Laws Are Designed To Provide Protection And To Keep Society Civilized

Imagine what life would be like if there weren’t any laws. People could drive as fast as they wanted on whichever side of the road they felt like. Instead of waiting in line to buy things from the grocery store, you could just grab whatever you needed and then walk out the door without fear of being arrested for shoplifting.

In essence, chaos would reign supreme. Without any legal repercussions, people would do whatever they wanted without having to worry about the consequences. The vast majority of people would probably continue to go about their daily lives the way they always have. A handful of people, however, would see the lack of laws as an opportunity to do harm. It is those people that would slowly cause society to dissolve into chaos.

Sometimes, laws can seem restrictive. After all, there are many laws on the books that limit personal freedoms and that may make it difficult for you to do things that you would like to do. If you have a really fast car, for instance, you may wonder why you can’t just drive it as fast as you want on the road.

Even though laws may seem like a bad thing, you need to remember that they are actually there to protect you. Imagine what the roads would look like if everyone could drive as fast as they wanted. There would be accidents everywhere that you looked. Not everyone is a great driver or has a car that can withstand high speeds. With some drivers moving slowly and others moving exceptionally quickly, accidents would be far more likely to occur.

Instead of thinking of laws as restrictive, think of them as protective. After all, they are ultimately designed to maintain order and provide protection. In fact, you should be grateful that there are laws in place. Without them, things would be a lot scarier in the world. If people could break into your house and never be punished for it, you would have to be on high alert at all times worrying about when the next break-in was going to occur.

What it really boils down to is that laws are a good thing. They enable modern societies to exist and help people live together in harmony. Even though there may be some laws that you would like to get rid of, it is important to remember that they are designed for the benefit of society and are usually worth keeping in place.


United Nations Resources

League of Free Nations

If nothing else is learned from events of the past year, we now know with certainty that the United Nations is finished as a force for peace, stability, and human rights. An examination of the UN’s track record in preventing armed conflict shows one dismal failure after another. In its 55-plus years of existence, the UN has been totally ineffective in preventing well over 100 armed conflicts between nations. The two uses of military force sanctioned by the UN in its history (Korean conflict in 1952-53 and the war to liberate Kuwait in 1992) both ended without defeating the responsible culprit (North Korea and Iraq, respectively).

The sorry spectacle of the Franco-German-Russian refusal to endorse a UN sanction of military action to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein is testimony to the economic stake each of those nations had in supporting the ill-fated regime. A solid history of genocide and mounting evidence of atrocities not seen since Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler was insufficient to move the French, German, or Russian governments to support the only action that could put an end to the misery of the Iraqi people. Where economic gain was in the balance, liberty and decency weighed little in determining the direction the leaders of those nations pursued.

With such petty leadership of nations that presume to have democracy and liberty for their own people, how can those in other nations who yearn for freedom have any hope that the UN will aid their cause? Clearly, they can have no hope if the UN is their only chance for liberation.

The sad truth is, the UN isn’t interested in promoting individual liberty or the values of the democratic process and government that constitutionally protects freedom. A UN that includes China, North Korea, Syria, Libya, the Sudan, Yemen, Iran, and other such nations cannot expect to be counted on to support freedom and the democratic process.

We cannot continue to support a UN that shows so little regard for human rights that it puts nations like Cuba and Libya in the forefront of its Human Rights Commission and allows Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to lead the Disarmament Commission. Such disregard for common sense and sensitivity to human rights can no longer be tolerated.

There is little to be gained by continuing membership in the charade that has become the UN today. It’s time to form a new organization composed of only those nations who value liberty, individual freedom, and self-determination in government. A League of Free Nations would exist to promote peace and harmony among free nations through treaties, trade, and international cooperation to end all terrorism and support the process of change in countries where liberty and self-determination do not exist.

Unlike the UN, a League of Free Nations would not enter into international agreements that include nations of despots and totalitarian regimes who have no intention of abiding by such agreements. Unlike the UN, a League of Free Nations would have an obligation to put an end to regimes who hold their nations population captive and/or who support terrorism. In many cases, strictly enforced sanctions (unlike those of the UN) would be all that is necessary to bring about the desired change. However, when despots cling to power at the expense of the basic human rights of their population, then whatever means is necessary would be used to bring freedom to a subjugated people. Slavery was wrong 140 years ago and it’s just as wrong today.

The time has come for the United States to leave the UN and the UN to leave the United States. The US should lead the process of forming a League of Free Nations.

Let the French host the UN in Paris. A more fitting locale for such ineffectiveness is hard to imagine.

Bob Webster
Editor-at-large, OpinioNet


Most of these pages have search engines on them to facilitate finding specifics on the United Nations:



Return To Republic USA

Legal Research Tools


Return To Republic USA


Why Do Crazy Laws Remain On The Books?

There are many laws in the US that when the average citizen reads them just look ridiculous. You might wonder why would such crazy laws still exist on the books. The fact is that some of these are genuinely unexplainable. There was likely a reason at the time the laws were enacted but now most people can’t find any reason for them. But there are others that may look to be crazy laws but have real value.

One example of a law that might seem a bit foolish but has value, would be one in the state of Alaska. In this state, there is a law on the books that says that no one is allowed to wake a sleeping bear to take a photo. I think it would be very dangerous. but the fact is that Alaska gets a lot of tourists and they are there to see all the natural wonders Alaska has to offer.

For this reason, a tourist might unwittingly wake the bear to take a picture of it. They may think that the bear looks adorable and not think about the danger. For this reason, they may wake the bear and attempt to take its picture and then the bear could unwittingly attack the person.

In the state of Connecticut is a law that says that for a pickle to be legally considered a pickle, it must bounce. I can’t imagine what reason this law was enacted. But there is a chance that there was some reason.

In the state of Florida, there’s a law that that states if an elephant is tied to a parking meter then the meter needs to be paid. This might seem silly but the fact is that in the past there were situations where these animals were being used and sometimes a person would tie an elephant to a parking meter. So for that reason, these laws had to be enacted.

Many people feel that the laws needed to be put on the books many years ago but they wonder why they remain there now. That’s a good question but the fact is that once a law is put on the books it’s not so easy as one might think to have it removed. But in the end, these seemingly crazy laws either serve a purpose or at the very least cause little or no harm.

Second Amendment Resources

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”[10][11]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that its protection is not limited to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.[15]

Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[16]




Return to Republic USA

The Federal Reserve

Banks, Money, & The Federal Reserve

“The Federal Reserve Bank is not an agency or instrumentality of the federal government for the purpose of the special assessment imposed by central business improvement district and was exempt from the obligation to pay such assessment.” {} Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement District, 492 F Supp 353 (1980)

When banks buy government bonds they create bookkeeping credit. {} Lewis W. Douglas, former director of U.S. Budget

The monetary system of the U.S. and the major nations of the free world was established in 1694 by the Bank of England. This system subverts the legal and constitutional government and leads to socialism or fascism through favored corporate creation and control of the government’s money and credit; directs the policies of government and holds in their hands the destiny of the people. {} Reginald McKenna, Chairman of the Board and President, Midlands Bank of England. Source: National Economy and the Banking System, Senate Document, Vol. 3, No. 23, 76th Congress, first session.

It is well enough that the people of the Nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. {} Henry Ford, Sr.

My agency, in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act, was the greatest financial mistake of my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country. It should be repealed, but before that can be accomplished, the people will be arrayed on one side and the banks on the other, in a contest such as we have never seen before in this country. {} Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of Treasury, U.S.

The Federal Reserve banks borrow money on the credit of the United States, issue currency for the money borrowed, and refuse to repay the lenders in anything of value. {} Mobley Milan v. U.S. F. Cas. 72 1666

Federal Reserve bank credit does not consist of funds that the Reserve authorities get somewhere in order to lend, but constitute funds that they are empowered to create. {} Federal Reserve Bank; Its Purposes and Functions, 1939 Edition



The A B C’s of America’s Money System

SPEECH of Hon. Wright Patman of Texas

MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1964 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price). Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr Patman] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. PATMAN. Mr Speaker, first I will indicate the table of contents of my speech as follows:


Americans Pay $75 Billion on Gross Interest Charges.
The Beginnings of the Federal Reserve System.
The Origin of the Powerful Open Market Committee.
The Bankers Take Over in the Depression.
The “Fourth Branch” of the Government.
Why I Oppose the Unchosen Few.
How Monetary Policy affects Employment.
How Money and Credit Are Created.
The Fed Spends Taxpayers’ Money in Odd Ways.
Federal Reserve Officials Make International Monetary Agreements.
The Tax and Loan Account Gimmick.
The Big Bankers Lobby—The ABA.
Our Subcommittee’s Half Year of Had Work.
Majority of subcommittee’s Recommendations.
The Importance of Grassroots Support.
What Each Good American Can Do To Help.

Mr. Speaker, this is the story of money, monetary policy, and a unique American institution, the Federal Reserve System. It is the story of who- –what forces—control the supply of money and credit in the United States. It is the story of a radical change in the ebb and flow of money and credit in the 50 years since Woodrow Wilson set up what has become America’s central banking system—the Fed. It is the story of what we— as citizens—can do to make money more available and cost less. Money is more important than any other part of our economy. If a small group controls the money mart, as I have long contended, money is scarce or plentiful, dear or cheap to rent, depending upon this small group’s whims, wishes, selfish interests, or public concern. It is this small group that determines whether the people pay high interest rates or low on their farm mortgage, their new automobile, their washing machine, or their split-level It is the powerful few who have taken authority Congress never intended for them to have who determine whether money is readily available or hard to come by.

In a letter John Adams sent to Thomas Jefferson 2 years before George Washington was sworn in as President, the Massachusetts gentleman wrote:

“All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in American arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from the lack of honor or virtue, so much as from direct ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.”

The purpose of my remarks today is to show that money and monetary policy is not nearly as complex as the few who control it want the public to believe. I wish to end contemporary ignorance concerning money matters.

Under the Constitution it is the right and duty of the Congress to create money, but when the Congress set up the Federal Reserve System it farmed out its power. As we will see, a limited authority was transferred to the Fed and the commercial banks.

Today the Fed and the commercial banks possess immense power, since they manufacture money which they lend out or use to purchase securities. They are not counterfeiters–they are licensed to manufacture money. This power, if properly used, could work in the public interest. However, the authority had been abused. As I have indicated for many years, they charge the public too much money for money they manufacture


The American people–according to the Department of Commerce–will pay $75 billion in gross interest charges this year. Eleven of the $75 billion is for annual interest on the national debt. These charges are so high that if the trend continues the day may arrive when it will be true that America cannot afford to spend the money needed for its schools or city and rural area renewal, for mass transit, conservation, recreation or reclamation and for old-age or veterans’ compensation or pensions, to name a few. In other words, the more we must pay the moneylenders, the less we have to spend for our national well-being. The more we are taxed by the moneylenders, the less chance we have to increase our economic growth rate. Unemployment will increase. Business– -both manufacturing and retail—is handicapped by high interest charges which they must inevitably pass on to the general public.

While the Federal Reserve and the banks in the past have attempted to justify high interest charges with the excuse that the high rates would hold prices down and stop inflation, in reality they were upping prices by increasing the cost of credit–both for individuals and business institutions. The inflation bunkum has pretty well worn itself out— people will not heed it any longer. The new propaganda by the same controlling financial interests then contended that we had to up interest charges in order to stop our gold flow abroad. And then we heard a lot more hokum to the effect that it would be necessary to increase interest so that American money would not go overseas where rates were appealing to the investors because they were much higher than American rates. Such hobgoblins have fortunately been laid to rest, but the next time you hear them remember that they are part of the designed fraud put forth by the moneylending lobby–the American Bankers Association particularly–to make higher interest rates palatable to the American people. Important and powerful bankers are no different from some important and powerful people engaged in manufacturing automobiles, aluminum, steel, or detergents. They want fewer and weaker competitors. They want to lead the pack, dominate their respective markets. From our earliest history as a nation a few bankers have had the ambition to gain control over America’s monetary policy. There was old Nicholas Biddle, who had his running feud with Andrew Jackson, and fortunately lost. And then there was the House of Morgan, who employed the kidglove, gold-cane approach to banking in the early decades of this century. Then Andrew Mellon came along in the twenties–a ruthless and corrupt politician-banker who became Secretary of the Treasury–until I nearly had him impeached for using his high office for personal gain. And more recently, there has been the Morgan-Aldrich-Rockefeller banking empire and the giant-sized Giannini Bank of America phenomenon in the West.


Ever since 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, control of the money mart has become more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. How this came about follows in a brief historical sketch of the Federal Reserve System, which was founded in 1913, and became operative the following year. The big bankers did not like the Federal Reserve Act, as enacted, because they were not allowed on the Board to determine the volume of money and interest rates. The Federal Reserve System was set up because following the panic of 1907 it became clear that an elastic currency and a viable means for transferring reserves among banks was necessary to avert panics and to assure economic stability.

As the then Congressman Alben Barkley stated:

“Against many of their methods (Wall Street) I do complain, and the people of the country have complained, and will continue to complain until the cause for this complaint is removed.”

Representative Charles A. Korbly of Indiana, then a Member of the House Banking and Currency Committee, stated in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was being considered:

“We have a control by New York banks and New York banking. We propose to break this. We not only propose to break it, but we propose to decentralize it. We propose to scatter it into 12 different sections of the United States. Then it will be a control within a particular section, subject to the power of the Government.”

At the beginning the Fed was composed of 12 separate banks, each one a autonomous financial world onto itself. As we will note, today, the power of control has gone full circle–back to Wall Street. A half-century of neglect by the Congress–which as not bothered to look at the operations of the Federal Reserve System–has made it a pliable instrument for a comparatively few mighty bankers.

Parenthetically, at its birth in 1913, the Democrats favored the Fed and the Republicans opposed it. It is noteworthy that today–now that the big banks, mostly in New York, call the tune at the Fed–the Rupublicans–at least on the House of Representatives Banking and Currency Committee, of which I am chairman–oppose almost any change which would make the Federal Reserve responsive to the President and his economic and fiscal policies.


In 1923, the bankers in New York formed a committee of five to issue money and buy bonds on the credit of all 12 Federal Reserve Banks. The committee got permission from the 12 banks to operate, and this they did until 1933 without sanction of law–merely through a “gentlemen’s agreement.”

The arrangement was not secure because any of the banks–then autonomous- -could have gotten out any time it desired. However, it became profitable for all banks.

This committee of five became the first Open Market Committee, which controlled credit by buying and selling Government securities, employing the resources of all the banks combined. It was called an “Open Market Conference,” although in reality it was a “closed” market affair because nobody except the few inner-sanctum members knew what was going on.

In 1927, when the McFadden Act was pending, an amendment was inserted which removed the 20-year limitation on the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed, set up for a 20-year trial period, became a permanent American institution. The new law was passed because the big bankers, through their unofficial Open Market Committee, realized that it would be comparatively simple for them to gain control of the Federal Reserve they had originally opposed.


In 1933, in the depths of the depression, while the Congress was looking the other way, the bankers were writing a law–playing for keeps this time. Under this law an advisory group was set up consisting of a representative from each of the dozen Federal Reserve banks. Each representative would be a banker, and, the Federal Reserve Board, under the law, could not deal in open market transaction without the request of this group of bankers. But the Board was not satisfied with this situation so a change had to take place. Under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1935, the seven members of the Board of Governors and the New York Federal Reserve Bank president–made a permanent member in the early forties–are designated as 8 of the 12 members of the Open Market Committee. Presidents of the other 11 Federal Reserve banks alternate as the other 4 members of the Open Market Committee for short terms. Also under Glass-Steagall of 1935, the 12 members of the Open Market Committee are permitted to wear two hats. They can be bank presidents and members of the Federal Reserve Board one day, or they can be Open Market Committee members, buying and selling Government securities, tightening or easing credit, responsible only to themselves and God. Under the original act of 1913 there were seven members to the Federal Reserve Board, including the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency, the latter two ex-officio. The other five members were appointed for 10-year term, one expiring every 2 years. In the 1933 act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller were retained, but the other five were appointed on a staggered basis for 12 year terms and finally in the 1935 act, the Secretary and the Comptroller were dropped, and seven members were appointed for 14-year term, one expiring every 2 year. There was indeed a method behind these terms of years. The money managers were rigging the tenure so that only one term would expire every 2 years. Therefore, a President who served two full terms would only get to appoint two members the first 4 years in office. The third would come the first 2 years of the second term and the fourth the last 2 years of his 8 years as U.S. President. Under a recent amendment to the Constitution, no President can serve longer than two terms. Moreover, our Chief Executive’s hands are tied in selecting the Board’s Chairman.

In the last year of President Kennedy’s administration he was allowed to appoint a Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1935, he was forced to select the Chairman from one of the seven Board members. Under the 1935 act, the President of the United States could never get control of the monetary policy of the Government he was elected to head. The Fed and the Open Market Committee could veto whatever economic and financial policies Congress and the President desired if the few insiders so wished. Of the present seven members of the Board the first expiration date is that of Mr. Balderston, whose term expires January 31, 1966. The second is Mr. Shepardson, whose term expires January 31, 1968. Thereafter the expiration dates extend on up through 1978 as follows: William McC. Martin, Jr., January 31, 1970, A.L. Mills Jr., January 31, 1972, Dewey Daane, January 31, 1974, George W. Mitchell, January 31, 1976, and J.L. Robertson, January 31, 1978.

In the evolution of the Federal Reserve System, the 11 member banks— aside from the New York bank with its 5,000 employees–have practically gone out of business.

Officials and about 15,000 employees of the other 11 Federal Reserve banks are desperate in their efforts to find something to do. At present they are only clearing checks and distributing currency and coin to their member banks. This at a cost of well over $100 million a year to the taxpayers. The fact is, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the hub of the working mechanism of the Fed. Alfred Hayes, president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, receives a salary of $70,000–fixed by the Federal Reserve–not by Congress–although he is paid by the taxpayers. Only the President of the United States receives a higher salary from the taxpayers.

Chairman Martin, of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, has always insisted that the open market operations are conducted in the New York Federal Reserve Bank but under the direction of the Open Market Committee.

The fact is the New York Federal Reserve Bank has been acting independently–sort of as a ‘Wild card” roving end of the Federal Reserve System. What Coach Martin wants he sometimes fails to get because “wild card” end Hayes decides he wants to do something else and runs with the ball the other way.

Under the law everything that is done in the New York Federal Reserve Bank is under the direction of President Hayes. Section 4 of the Fed Act provides that the President: “shall be the chief executive officer of the bank . . . and all employees of the Bank shall be directly responsible to him.” They are. He is responsible to a Board of Directors (who selected him as President) composed of nine members, six of whom were selected by the private commercial banks.


I have previously mentioned the Open Market Committee—which has been called “the fourth branch of the Government.” It meets secretly every 3 weeks–and in these meetings the 7 members of the Federal Reserve Board and the 12 presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks determine how much money the people have. That is, the volume of money and what the interest rates shall be on Government securities. They buy and sell Government securities, and by their actions control the reserves in the more than 6,000 member banks in the Federal Reserve System which have 85 percent of the deposits in the 14,000 banks in the United States. These reserves determine whether money is comparatively easy or hard to come by and whether it is obtainable at beneficial or harmful rates of interest.


t is a fact that the Open Market Committee’s actions have created three depressions in the last 10 years– 1953-54, 1957-58, 1960-61. Each of these man-made recessions was preceded by tighter money and higher interest rates. We cannot afford any longer for such an expensive group to operate secretly. There should be no mystery whatsoever–no secrecy– concerning the control of money supply, interest rates, or credit. These are matters affecting the public from the time they get up in the morning until they retire at night. For the Federal Reserve and the banker-oriented Open Market Committee to cloak the working of the money system in a mantle of secrecy is to violate the prime rule of a free society. there is a place for such secrecy only in an authoritarian state.

I do not wish–under any circumstances–to appear as one ready to indict all bankers merely because they happen to be bankers. I know from direct experience that some community bankers are leading citizens of their towns and cities. They are altogether cognizant of their responsibilities. They are also aware of the particular privileges that accrue to them because of their authority in the community to lend or not to lend money. They are also conscious of the enormous–even abnormal– prosperity that bankers have enjoyed the past few years.

In an article on bank profits in the July 17, 1964, issue of Time magazine, we learn:

The $312 billion U.S. banking industry is sharing in the current economic advance to a degree that surprises even it. Bankers, in fact, are making more money than ever before. Last week all time high first-half earnings were reported by several banks, including the two largest ones, San Francisco Bank of America and New York’s Chase Manhattan . . . the Nation’s major banks earned 9 percent more in 1964’s first half than in the first half of 1963. Much of the gain came in the kind of loans that bankers like most of all–consumer installment loans, which give them interest yields of 12 percent or more. The bankers have also been earning more from the $59 billion that they have tied up in Government securities. . . . To further increase their income, the bankers have been switching increasingly from Government securities to municipal bonds, which are tax exempt.

This article by the conservative news magazine in the last paragraph states that bankers complain that “interest payments on deposits are too generous.” And they say that my old friend William McChesney Martin worries that the bankers have taken on too many “chancy” construction loans.

But the last sentence is the payoff. Says Time:

Because the banks have only a small supply of liquid funds, the Federal Reserve now has greater power to tighten up on credit should strong signs of inflation appear.

It seems that Time magazine and WRIGHT PATMAN agree concerning the authority of the Federal Reserve System. We disagree only on one point: I would end the ability of the Federal Reserve to exercise this authority independently of the Congress and the President. I will wager a longhorn Texas steer that Time would not.


In my congressional career, I have been an implacable foe of those who insist on jacking up interest rates to an excessive degree and thus tightening credit, which most certainly slows up our economic development. Presently I am at war–as you have gathered–with a small coterie of men–primarily from the ranks of the big New York banks–in cahoots with the Fed–the same crowd who controls the American Bankers Association–who have upped the interest charges on Government securities since the Roosevelt-Truman era and thus forced the American people to add $40 billion unnecessarily to the public debt. If we had maintained the interest rates in effect prior to the Eisenhower regime, the carrying charges on our entire debt would be $6 instead of $11 billion per year, and the debt itself would be $270 rather than $310 billion. I have publicly stated that if these people are able to get away with it they will continue to encourage monetary policies that can lead only to a $600 billion national carrying charge within 15 years at a 6-percent carrying charge amounting to $36 billion per year of the taxpayers’ money.

To show how pernicious is the effect of interest increases, one-fourth percent increase in the rate of interest on the national debt would cost the taxpayer approximately $800 million a year. Now let us look at increased interest costs as they pertain to homeownership. A national farm organization has estimated that home mortgages during the period 1952-63 have cost homeowners $6 billion more than they would have had to pay if the rates had been held to the pre-Eisenhower regime interest rates. This $6 billion alone is enough to cover the capital costs of between half a million and a million new houses for middle and lower income families.

This small but formidable group of tight money, high interest rate devotees I oppose are the insiders who back up William McChesney Martin when he arrogantly pronounces how independent the Federal Reserve System is and must remain—and how wicked the politicians like myself are who want to do away with this mythical independence and instead make the Fed responsive to the President rather than to a bunch of money hucksters. These are the people who want no reform of the Federal Reserve Board. They boast about being insulated against the politicians–Congress and the President–but they do not deny working closely with the big bankers who have the most to gain by their actions.

The Constitution wisely provides that Congress shall coin money and regulate its value for the reason that the Congress and the President, who would control the money, would be accountable to the people, who would have an opportunity to express approval or disapproval at the polls. If monetary matters are left to the Federal Reserve, insulated from the people, then the public will have no way to express its approval or disapproval of their actions. The fact is an independent Federal Reserve means something that is not in the framework of our constitutional system, which says that Congress will make the laws and the President shall execute them. Those who desire a dictatorship on money matters by a “bankers club”—away from the Congress and the President—are in effect advocating another form of government alien to our own.

As the tight money, high interest clique sees it, it is perfectly all right for the President to be able to appoint his own Secretary of the Treasury and his economic advisors. But it would be “politically mischievous” for him to be able to appoint the head of the Federal Reserve or to find out what goes on in the Open Market Committee meetings.

In other words, those who consider monetary matters hallowed ground are insisting that the bankers control the volume of money and the cost of interest. They contend that the politicians—the people who are elected by the people–are not competent to pass upon the questions involved. But it is perfectly all right for the Congress and the President elected by the people to pass on the use of nuclear missiles, the atomic bomb, the appropriations and expenditures of government, the drafting of the young men into military service and into war, but they are not competent to pass upon monetary matters. As the money trust sees it. financial matters must be left entirely up to bankers. They alone are qualified to understand the deep mystique of money. Which reminds me that it was Woodrow Wilson, who, when asked by a group of bankers to appoint bankers to the Federal Reserve Board, inquired:

“Which one of you gentlemen would want me to appoint railroad presidents to the Interstate Commerce Commission?”

Bankers are people who know how to make loans but little about the science of money as it affects the total economy. In 1913, Congressman Graham, of Illinois, put this idea succinctly:

“The ordinary banker devotes very little of his time to a study of financial systems. He devotes himself rather to the immediate management of his bank.”


For more than 30 years I have believed that monetary policy can vitally affect employment. Early in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term I introduced a bill which—among other things—called for expanding the money supply “until there is substantially full employment at the wage and price level of 1926.” The bill called for expanding the money supply so as to achieve full employment without inflation. I lost that battle, but in 1946 I was the House of Representatives’ author of the Full Employment Act which make it the responsibility of the President:

“To coordinate and utilize all of the Government’s plans, functions and resources . . . to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power.”

I conceived that this Employment Act would provide the basis for achieving the full employment monetary policy called for in my 1943 bill. It was my intent when the Employment Act of 1946 was being drafted that the President of the United States should be responsible for formulating monetary guidelines. However, following passage of the bill, the controversial question of the Federal Reserve’s independence has consistently prevented the President from implementing the act as I had originally intended. Instead, monetary policy has been formulated in a vacuum—uncoordinated a good deal of the time with our fiscal and economic policies and programs.

This ludicrous situation must not be permitted.

A letter written by professor emeritus, Seymour E. Harris, famous Harvard economist who served as advisor to President Kennedy, printed July 16 in the Washington Post says in part:

“On no issue of economic policy has more nonsense been written than on the independence of the Federal Reserve System. And no one has proclaimed this independence more insistently than Mr. William McChesney Martin, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board:

“If the Government seeks full employment, relative stability of prices, and reasonable balance in international accounts, the Fed would have no alternative but to follow policies that help the Government achieve these ends. This is a must. We cannot afford, in these days of crisis, the luxury of the Executive going one way and the Fed another.”

Under President Kennedy, there were threats of restrictive monetary policy; e.g, at one point Mr Martin would veto the tax cut by not financing the deficit out of additional money.

The Board itself gives too much attention to the wishes of the financial interests. The banks even more so. Financial interests are biased in favor of excessive monetary restriction and high price for their product and restricted supplies. They might do better, though they do not seem to realize it, by selling more at lower prices.


For the next few moments I would like to discuss how money and credit— which is the same as money—are created. I have already said that commercial banks have the power–along with the Fed—to create or manufacture money. They do so in different ways and for different reasons.

Under the basic rules laid down by the Federal Reserve System, banks may create several dollars of bank deposits for each dollar of reserves which are at the moment credited to their account on the books of the Federal Reserve. For example, say that the Fed has credited a bank with $100 of reserves. And suppose the banks are permitted to create $10 of deposits for each one of reserve, as they now are. This would mean that all banks in the System can create bank deposits by making loans and purchasing investments up to a point where total deposits reach $1,000, or $10 to every $1.

Stated in another way, when the Fed increases a bank’s reserves by $100, that bank can lend out $90 in new loans and keep only $10 as reserves. The $90 loan usually will be deposited in another bank, in which case the second bank can lend out $81, retaining approximately $9 as reserve. The $81 created in new loans is then usually deposited in a bank, 10 percent held in reserve and the other $73 is available for new loans. This is the chain reaction of the money-creating process, the net result of which is a 10-for-1 buildup in new money.

The question is raised that since banks make profits from interest they receive from loans and investments, why do they not simply create an unlimited amount of money–making every loan they can place—and buy up all legitimate securities offered. The reason is, the banks are required to hold reserves equal to a certain fraction of their deposits. Without these required reserves, there would be no limit to our money supply, and a rational control of our economic system would not exist.

Now the Fed provides banks with reserves free to permit them to create checkbook money, and it provides these reserves by purchasing Government securities. It could–if it so desired—reduce or even retire all of our publicly held national debt by providing banks with reserves.

But bankers cannot exist without debt. No debt, no money. Government paper is wonderful to have around. The clipping of coupons is profitable- –and no risk exists.

However, I would like to see bankers get back into the banking business– -paying less attention to high-interest-bearing Government securities and tax-exempt municipals—although they are certainly the keystone of our national economy—and more attention to loaning money at reasonable rates to people and industry—particularly to independent and small businessmen—so that our economy can grow and the trend toward merger and monopoly would be at least be retarded, if not reversed.


As of today the Federal reserve holds in its New York vaults, $34 billion worth of Government bonds. The taxpayers—you and I—are paying over $1 billion a year on these securities. The Fed spends as much of this $1 billion as it wants to for any purpose whatsoever, including $90,000 worth of annual dues to the American Bankers Association. I mentioned earlier that Federal Reserve employees are desperately trying to find something to occupy their time. Some have taken up courses in Shakespeare, sales management, public opinion, metropolitan politics and ethics, art history, and the philosophy of religion; one was even driven to take a course in the sociology of occupation, all at the taxpayers expense. No one seems to have taken a course in the proper use of the taxpayers’ money. Other employees have found relief in dinner parties— one cost over $4,000 including $25 for a preacher for the invocation and $125 for a comedian—and theater and golf parties—still on the taxpayers money. Others have taken to travel. One Fed official spent a fortnight in India with his wife; his expenses—#269.10, hers, $7.10— which led one reporter to comment, “He traveled like a Prince, his wife like a coolie.” You see, the Fed does not have to go to the Congress for an annual appropriation, since it contends it is independent.

What it does not spend of the $1 billion, it returns to the Treasury. The bonds which I mentioned a moment ago and which are bought with Government money should either be canceled or the interest turned over to the Treasury Department These $34 billion in bonds have been paid for once, since the Federal Reserve notes that are printed at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington were used to buy these bonds. Each Federal Reserve note is a Government obligation, so what the Fed has been doing—and I can think of nothing more ridiculous—is to take one form of non interest-bearing obligation, a Federal Reserve note, and trade it for another Government obligation consisting of interest-bearing Government bonds, and then require the taxpayers to continue to pay interest on the bonds traded for.

It is my firm belief that since the bonds have been paid for once, they should be canceled. If permitted to remain in effect, the taxpayers should not be required to pay interest on them or the interest should at least go back into the Treasury.


A moment ago I noted the expenses of a high official of the Federal Reserve System in his travels abroad. He is not alone. Many Federal Reserve executives are taking frequent trips abroad at the taxpayers expense—attending monetary conferences and carrying on business with various central banking officials of other nations. As an outcome at some of these meetings, fundamental financial decisions which have a direct bearing on our economy are made. There is a possibility that some of these may go beyond the authority granted the Fed officials. They may even be in violation of American constitutional law. I hope that this is not the case, but I must state that it is a distinct possibility.

It is ironic that our committee which would like to find out what is going on at some of these oversea meetings is not permitted to travel outside the confines of the United States. The resolution setting up our prerogatives as a committee states:

“Funds authorized for expenses incurred in the committee’s activities… shall not be made available to the Committee on Banking and Currency for expenses of its members or other members or employees traveling abroad.”

Since our committee is the first in 50 years to look into all phases of the Federal Reserve System, it would seem advisable for our members to have the same privilege to travel abroad as officials of the Fed. They would thus be able to investigate what might prove a most revealing facet of the Fed’s operation. Such an investment of taxpayers’ money could be worth a thousand times its cost.


A major taxpayers’ headache connected with our banking world has been the bankers’ bonus. I refer to the “tax and loan account” gimmick.

Hardly known to the general public is the fact that the U.S. Treasury is subsidizing banks every day of the year. Bankers—most of whom are conservative and Republican—like Ed Neilan, former President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and head of the Bank of Delaware in the Duchy of DuPont–generally oppose all Government subsidies, except, of course, the ones they receive. The tax and loan account is one of the bankers’ principal subsidies.

When Federal income tax is deducted from your salary, the check is made out to the Internal Revenue. The check is returned to the boss’ bank, but the money remains right there in a tax and loan account; it is not sent immediately to the Treasury Department although, eventually, it will be called for by the Government.

In the meantime, this money is loaned out at the going rate of interest by your bank to any qualified borrower, or it may be used to purchase securities—including Government bonds.

Last year an average of $5.3 billion was held by banks in tax and loan accounts throughout the Nation. At 4 percent this means a cost of $212 million annually to the taxpayers. This costs the taxpayers more because the public debt is made higher by the Government’s failure to take possession immediately of tax and loan money. It is the taxpayer who has to pay the interest on the additional debt. It is the contention of the banks that they render service to the Government which cancels out any reasonable interest payments they might make to Uncle Sam for money they loan out from the tax and loan accounts. I would pay the banks for any service they render the Federal Government. I believe, however, that most of the services they talk about are those they must render in order to keep their customers from going across the street to their competitors.

Some day soon I hope that banks, which are so abundantly profitable, will pay the Treasury something for these deposits.


Big financial lobbies—like big business lobbies—seldom concern themselves with the public interest. The American Bankers Association is no exception.

A number of years ago, the Buchannan Lobbying Investigating Committee of the House of Representatives divided lobbying into two categories— direct and indirect. The American Bankers Association–as ugly as any lobby in existence—practices both categories to the full. Direct lobbying is where a paid lobbyist goes to see—or buttonholes in the corridor—a Congressman to give him his song and dance on specific legislation favoring whomever he works for. indirect lobbying—by far the most insidious type—can and has taken the form of S O S pleas t members of the American Bankers Association to intimidate their Congressman through long-distance calls, telegrams, or letters—damning some bill which might favor the public over banking interests. Or the ABA might ask for affirmative action on another piece of legislation favoring banks vis-a-vis the people.

Not for a moment would I deny the ABA or anyone else the constitutional right of petition. They—like any other greedy lobby–have the unrestricted right to work for legislation inimical to the best interests of the American people. This is a cost we must pay for our freedom. I merely cite how the bankers’ lobby operates so that the public may be aware of its activity.

Recently indirect lobbying was used to kill legislation that was very much sought by savings and loan associations and many bankers, particularly small town and small city bankers. This legislation would have increased insurance from $10,000 to $20,000 on individual bank accounts. The ABA lobby—which dances to the tune of the giant banks— went to work asking bankers around the country to yell bloody murder against the increased insurance coverage unless–now get this–there were amendments added th the FDIC bill that would have crippled the savings and loan companies. They even made it appear that the administration was opposed to increasing this insurance. The facts are that the top leadership in the House of Representatives–which does not fight the administration–supported the bill.

Bankers look upon savings and loan institutions as competition. They are envious. If the bankers had been on the ball–if they had remained in the banking business and loaned money to people who need it for housed, farms, and other things–instead of buying non-risk-taking Government securities at high interest rates, they would have enjoyed the billions of dollars worth of mortgage business that now goes to the savings and loan people.

One clever means of antipublic action by the bankers’ lobby is as subtle as a wart on a movie actress’ nose. It takes the form of offering a Congressman bank stock either free or at a cost greatly under the market value. A member of my committee was approached and offered $14,000 worth of bank stock as a gift. I am proud to report that he is of such caliber that he told the would-be donors to get out of his office and stay out— and in language unfit for this occasion.

The bankers’ lobby—like others representing giant American interests— is potent and often effective. But with grassroots support as I envisage from the American people, I believe it can be contained. More about this a little later.


Now I want to tell you a little about what the Domestic Finance Subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee has been doing the first half of this year regarding its extensive investigation of the Federal Reserve System—the most revealing and penetrating investigation that has taken place in the Fed’s 50-year existence.

We heard from 50 witnesses. Included among them were the 19 ranking executive officers of the Federal Reserve System, including Chairman Martin; the Secretary of the Treasury; officials of the General Accounting Office; representatives of the American Bankers Association and the Independent Bankers Association; the research director of the AFL-CIO, and 23 experts in the field of economics, public administration, and law. These witnesses were thoroughly interrogated by the members of our subcommittee on Domestic Finance of the Banking and Currency Committee of the House. In addition, interesting statements and exhibits were included, along with the testimony of witnesses. These experts were not only eminent scholars but represented a wide range of opinion. Some had been advisers to Presidents Truman and Kennedy. One has served as an economic advisor to Senator Goldwater. Several had worked in the Federal Reserve System—one or two were still attached to it as consultants— and they came from all parts of the country.

Despite the great diversity of viewpoint and geography of these 23 experts, there was remarkable and substantial agreement among them about the need for reform, not alone of the Federal Reserve System structure, but also of its basic policies.

No subcommittee in my entire 36 years of congressional experience ever devoted itself more thoroughly and painstakingly to its task. Most recently the majority members representing 8 of the 13 sub committee members decided unanimously to recommend to the Congress revisions of the Federal Reserve System which would seem to be a must to improve our monetary policy, thereby giving a lift to our national economic performance.

The recommendations of the majority of the subcommittee do not rule out the prospect for further constructive recommendations. In all likelihood these will result when the subcommittee considers its proposals in public hearings after the next Congress convenes in January of 1965. Meanwhile the proposals are being circulated in order to stimulate full study and discussion by the Congress, the executive branch, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and more important than any of these, the people of the United States. A bill embodying the recommendations of the subcommittee will be introduced at the beginning of the 98th Congress in January. This bill, if passed, will put an end to the private control of the Government’s monetary affairs.


While I shall not burden you with all of the wordage of the recommendations, I would like to indicate many of the forward steps that were suggested. It was recommended:

First. That the term of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed be coterminous with that of the President of the United States;

Second. That the number of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board be reduced to five;

Third. That we reduce the terms of office to 5 years and allow for reappointments;

Fourth. That instead of continuing the appointment of bankers, the requirements would state only that the Governors be “men of integrity, devoted to the public interest”;

Fifth. That a public audit be made by the Comptroller General of all expenditures of the Federal Reserve Board and the Reserve banks—no Government or independent audit has ever been made of the 12 Federal Reserve banks.

Sixth. That the Federal Reserve stock be retired—member banks own the stock but this is unnecessary any longer since the Fed is and has been since 1935, the central banking system of the United States of American. The stock does not carry a proprietary interest, and, therefore, it is not stock in the real sense of the word;

Seventh. That all capital gains and interest received by the Federal Reserve from the U.S. Government securities be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts and that all capital losses be covered by the Treasury;

Eighth. That the President be required to set forth in his periodic Economic Reports, recommendations concerning monetary policy, domestic and foreign, including the growth of the money supply necessary to attain the goals of maximum employment and production and purchasing power;

Ninth. That we express the sense of Congress that the Federal Reserve Board operate in the open market so as to facilitate the achievement of the President’s monetary policy; provided that if the Fed’s monetary views and actions diverge from those of the President, it shall file with the President and the Congress a statement of reasons for its divergence;

Tenth. That we permit the Federal Reserve to concentrate on monetary policy by transferring its present bank supervisory functions to the Comptroller of the Currency, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or to a newly created Federal banking authority.

It is my belief that if most of these recommendations are translated into law, as I confidently expect, with the help of the American people, the Federal Reserve System will operate as it was originally intended—for the good of the people This Nation can no longer afford to have a central banking system that goes its own way while ignoring the President and the Congress.

When the administration determines of a policy of full employment and price stability, the Fed must carry on parallel action and help, not hinder, the achievement of the desired ends.

The Washington Post in a editorial stated not long ago that the “United States is the only great power in which monetary policy is not subject to the firm control of the incumbent administration.” The editorial concluded by pointing out that: “An institution that produces something less than optimal results in the absence of great pressures and that is the spawning ground for a dangerous conflict in time of trouble cannot be tolerated in a world where money and monetary policies really matter. The time for thorough going reform has arrived.” I am attaching the Washington Post editorial, and another informative piece from Business Week at the end of my remarks.


If there is to be any important change made in the working of America’s monetary policy—so vital to the well-being of all of us—we are going to have to depend upon the grassroots to demand this change. The big financial community—the banking establishment, you may call it—has been very clever while Congress has slept. While Congress has slumbered the banking lobby—particularly the American Bankers Association and their propagandists—have seen to it that the people have remained either uninformed or misinformed on monetary matters. The business community has been passive, even though it has become a prime victim of high interest rates and tight money policies. Businessmen as well as other American must become alert. Do not permit the money changers to increase the tremendous gross interest burden of $75 billion per annum we are already paying.

Now for one or two final observations.

Most people assume that money has always been here—that some law of nature guarantees a fixed and unchanging supply. When a public figure like myself suggests that it might be possible to improve our monetary system, some folks react as though I were proposing to meddle with nature or perhaps butcher a sacred cow. Though I am a consistent and vocal critic of high-interest, tight-money policies, I want to make it abundantly clear that there is no room in my thinking for anything that smacks of unsound credit or unsound money. Both inflation and deflation are tragic in their human consequences.

Despite my pointed remarks concerning many facets of our banking system and of the Fed particularly, our monetary setup has enabled us to create more wealth and thereby do more for people than any other banking system in any other nation in recorded history. Our country has done this despite tight-money, high-interest rate policies and also despite man- made depressions every few years. How much further we could go toward even better standards of living without these unnecessary hindrances.

If any person desires to assist in the crusade to bring back public responsibility to the Federal Reserve System and thus improve our entire monetary machinery, I suggest that he take the following steps:

First. Notify your own Congressman and the two U.S. Senators from your own State that you wish to reverse the trend toward high-interest, tight money policies brought on by a small group that controls our monetary system through the Federal Reserve as now constituted;

Second. Free publications listed below may be obtained by Members of the House and Senate to fill requests of their constituents from the House Committee on Banking and Currency. Requests for single copies will receive first consideration. If the committee’s supply should become exhausted, efforts will be made to secure additional printings for free distribution to fill all requests of Members from their constituents. Purchases may also be made directly from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 20402


“The Federal Reserve System After 50 Years,” volume I (January and February 1964): Contains the testimony of five of the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and of all of the presidents of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks. Price $3.25

“The Federal Reserve System After 50 Years,” volume 2 (February and March, 1964): Contains the testimony of the Secretary of the Treasury, the remaining two members of the Federal Reserve Board, and 18 economists, including several of the Nation’s most respected academicians. Price $1.75.

“The Federal Reserve System After 50 Years,” volume 3 (April 1964): Contains the testimony of representatives of the commercial banking industry and of a number of outstanding authorities in law, political economy and public administration. Price $2.

“The Federal Reserve After 50 Years” (staff report on testimony, volumes 1,2,3), 30 cents (104 pages).

“Study of Federal Credit Programs,” (February 28, 1964): volume 1, 75 cents (316 pages); volume 2, $2.50 (904 pages).

“Comparative Regulations of Financial Institutions,” (November 22, 1963), $1.25 (432 pages).

“Bank Holding Companies” (May 20, 1963) 40 cents: (140 pages).

“Chain Banking,” 20 largest stockholders of the 200 largest member banks of the Federal Reserve System (Apr. 15, 1963), $1.50 (552 pages).

“Twenty Largest Stockholders of Record of the Other 6,000 Member Banks of the Federal Reserve System Volume 1, (Fed. Res. Districts Nos. 1 (Boston), 2 (New York), 3 (Philadelphia)),$1.50 (312 pages); volume 2, (Fed. Res. Districts Nos. 4 (Cleveland), 5 (Richmond)), $1.25 (253 pages), volume 3 (Fed. Res. Districts Nos. 6 (Atlanta), 7 (Chicago)), $1.75 (357 pages); volume 4 (Fed. Res. Districts Nos. 8 (St. Louis), 9 (Minneapolis)), $1.00 (221 pages); volume 5 (Fed. Res. Districts Nos. 10 (Denver), 11 ((Dallas), 12 (San Francisco)), $1.75 (345 pages).

“A Primer on Money”‘ 40 cents (152 pages).

The “primer: on money mentioned above will be released by the Banking and Currency Committee sometime this week. This document represents information gathered over a period of years and is designed to explain to the average citizen how our monetary system works.

Third. Let me hear from you if you want to be kept informed of the progress we are making regarding an overhaul of the Federal Reserve System.

Notify Representative WRIGHT PATMAN, Member of Congress, Suite 1136 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, to put you on the mailing list to receive future releases.

Fourth. Talk about America’s monetary policies and system to intelligent people of your acquaintance who can spread the word

Fifth. Urge you U.S. Representative and Senators to join a steering committee that will be organized in January 1965, to cosponsor and push for the passage of a bill that will be introduced at the beginning of the 89th Congress to make the changes in the Federal Reserve Act recommended by the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance.

I have learned from long congressional experience that when the people are behind you, you can accomplish miracles. That is why I am appealing to your.Like every other American you have a stake in seeing to it that the Federal Reserve no longer has a stranglehold over America’s monetary policies which makes it mandatory for you to overpay on interest charges and permits tight money to deprive America of the economic advancement she must have to take care of our growing population in an age of fantastic possibilities. With your help these possibilities can become reality.

Mr REUSS. Mr.Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PATMAN. I am glad to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Reuss].

Mr. REUSS. I appreciate the gentleman’s yielding. I do not wish to interrupt his train of thought, but I commend the gentleman for the point he has made, that there is no policy more closely related to an expanding and growing national economy than the policy of monetary authorities providing reasonable interest rates and an adequate supply of money in order that the economy may be lubricated and thus expand. I ask the gentleman if he would agree that in addition to sound fiscal policies, tax policies, and wage and price policies it is absolutely essential, for a growing national economy, that the money supply of the Nation grow from year to year if we are to attain a proper rate of national economic growth.

Mr. PATMAN. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I agree with him fully. He is one of the ablest members of the Banking and Currency Committee.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PATMAN. I am glad to yield to my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GONZALEZ]

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Republic USA Federal Reserve PageRepublic USA Research Page
Return To Republic USA