Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
20 September 2006
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
2006 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of ensuring our service personnel have access to
a wide range of financial products I am concerned
with the provision of the Military Personnel
Financial Services Protection Act, S.
418, enacting a complete prohibition on so-
called contractual or periodic payment mutual
funds, which, according to testimony received
by the House Committee on Financial Services,
are sold voluntarily with full disclosure to
officers at individual meetings held off base.
2006 Ron Paul 82:2
This is the first time in recent memory that this committee has ever proposed banning a
product that is fully permissible under current
law and that — again according to testimony received
by the committee — is used by thousands
of senior military officials to facilitate
their financial security. Specifically, we were
told that the clients of First Command Financial
Planning, the Texas-based company principally
involved in this market, has invested
$734.4 million aggregate in these accounts in
2004. The sales charge on that amount was
about $44 million, or about six percent. What
is the basis for outlawing a product that over
half a million individuals, including half the flag
officers on active duty at the time, had freely
chosen? Do we really believe that individuals
charged with the deployment of billions of dollars
of military equipment, are not sophisticated
enough to make their own financial decisions?
2006 Ron Paul 82:3
When the Congress last looked at this product in 1970, we recognized periodic payment
mutual funds are a valuable means to help encourage
savings by people who do not have
large amounts of discretionary income. I have
seen no evidence in the record indicating that
the judgment then was incorrect. In fact, testimony
received by the Financial Services Committee
indicates that these periodic payment
mutual funds are working for those military
members choosing to utilize them.
2006 Ron Paul 82:4
Before voting on S. 418, Congress should consider whether it is in the best interests of
our armed services to substitute our judgment
for theirs by banning a financial product that
the armed services deem well-suited for their
financial security.
2006 Ron Paul 82:5
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Enhanced Options for Rural Health Care Act.
This legislation allows critical access hospitals
to use beds designated for critical access use,
but currently not being used for that purpose,
for assisted living services financed by private
payments.
2006 Ron Paul 82:6
This bill will help improve the financial status of small rural hospitals and extend the health
care options available to people living in rural
areas without increasing federal expenditures.
Currently, fear that rural hospitals will lose critical
access status if beds designated for critical
access are used for another purpose is
causing rural hospitals to allow beds not needed
for a critical access purpose to remain unused.
This deprives rural hospitals of a much-
needed revenue stream and deprives residents
of rural areas of access to needed
health care services.
2006 Ron Paul 82:7
My colleagues may be interested to know that the idea for this bill comes from Marcella
Henke, an administrator of Jackson County
Hospital, a critical access hospital in my congressional
district. Ms. Henke conceived of
this idea as a way to meet the increasing demand
for assisted living services in rural areas
and provide hospitals with a profitable way to
use beds not being used for critical access
purposes. I urge my colleagues to embrace
this practical way of strengthening rural health
care without increasing federal expenditures
by cosponsoring the Enhanced Options for
Rural Health Care Act.