,'' not ``the BBA,'' but I just want my colleagues to think deeply and long about this amendment.

Please read it. Please read it before you vote on it. It is right here. It is only three pages. Please read it. Think deeply before you cast your vote to alter this sacred document.

Mr. Speaker, on December 31 of this year, the FISA 702 surveillance program expires.

Ostensibly, this program allows our intelligence agencies to spy on and stop terrorism. However, it is a well-known fact that the FBI has used this program as a back door to our Constitution to spy on Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to reauthorize this program before December 31 without significant reforms. We all took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. We need to stay true to that oath and require the FBI to get a warrant if they want to go into the 702 database to surveil Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 17 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 1, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the retirement of Judge Fred A. Stine, the Chief Circuit Court Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Campbell County, Kentucky.

Judge Stine graduated from the University of Cincinnati in 1973, and received his J.D. from the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University in 1978. He then worked in private practice for two years, until his appointment as the Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He served as an AUSA until October of 2004, when he was appointed to the Circuit Court.

Judge Stine has honorably served the Commonwealth as Circuit Court Judge since 2005. His many awards and recognitions include a Distinguished Service Recognition from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a ``Special Recognition for Victims' Rights'' from the U.S. Department of Justice, the ``U.S. Department of Justice Commendation'' from the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, a ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' from the National Black Law Students Association at the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University, and an award for ``Outstanding Contributions to KY Law- Related Education'' from the Kentucky Court of Justice.

Throughout his career, and despite his busy case docket, Judge Stine selflessly gave of his time to serve his community. For example, he served as a volunteer judge for the Northern Kentucky Teen Court, and for the Newport Central Catholic, Highlands High School, and Dixie Heights High School mock trial teams. He was also an active member of the Kentucky Bar Association and the Alumni Association Board of Governors of the Salmon P. Chase College of Law.

Judge Stine is a true public servant who has served his state and nation well. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and all the citizens of the Fourth District, I am honored to wish Judge Stine the very best on his retirement. From all of us, we thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the retirement of Judge Fred A. Stine, the Chief Circuit Court Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Campbell County, Kentucky.

Judge Stine graduated from the University of Cincinnati in 1973, and received his J.D. from the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University in 1978. He then worked in private practice for 2 years until his appointment as the Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Judge Stine has honorably served the Commonwealth as circuit court judge since 2005. He has many awards, which include a Distinguished Service Recognition from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a Special Recognition for Victims' Rights from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Throughout his career and despite his heavy case docket, Judge Stine selflessly gave his time to serve his community. Judge Stine is a true public servant who has served his State and Nation well.

On behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and all of the citizens of the Fourth District, I am honored to wish Judge Fred A. Stine the very best in his retirement. Thank you from us all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Sam Johnson and

Ralph Abraham, for sponsoring this joint resolution. I would also like to point out that my colleague from Colorado is a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, and he has been working hard on this issue.

H.J. Res. 40 would strike down a rule that was finalized by the Social Security Administration just days before the close of the 114th Congress. This rule is yet another example of the previous administration's last-ditch efforts to attack our Second Amendment rights.

Any attempt to curtail the right of Americans to defend themselves and their liberty is untenable. This scheme is particularly appalling because of whom it targets and how the administration sought to implement the rule.

The rule targets our grandparents, our elderly mothers and fathers who have been awarded disability benefits and have had a family member or guardian appointed to handle their finances. They haven't committed a crime or demonstrated that they were a danger to society. There is no trial, no presumption of innocence. Their names are sent to the NICS database and their firearms are taken away, their right to own a firearm.

Hardened criminals don't have their rights violated to that extent without due process, so why would it be acceptable for our seniors?

These men and women have worked hard to raise families, worked a job, and paid their fair share of taxes. Now they are being told that, in order to receive their Social Security benefits, they must first surrender the fundamental right to defend themselves. Is this the level of pettiness to which we have sunk?

The House and the American people have soundly rejected gun control in all of its forms year after year; yet this last administration bypassed the legislative process, imposed a rule, and completely disregarded due process in order to strip seniors of their constitutional rights. Our seniors deserve better than that.

This rule is not about protecting anyone. This rule should be seen for what it truly is: awful, politically motivated, and a dangerous infringement on our Second Amendment rights.

Madam Clerk, I present for election to the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 114th Congress the name of the Honorable Ted Yoho, a great defender of the Constitution and Representative-elect from the great State of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent, Dr. Michael B. McCall. Dr. McCall is the Founding President and Chief Executive Officer of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). Since his appointment in 1998, Dr. McCall has honorably served as the head of a system made up of 16 colleges located on more than 70 campuses across the state, serving over 92,000 students. He recently announced his retirement, effective January 2015.

KCTCS is the largest provider of workforce training in Kentucky, serving more than 5,300 businesses and training more than 52,000 employees annually. Among his many achievements, Dr. McCall has led the KCTCS Board of Regents' ratification or approval of more than 700 credit program options that resulted in certificates, diplomas or associate degrees. Under Dr. McCall's leadership, KCTCS became the state's largest provider of online learning, offering more than 77 online credentials. Other KCTCS accomplishments spearheaded by Dr. McCall include the creation of the North American Racing Academy (first college-affiliated horseracing academy in the United States), the Kentucky Coal Academy, the Kentucky Fire Commission, and the Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services.

Dr. McCall has also personally received numerous awards and honors, including the Phi Theta Kappa's prestigious State Community College Director Award of Distinction and the 2005 National Council for Continuing Education and Training's National Leadership Award. In addition, the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development honored Dr. McCall with its 2005 International Leadership Award. Dr. McCall also received the prestigious honor of selection by the Kentucky Monthly Magazine as the 2004 Kentuckian of the Year, and on June 30, 2006, Dr. McCall completed his tenure as Board Chair of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). This marked the first time ever that a system-level president was elected chair of the AACC board.

A recent study by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems highlighted many KCTCS accomplishments achieved under Dr. McCall's leadership. For example, KCTCS ranks 5th among the nation's community and technical college systems in the category of ``improvement over time in its outreach to younger working-aged adults without college degrees.'' In addition, from 2000 to 2012, KCTCS experienced a 63 percent increase in enrollment, while at the same time, the population of KY citizens aged 18 to 34 only increased by 2%. Finally, at least one of KCTCS's colleges has been awarded a ``top- ten'' finish in each of the three rounds of the Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence.

I salute Dr. McCall for his exemplary service to KCTCS, the state of Kentucky, and the nation.

Mr. Speaker, on June 19, 2014, the House of Representatives passed a historic amendment to the fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The amendment was offered by myself and Ms. Lofgren, along with several of our House colleagues.

Our amendment blocks government bureaucrats from performing backdoor warrantless searches of the private email content and telephone calls of U.S. citizens. The amendment also prohibits the NSA and CIA from requiring technology companies to place backdoors in their products.

Our amendment passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan and veto-proof majority of 293-123. Now, some of those who did not vote for the amendment told me that they thought the proper place for this amendment was in the NDAA, not in an appropriations act, and I tend to agree with them. I would like to see that in the NDAA, but our only opportunity was to put it into the appropriations bill.

There has been some discussion, unfortunately, of recent talk, if you will, that this amendment will be stripped from the omnibus. If that is the case, I think it does belong in the NDAA this year because this is the bill that authorizes these programs that we have heard so much about.

Americans were horrified to learn that the government was spying on them without even bothering to get a warrant, and the overwhelming number of Members who voted in favor of the Massie-Lofgren amendment did so because they listened to their constituents. I would hope we would listen to our constituents today, include provisions to reform the NSA, particularly the provision to stop the backdoor warrantless spying on Americans in this NDAA.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I urge you to include this in the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act.

Before I came to Washington, I spent 6 years studying science, math, and engineering at MIT. We were taught there and we learned very well that transparency and reproducibility are the basic tenets of science. In fact, one of my favorite things that I learned--and this comes from engineering, where you apply science--is, without facts, all you have is an opinion.

That is what the other side needs to learn today. They are hiding behind this false narrative, unfortunately, that the EPA will be unable to use certain data because they would have to release confidential or private information. This is patently untrue.

Look, the FDA, the CFPB, the Census Bureau, which one of those organizations does not collect data that has sensitive and private information in it? Yet they still use the data. They can still disclose the data, and it is transparent, and we can look at it.

This is a solvable problem. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, in 2005, said nothing in the past suggests that increasing access to research data without damage to privacy and confidentiality rights is beyond scientific reach.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I will introduce into the Record a memorandum from the President's own OMB to the executive heads of departments and agencies that encourages more transparency. This is a May 9, 2013, memorandum.

Clearly, we have the same goals with the administration, so I don't understand why the other side is against this. In fact, this memorandum from the President's own OMB says, ``Making information resources accessible, discoverable, and usable by the public can help fuel entrepreneurship, innovation, and scientific discovery--all of which improve Americans' lives and contribute significantly to job creation.''

But are they worried? Are they worried that you can't release data, that you will violate somebody's privacy or confidentiality?

No, they are not. In fact, the President's own OMB Director references the standards that we have. This is what science is about. It is about standards. It is about units of measure. It is about numbers. And we have standards for this. The NIST has standards for guidelines and definitions for releasing data while maintaining confidentiality, integrity, and availability. So they are clearly hiding behind a false narrative.

The EPA Administrator, Ms. McCarthy, said in a March 7, 2014, letter to Congress that the Agency's efforts ultimately resulted in the CDC reaching the conclusion that all of the research data could be provided without the need for de-identification.

So there is really a false narrative here. I don't know how the other side, who purports to be for science--and I am for science, with my background. I don't know how the other side can make these arguments with a straight face.

I would just say the American people would be better served with access to this data. I support the bill.

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendment to intervene in the civil war in Syria.

It is immoral to use the prospect of a government shutdown to pressure Members to vote for involvement in a war, much less a civil war on the other side of the globe. Because the Syrian resolution is contained within the continuing resolution, Representatives and Senators must tacitly approve the President's aggressive intervention in order to vote to fund all government programs.

It is disingenuous for the administration to tell the American public that we are arming Syrian rebels to fight ISIS when the administration's stated objective is to topple the secular government of Syria, a government, I might add, that has not committed aggression against the United States.

If the goal of arming and training so-called moderate Syrian rebels is to eliminate ISIS, this plan will not work. Military experts know this, as does the President. He acknowledged as much 5 weeks ago when he stated that the idea that arming rebels would have made a difference has ``always been a fantasy.''

What is our endgame? What is our long-term strategy? What will this ultimately cost? What are the unintended consequences that may come about? Will we follow this with boots on the ground? Who has these answers? The American people deserve these answers.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I also urge the same Members to stand strong and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

If this amendment should pass, there is no way to avoid culpability for a military action that is destined to cost innocent lives and will ultimately fail.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my friend and colleague Congressman Paul Broun's Federal Reserve Transparency Act, otherwise known as ``Audit the Fed.''

Our mutual friend and predecessor, Congressman Ron Paul, first introduced this bill back in 1983. His often lonely voice and courageous efforts to shed light on the secretive and harmful actions of the Federal Reserve have finally paid off over 30 years later. In July of 2012, Congressman Paul's ``Audit the Fed'' bill passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote of 327-98. Sadly, it has yet to receive a vote in the Senate.

As Congressman Ron Paul stated here on the House floor in 2011, in words that remain current and relevant today in 2014:

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

percent 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 hardworking Americans see

their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big spending

politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from

inflation.

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 for

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.

Thank you.

Congressman Ron Paul's words are even more true today than they were then, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. It is time to force the Federal Reserve to operate by the same standards of transparency and accountability to the taxpayers that we should demand of all government agencies.