HR 1207

Ron Paul: I’d like to give you an update on 1207. This week we went over the number 218, which means that the majority of the members of the House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors. As a matter of fact, we’re up to 223 co-sponsors of the bill and this means that the momentum is picking up. It would be nice someday to see 290, which would mean that it could be passed even under suspension. We still have a long way to go, but this is really a very important event, an important number.

We also have to remember that we should push S 604, the Senate bill, which is the same bill and there’s not nearly as many co-sponsors over there, but eventually the Senate would have to act on this bill.

But we also have the strong support of Dennis Kucinich. As a matter of fact, he came on and symbolically became the 218th member to co-sponsor our legislation, but I also have co-sponsored his legislation, which is HR 2424. As a matter of fact, he has passed that in the committee that he’s on, the Government Oversight Committee, and that now will be acted on one way or the other.

Now, his bill is a little bit different. What it does, it provides access from Congress and the GAO to look at the papers in the Federal Reserve dealing with the lending facilities that were all devised here in this past year and that is very important and I have, like I said, been a co-sponsor of that.

But his bill now has… several things could happen and that could be brought directly to the floor or it could go to the Banking Committee. As a matter of fact, I think Chairman Frank is asking to take a look at that bill and that’s not all bad, but it does lend itself to some confusion. But if it comes to the Banking Committee, then I might then have the opportunity to take 1207 and attach it to what Mr. Kucinich has done and that would be fine. His bill doesn’t cancel my efforts out and my bill doesn’t cancel his efforts out.

But 1207 is much broader, Dennis’ bill has a sunset provision. After five years, it is sunsetted. That’s not all bad, but it’s not as good as what we’d want. What 1207 does, it’s an overall audit of everything the Fed does and there’s no sunsetting on it and calls for a full audit.

So it’s a different approach and 1207 is much thorough and, of course, we want to make sure that the bill in the Senate gets momentum as well. So we are now looking forward to some very positive things happening, but we also have to remember, there’s nothing automatic about this.

I think when push comes to shove, the authorities who will be under the gun if we ever get the Fed exposed are going to come down real hard and they’re going to be talking to the leaders of both parties on all the bad things that could happen if they ever found out what was going on.

But, you know, in a way, I don’t lie awake at night worrying about this because I think we’ve had a major victory. We’ve had a moral victory and we’ve had a political victory. We may well end up with a legislative victory, but just think, even if they close us out and they don’t allow this bill to be passed, it will prove our point. It will prove our point that there’s a lot of shenanigans going on in the Federal Reserve that deserve attention and so the fact that so many people have joined in on this effort around the country as well as the members of Congress, it is, to me, a major victory and we have to continue this momentum.

But we have to look at all the options. The legislative process is not going to end in a week or even a month. It may take a while. When it gets to the Banking Committee, Chairman Frank might decide to extract this portion of the auditing procedure and put it into a banking bill and that might become more confusing.

And there will be efforts, of course, to water the bill down and I have to watch out for that because the temptation will be to allow the bill to go through, but strike a few clauses or put a phrase in there that really guts the bill. That’s essentially what happened in 1978 when the audit bill was passed. They said, “Sure. You can audit the Federal Reserve now, except for…” and they listed all the exclusions and made the audit bill in 1978 worthless and we need to correct that.

It’s a tremendous opportunity right now for us to find out more about the Federal Reserve, rein in the Federal Reserve, and in time, we can talk about why we don’t need the Federal Reserve and why we need a constitutional system of money which, of course, is not paper money and it can’t be run and managed by a Central bank.

But overall, there’s every reason to be excited about what has happened and that we making great progress here in the Congress and around the country for monetary reform.

Ron Paul!

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives

Statement on H Res 489 Regarding Tiananmen Square

June 3, 2009

Ron Paul: I rise to oppose this unnecessary and counter-productive resolution regarding the 20th anniversary of the incident in China’s Tiananmen Square. In addition to my concerns over the content of this legislation, I strongly object to the manner in which it was brought to the floor for a vote. While the resolution was being debated on the House floor, I instructed my staff to obtain a copy so that I could read it before the vote. My staff was told by no less than four relevant bodies within the House of Representatives that the text was not available for review and would not be available for another 24 hours. It is unacceptable for Members of the House of Representatives to be asked to vote on legislation that is not available for them to read!

As to the substance of the resolution, I find it disturbing that the House is going out of its way to meddle in China’s domestic politics, which is none of our business, while ignoring the many pressing issues in our own country that definitely are our business.

This resolution “calls on the People’s Republic of China to invite full and independent investigations into the Tiananmen Square crackdown, assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross…” Where do we get the authority for such a demand? I wonder how the US government would respond if China demanded that the United Nations conduct a full and independent investigation into the treatment of detainees at the US-operated Guantanamo facility?

The resolution “calls on the legal authorities of People’s Republic of China to review immediately the cases of those still imprisoned for participating in the 1989 protests for compliance with internationally recognized standards of fairness and due process in judicial proceedings.” In light of US government’s extraordinary renditions of possibly hundreds of individuals into numerous secret prisons abroad where they are held indefinitely without charge or trial, one wonders what the rest of the world makes of such US demands. It is hard to exercise credible moral authority in the world when our motto toward foreign governments seems to be “do as we say, not as we do.”

While we certainly do not condone government suppression of individual rights and liberties wherever they may occur, why are we not investigating these abuses closer to home and within our jurisdiction? It seems the House is not interested in investigating allegations that US government officials and employees approved and practiced torture against detainees. Where is the Congressional investigation of the US-operated “secret prisons” overseas? What about the administration’s assertion of the right to detain individuals indefinitely without trial? It may be easier to point out the abuses and shortcomings of governments overseas than to address government abuses here at home, but we have the constitutional obligation to exercise our oversight authority in such matters. I strongly believe that addressing these current issues would be a better use of our time than once again condemning China for an event that took place some 20 years ago.

Below is the full text of H Res 489:

Recognizing the twentieth anniversary of the suppression of protesters and citizens in and around Tiananmen Square in Beijing, People’s Republic of China, on June 3 and 4, 1989 and expressing sympathy to the families of those killed, tortured, and imprisoned in connection with the democracy protests in Tiananmen Square and other parts of China on June 3 and 4, 1989 and thereafter;

New advice from the Dr.

With a faltering economy, and skyrocketing costs, healthcare continues to be a critical issue for all Americans. Unfortunately government encroachment into the doctor/patient relationship is poised to exacerbate our problems with healthcare.

As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality healthcare is the patient’s confidence that all information shared with his or her healthcare provider will remain private. And yet, the Federal Government plans to undermine this trust with establishment of mandatory electronic medical records collections and “unique health identifier” numbers assigned to all Americans. Funding for this program was among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill rushed through Congress earlier this year.

Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.

Aside from those concerns, the government’s ability to protect medical records is highly questionable. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. We should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties. What would happen if unscrupulous politicians gained the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records?

For these reasons I have introduced the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act, HR 2630, which allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a 3rd party.

I have also introduced the Coercion is Not Health Care Act, HR 2629. This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, or conditioning participation in any federal program on the purchase of health insurance. Forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled healthcare system. Congress would define what policies and coverage requirements satisfy their mandate. Does anyone then doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered would be determined by who has the most effective lobby? Or that Congress would be capable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that fits the unique needs of every individual in the United States?

With these conditions in place, I foresee the eventual imposition of price controls and limitations on what procedures and treatments that are covered. This will result in an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find healthcare – the exact opposite of the desired result! Consider the increasing number of physicians who are already withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Congress should put the American people back in charge of healthcare by expanding healthcare tax credits and deductions, increasing access to Health Savings Accounts, respecting privacy and the doctor/patient relationship. Further politicizing and bureaucratizing of healthcare will only increase costs and reduce quality, as demonstrated by most other countries with socialized medicine.