Rand Paul

We have had this for 5 years, and we are still in a mess.

Our argument is that once you distort interest rates and increase the supply of money, you end up with this gross distortion that is demanding some correction.

I think one of the problems even getting a full-fledged discussion out is sometimes the definition of words, about what 'inflation' and 'deflation' means.

That bill has nothing to do with transferring who does monetary policy. It is strictly a transparency bill.

Trillions and trillions of dollars being printed out of thin air, and bailing out their friends.

It is the destruction of the currency that destroys the middle class.

Congress ought to get a backbone. They ought to say we deserve to know, we have a right to know.

Congress keeps spending the money. Welfare expands exponentially. Wars never end.

Whose responsibility is it under the Constitution to manage monetary policy?

The system is biased against the middle class and the poor.

It is really not an audit without this. It is still secrecy.

I believe, by the way, that is part of what people are trying to get at with the audit.

And until we get to the bottom of this and restore the confidence, I don't think we are going to see economic growth.

It would lead to a major crisis of too much debt, too much malinvestment.

This whole idea that they could regulate exchange rates and deal with the balance of payments totally failed.

I have, over the years, obviously been critical of what goes on in monetary policy.

I was first elected to Congress in 1976 in April in a special election.

The uncertainty that Chairman Bernanke talks about... is an uncertainty that is bipartisan and has nothing to do with regulation.

Chairman Bernanke... was appointed 3 times to important economic positions by George Bush... whose integrity and intellectual honesty ought to be unquestioned.

If State and local governments had not been forced to cut back, unemployment would now be below 8 percent.

I think we can substantially cut military spending, but sequestering is a stupid way to do it.

In essence, here is my objection. No. 1, it is an apples and oranges ratcheting of Senate bill 811 to title VII.

It is my opinion that ENDA as it stands now, in the form of Senate bill 811, would impose a substantial unconstitutional burden on religious organizations.

Those kinds of inquiries, of course, raise excessive entanglement problems under the Establishment Clause, and the Supreme Court noted that.

Furthermore, it would interfere with their ability to effectively pursue their missions.