Category Archives: Letters and Emails-Elected Officials

Letter to Constituent from Kay Hagan on Gay Marriage (now renamed by Liberals)

     October 22, 2013

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about marriage equality. I appreciate your reaching out to me on this important issue.

Marriage equality is a complex issue with strong feelings on both sides, and I have a great deal of respect for varying opinions on the issue. After much thought and prayer, I have come to my own personal conclusion that we shouldn’t tell people who they can love or who they can marry.

This was not a decision I came to overnight. The fabric of North Carolina and what makes our state so special is our families and our common desire for a brighter future for our children. No matter what your family looks like, we all want the same thing for our families – happiness, health, prosperity, a bright future for our children and grandchildren.

Religious institutions should have religious freedom on this issue. No church or minister should ever have to conduct a marriage that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs. But I think as a civil institution, this issue’s time has come and we need to move forward. Jobs and the economy are the number one issue for me and for North Carolinians right now, and I’m not going to take my eye off that ball at a time when so many are still struggling.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns. If you would like to stay informed on my work in the Senate, you can sign up for my e-newsletter, follow me on Twitter at @SenatorHagan, or visit my Facebook page.

Sincerely,

Signature

Letter to Carteret County Board of Commissioners on Second Amendment

January 22, 2013

Sheriff Asa Buck
Commissioner Robin Comer (Vice Chairman)
Commissioner Elaine Crittenton
Commissioner Jimmy Farrington
Commissioner Terry Frank
Commissioner Greg Lewis (Chairman)
Commissioner Jonathan Robinson
Commissioner Bill Smith

Dear Sheriff Buck and Commissioners:

Sheriff Buck, thanks for your continued hard work to ensure the safety and security of Carteret County, its citizens, tourists, and property.

Next, to those of you who are not newcomers to the Board of Commissioners, thank you for your continued service to Carteret County’s citizens.  And to the newly elected Commissioners, welcome, and may your term prove to be constructive for Carteret County, and a positive experience for you.  Thank you for your willingness to serve the citizens of this county.

I am writing to urge each of you to seriously consider taking all necessary and appropriate action to nullify any gun ban that Barack Obama or his administration might try to implement and impose on US citizens.  We all realize that Counties and Sheriffs across the country, and even right here in our own State, are taking such actions (Beaufort County Commissioners being the first).

Thank you in advance for your serious consideration of this request.

Respectfully submitted,

Jennifer R. Hudson

Email from Senator Kay Hagan on UN Arms Treaty

Talk about Double-Speak! If Senator Hagan feels so strongly about the Second Amendment as she says, what else is there to consider. Maybe she should consider that every gun owner in NC will vote her out of office if she votes to ratify this UN Small Arms Treaty.

Letterhead

     July 26, 2012

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Second Amendment rights. I greatly appreciate your thoughts on this important matter.

As you know, in 2006 the United Nations (UN) began discussions regarding an Arms Trade Treaty. While the United States originally opposed these discussions, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has more recently stated that the United States would support and participate in these talks. In October 2009, the UN adopted, by a vote of 153-1 with the United States in support, a resolution laying out a timetable for negotiations. However, even should a treaty be signed, it would require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before it would be considered ratified and in effect.

I understand your concerns regarding the protection of Second Amendment rights and I oppose allowing international law to override our constitutional rights. Like you, I support the Second Amendment. My family, like the great state of North Carolina, has a long tradition of hunting and gun ownership, and I take great pride in that heritage. Already during my time in Congress, I have voted on various pieces of legislation that protect Second Amendment rights, including to correct the District of Columbia’s overly-strict firearm regulations in order to protect Second Amendment rights in our nation’s capital.

President Obama has not sent any treaty regarding gun control to the Senate; however, I can assure you I will take your opinions and comments into account as I consider this important issue.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns. If you would like to stay informed on my work in the Senate, you can sign up for my e-newsletter, follow me on Twitter at @SenatorHagan, or visit my Facebook page.

Sincerely,

Signature

Kay R. Hagan

Please do not reply to this email. Instead, if you have further questions, please visit www.hagan.senate.gov and fill out my web form for your inquiry. Thank you.

2 Attached files| 25KB

Walter Jones on UN Small Arms Treaty

Dear Mr. Kukulinski:

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns over the ratification of the United Nations “Small Arms Treaty”.  I appreciate your taking the time to share your concerns with me.

We are in agreement that there is no area where the need for vigilance is more necessary than in preserving our rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  During my time in Congress, I have been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  Rest assured I remain committed to seeing that these rights are not infringed upon and I will continue to support the right of Americans to bear arms.

As a member of the Congressional Sovereignty Caucus, you will not find me supporting the subjection of any aspect of our country to any United Nations treaty.  The U.S. Constitution gives the Senate exclusive power to approve treaties. Therefore, as a member of the House of Representatives I am unable to vote on ratification of this treaty.  Therefore, you should contact our NC Senators, Richard Burr and Kay Hagan and encourage them to vote against ratifying this agreement if it comes up for consideration.

Please continue to contact me on any issues of concern, although you can ALWAYS count on a reliable vote supporting the Second Amendment.


Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

Walter Jones on Nation's Financial Crisis

Dear Mr. Broyles,

Thank you for contacting me with regard to our nation’s fiscal crisis.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and I am happy to respond.

I share your strong opposition to the deficit spending that is causing our federal debt to spiral out of control. In the last eight years, the debt has more than doubled from $7 trillion to over $15 trillion today. We are adding over $1 trillion in deficit spending to that total every year. Most of that is borrowed from China and other foreign nations which do not have our best interests at heart.

I am proud to be the only member of Congress to have voted against every single one of the deficit spending-filled budgets that have doubled our debt over the last eight years. I am also proud to be the only member of Congress to have voted against every single increase in the debt limit over that time frame. Continuing to raise the debt limit and pass budgets that feature $1 trillion annual deficits is irresponsible. We owe our children and grandchildren more than just continuing to kick the can down the line; we need to tackle the problem now.

That’s why I strongly support a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution. I have cosponsored this legislation every year since I’ve been in Congress, and I’ve voted for it each time it’s been considered. Now, more than ever, this nation needs the fiscal discipline required by a statutory mandate for a balanced budget. It is extremely troubling to me that so many of my colleagues oppose the common sense concept of not spending more than you take in.

Please rest assured that I will continue to fight against the deficit spending that is crippling this nation. I appreciate you allowing me to update you on this important issue.  If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

Walter Jones on Transfer of Alaskan Islands to Russia

Dear Mr. Lang:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns on President Obama transferring Alaskan islands to Russia.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and I am happy to respond.

Please know that this claim is an internet rumor.  The United States does not own the islands that are mentioned.   The islands lie on the Russian side of the U.S. – Russia maritime boundary that was set by a treaty the Senate ratified and President Bush signed over 20 years ago.  To find out more about this, please visit  http://factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/ .

I do hope this has answered any questions or concerns you may have.  If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

Walter Jones on Immigration Enforcement

Dear Mr. Kukulinski:

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns regarding immigration enforcement.  I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and I’m honored to respond.

                Like you, I am deeply concerned about  America’s lack of immigration enforcement.  I have been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of initiatives to strengthen enforcement and an opponent of efforts to reqard those who break our immigration laws.  You will be happy to learn that I have cosponsored a number of bills that would do just that, including:

· H.R. 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act would clarify that children born in the  United States to illegal immigrants are not granted citizenship, ending the process of birthright citizenship.

· H.R. 100, the CLEAR Act of 2011 would provide resources for state and local agencies to assist in the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

· H.R. 280 and H.R. 282 would each require contractors to participate in the E-Verify program as a condition of any work for the federal government (H.R. 282), and within the United States Capitol Complex (H.R. 280).

· H.R. 787, The No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act, would ensure that illegal immigrants would not receive social security.

· H.R. 692, the Nuclear Family Priority Act would end the process of “chain migration” where countless non-nuclear family members of immigrants are allowed to immigrate into the  United States.

· H.R. 152, the National Guard Border Enforcement Act would direct the Secretary of Defense to make National Guard troops available for border security upon the request of a  US Governor.

Please know that I will continue to do all I can to secure borders and to oppose amnesty for those who break our immigration laws.

                Again, thanks for sharing your concerns with me. If you have any questions on other immigration legislation, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

Walter Jones on Department of State Authorization Act

Earlier this week the U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve H.R. 6018, the Department of State Authorization Act.  I was proud to vote NO on that bill, and I’d like to explain why.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 6018 would cost nearly $16 billion to implement between fiscal years 2013 and 2017. Included in that bill is over $1.6 billion in U.S. taxpayer funding for the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations.  The bill also includes another $1.8 billion to support international ‘peacekeeping’ operations in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Liberia, West Africa, Sudan, East Timor, Cambodia, Western Sahara, Kosovo and Bosnia.

Unfortunately, the bill passed by a vote of 333 to 61.  It concerns me that only 60 of my colleagues joined me in voting no.   A roll call of the vote can be found here.

At this very moment the United Nations is considering numerous proposals that are detrimental to America and to freedom around the world.  One proposal would erode our right to keep and bear firearms which is enshrined in the Constitution’s Second Amendment.  Another would allow for regulation of the internet by undemocratic, unaccountable international bureaucrats.

At a time when the United States is well over $15 trillion in debt, it makes absolutely no sense to continue to give billions of American taxpayers’ hard earned dollars to the UN and the rest of the world.  It is imperative that we keep our money here and stop the wasteful deficit spending that is crippling our nation!

Thanks,

Walter

Letter from Kay Hagan on UN Gun Treaty

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Second Amendment rights. I greatly appreciate your thoughts on this important matter.

As you know, in 2006 the United Nations (UN) began discussions regarding an Arms Trade Treaty. While the United States originally opposed these discussions, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has more recently stated that the United States would support and participate in these talks. In October 2009, the UN adopted, by a vote of 153-1 with the United States in support, a resolution laying out a timetable for negotiations. However, even should a treaty be signed, it would require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before it would be considered ratified and in effect. Continue reading

Walter Jones on Obama's Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

FROM:
TO:
  • Kenneth Lang
Monday, June 18, 2012 4:57 PM

Dear Mr. Lang:

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns regarding the DREAM Act, and the Obama Administration’s memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that closely resembles the DREAM Act. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and I’m honored to respond.

As you are likely aware, the DREAM Act is a bill that has been introduced for the past few years that would provide legal status to illegal aliens. Specifically, the DREAM Act would allow illegal aliens who came to the United States as minors to obtain permanent residency if they meet certain requirements such as either completing college or military service. I have long opposed the DREAM Act and have always voted against it because, very simply, it rewards illegal behavior. Although these children came to our country through no fault of their own I cannot support amnesty—we are a nation of laws. The American people have consistently voiced their opposition to this legislation.  In fact, so many voiced their concerns that the DREAM Act was not able to pass the Democrat controlled Senate in 2010.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s Administration recently overruled the will of the American people and the Congress and issued a memo that closely resembles the DREAM Act. This memo directs Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to use discretion when deciding whether or not to deport illegal aliens if they are currently in school, have a family member serving in the military, or are pregnant or nursing. I am adamantly opposed to the DREAM Act and to the new ICE memo, and will continue to fight to ensure that our nation’s laws are enforced. You will be pleased to know that I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2497, the HALT (Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation) Act– legislation that would prevent President Obama from bypassing Congress and providing any amnesty. The Constitution, in article I, clause 8, section 4, grants Congress the power to establish immigration policies and President Obama’s end run around the Constitution and the Congress must not stand.

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. Please know that I understand and agree with your concerns and will oppose any effort to provide amnesty to those who break our nation’s immigration laws. If I may be of any further assistance please feel free to contact my office.


Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

Email from Walter Jones re. Federal Employees not paying Taxes

Dear Mr. Broyles:

 

Thank you for your recent email regarding federal employees and tax delinquency.  I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond.

 

You are right.  This is a serious matter and should be addressed immediately.  Companion bills have been introduced in the House (H.R. 828) and Senate (S. 376) to deal with it.  The House bill was referred to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which approved the bill last June.  However, as of this date, the House Leadership has yet to schedule the bill for floor action.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to reach out to me about this issue.  If you have further questions about other federal matters, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

 

 
Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

Email from Walter Jones on IRS Harassment of the Tea Party

This email was sent to Congressman Jones re. IRS Harassment of the Tea Party…

 

Dear Congressman Jones:

For the second time this week, I’ve seen articles describing what amounts to harassment of Tea Party groups by the IRS. The first one was concerning a group in OH, and the second was in Richmond, VA. The article on the latter is at this link http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/claim-irs-won-t-grant-richmond-tea-party-tax-exempt-status_629931.html

The Executive Branch continues to exceed it authority under the Constitution. The administration is attacking the freedom of average Americans using the Federal institutions that should be protecting our freedoms. I would appreciate it if you and your colleagues would find out what is going on, and take some action to prevent this abuse of power by the Executive Branch.

 

This is Congressman Jones’ response…

 

Dear Mr. Lang:

Thank you for your recent email regarding a Weekly Standard article on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) treatment of certain Tea Party groups.  I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond.

I am troubled by allegations that the IRS may be engaging in inequitable treatment of groups seeking registration as tax-exempt entities.  If any resident of North Carolina’s 3 rd District believes the IRS is treating them unfairly, I am always happy to help, as the law must be applied equally to all citizens.  I would encourage the individuals associated with the groups mentioned in the article to contact their own members of Congress and Senators to request that they weigh in with the IRS on their behalf.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact me about this issue.  If you have further questions about other federal matters, please don’t hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

 

NOW ISN’T THAT REASSURING?

Email to Congressman Jones & Senator Burr re. IRS Abuse of Power

For the second time this week, I’ve seen articles describing what amounts to harassment of Tea Party groups by the IRS. The first one was concerning a group in OH, and the second was in Richmond, VA. The article on the latter is at this link http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/claim-irs-won-t-grant-richmond-tea-party-tax-exempt-status_629931.html

The Executive Branch continues to exceed it authority under the Constitution. The administration is attacking the freedom of average Americans using the Federal institutions that should be protecting our freedoms. I would appreciate it if you and your colleagues would find out what is going on, and take some action to prevent this abuse of power by the Executive Branch.
Kenneth Lang

Email to Congressman Jones & Senator Burr re. Obama's Plan to Cut Nuclear Arsenal by 80%

President Obama has asked the defense Dept to reduce our Nuclear weapon stockpile by 80%. That would take our current level per our treaty with Russia (who by the way have threatened to walk away from our agreement on numerous occasion) from 2550 to 510. Pakistan has 300. Russia has 4550. The President took an oath to protect and defend this country. He is bound to do so by the U. S. Constitution. So far, each time the President has flaunted the Constitution (e.g. recess appointment while Congress is in session) our Congress has stood by and done nothing! It is way past time for Congress to act. What will it take for you to act?

 

Kenneth Lang

2/14/2012

Senator Richard Burr Discusses the STOCK Act, Economy, Housing, Syria & Afghanistan with Jerri Jameson

In the radio interview below, Jerri Jameson sets the stage for Senator Richard Burr to feigns his outrage that the Congress would even consider passing a bill that Senator Burr says is unnecessary because Congress is already subject to the same law forbidding insider trading that everyone else is subject. Of course Senator Burr is among the few Republicans who voted against the Stock bill. However, Fox News, CBS (story), and Red State (story) contradict Senator Burr’s version of the truth. Members of Congress are in fact exempt from the insider trading law that every other citizen can be fined and jailed for violating. Another example of Senator Burr’s “I’m better than the rest of you” attitude? Senator Burr should be ashamed of himself once again, just as he should have been for his sponsorship of the Big Government growth plan of the Food Safety Act. Read the radio interview transcript below:

In case you missed it this morning, be sure to listen to Senator Richard Burr’s (R-NC) interview with Jerri Jameson on News Radio 570 WWNC.

Listen Here: http://bit.ly/yHqHWC
FULL TRANSCRIPT
JAMESON: On the phone with me, I believe in Washington, is Senator Richard Burr.  Senator, how are you this morning?
BURR: Jerri, doing great, and I am in Washington.
JAMESON: I thought you might be.  There’s a lot going on, isn’t there?
BURR: Oh, another productive week.  I think the United States Senate has had one vote, and we’re going to be embattled in legislation all week, and probably next week, which does no more than codify what existing law says. 
JAMESON:  Now let me guess, you’ve got to be talking about the STOCK Act.
BURR:  I am.
JAMESON:  You know, I’ve asked some listeners for questions, and then I am mixing them in with some I have on my own, but that actually is something that somebody said, “Is it really necessary to pass law to make lawmakers follow laws that are already on the books?
BURR: It’s ludicrous.  That’s why Dr. Tom Coburn and I were the two brave souls that walked up and said we shouldn’t be doing this. We should be focused on jobs, the economy.  We should be taking up real legislation.  It’s like me saying to you, “Jerri, before you come to work this morning and you’re going to drive your car, I’m going to pass a law that says you have to have a driver’s license.”
JAMESON: Right.
BURR: I mean, it’s insane.
JAMESON: They just need to enforce laws that are already on the books.
BURR:  The laws that are currently on the books apply to all members of Congress and all staff, not limited staff.
JAMESON: Right, it prohibits government workers period from engaging in these financial transactions.
BURR:  So we’re going to have political theater this week as to whether it applies to the executive branch, whether it doesn’t.  The fact is SEC law applies to every person who trades in America.
JAMESON: You know, you pointed out that you were one of two who voted against it.  Of course now that’s being turned around that you two were the partisan ones.  But I agree with you that it’s kind of
ludicrous that we have a law on the books that does apply, as you said, to everybody who trades, and they have to codify it even more.  I want to get to unemployment, though, if we may.  North Carolina’s unemployment in December went up in 93 of 100 counties.  American Airlines, the third largest airline, announcing they are going to be laying off 13,000 employees in the next couple weeks.  Simple question, not so simple answer.  What needs to be done to get Americans back to work?

BURR: Very simply, Jerri, we need our policies to reflect the willingness of people with capital to invest in job creation.  Right now businesses are frozen because they don’t know what tax rate is going to be applied to them in the future.  They don’t know what regulatory architecture they’re going to have to live under.  Therefore, they can’t figure out whether it’s worth investing based upon what the return might be.  As long as we’ve got capital in that situation, then you will freeze private capital, and the only place, the only place, to create jobs will be in the public sector.  What we don’t need are more public sector jobs.  We actually need the reduction of the federal workforce.  We need to replace those and increase them with new jobs, new employment, in the private sector.
JAMESON:  Some are saying we need to obviously offer incentives for people of insource rather than outsource, with outsourcing of course being kind of the trend. 
BURR: Well, but Jerri, I think what we need to ask is what’s the reason for outsourcing?  The reason for outsourcing is that it’s cheaper to do business in other areas.  Every economist in the world and every review of the United States system today says that if we would do comprehensive, corporate tax reform  in the United States, get the corporate rate down to 25%, we wouldn’t have to have a debate about dividends or capital gains at a different rate.  We would be so competitive in the rest of the world that we would actually see insourcing, not by U.S. companies but by foreign companies coming here, and we would stop the outsourcing of U.S. companies. 
JAMESON:  That would be nice, wouldn’t it?
BURR: Well, I think it’s an easy fix.  But let’s face it, this is an election year, and the President would rather use corporations as the boogeyman for the election than he would as the secret to turning our economy around and creating jobs.
JAMESON: Well, speaking of the economy, obviously foreclosures, homeowners are struggling, the President this week expanding on his plan to allow homeowners, even those who owe more than their home is worth, to be able to refinance their homes, to take advantage of the low interest rates.  His plan calls for it to be paid for with an assessment on big banks.  I want to separate the plan and the funding of it, because I know Congress has not gone for bank assessments before.  But do you think giving homeowners more access to refinancing at the lower rates would be good for the housing market?  
BURR:  Jerri, I call it loan modification, and we ought to have been doing loan modification on any mortgages that the federal government, that the American taxpayer, was obligated for.  That’s all the Freddie & Fannie inventory, that’s all the FHA inventory.  But I don’t think it’s appropriate for the federal government to go into the private marketplace and tell private risk-takers, “Okay, we’re going to charge you a fee and you’re going to modify these loans.”  Smart financial institutions have already re-worked the loans that they think people have the capabilities of paying off.  The ones they haven’t re-worked are the ones where the individual probably never should have gotten the loan to begin with or the property was over-valued from the start.  It will, in their estimation over the life of the loan, never see revaluation.  That’s what the President’s attacking.  I think his own Administration has admitted out of the modifications that have already been made, almost 50% have gone back into foreclosure.  So this is not a panacea.  But I think what we need to try to do is re-structure the re-payments to where people have got 30 years versus 10 or 12 or 14.  None of us know when prices will re-inflate, but we all can agree to this.  The debt problem that we’re in in this country, as a country, as states, as localities, and as individuals, is going to take decades for us to work out from under.
JAMESON:  Well, you mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and I know there’s legislation under consideration that would stop the executives from getting their bonuses, the bonuses worth millions.  The measure would take the unpaid bonus money and go to paying the outstanding debt still from the 2008 taxpayer bailout.  Where do you stand on that?
BURR:  Listen, I don’t think that any corporate executive ought to be rewarded for bad performance.  In Freddie & Fannie’s case, that’s exactly what they’re doing.  Those that run it now argue that if they don’t
offer bonuses they don’t get talented people.  We’ve got a lot of talented people unemployed today that would love to be at Freddie & Fannie helping to turn it around, and a lot of them, if not all of them, come right out of the financial services industry.  So to suggest that they can’t attract the talent with the salary that’s already on the job without the bonus is just ludicrous.

JAMESON:  We’ve got just a couple more minutes, but there are two stories that are in the news today that I really do want to touch on.  One is the Arab League resolution calling on Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad to leave power.  Of course, the United States pushing for that, Russia opposing that.  Where do you see this going?  Is there concern of possible intervention by NATO and therefore the U.S.?

BURR:  It may be talked about in international circles, but I don’t think there’s concern within Syria or the Bashar al-Assad government.  They’ve got a firm handle on things.  They are running Syria just like his dad did when they had a genocide of 30,000 people.  Not 300 but 30,000 in one swoop.  I think that until we apply the correct amount of international pressure, until we really get aggressive on sanctions, until we cut them off from the rest of the world, than we’re going to see the Bashar al-Assad   government  try to hang on through the use of their military.
JAMESON: Lastly on my end, and then whatever you want to speak about of course we’ll open to you, but Defense Secretary Leon Panetta saying that U.S. and its NATO partners will be ending their combat role in Afghanistan next year, switching from combat to training and advising of the Afghan forces.  So, a little earlier than originally planned or announced.  Is this a good strategy to be setting that kind of deadline?  I know there’s pros and cons to it, but or pulling it in sooner?
BURR: Jerri, yesterday I would have told you no, today I still tell you no.  I’m not sure what lead to the Secretary’s announcement late in the afternoon.  There was certainly no warning on Capitol Hill that I’m
aware of.  I think that all of the military plans have been developed based upon a date in 2014, and I was supportive of that.  But I think to accelerate that by a year may fit in the Secretary’s need for the budget constraints of the Department of Defense.  If we’ve got men and women that we’ve asked to go into a combat theater, I don’t want to run the war in that theater based upon what the budget says we can do.  I want to do it based upon whether we intend to win and if so, what we need to do to win.  

JAMESON: Alright, Senator Burr.  Thank you so much.  Anything else that you would like to touch on maybe for your constituents or listeners that we may not know is going on there in Washington?
BURR: Well, Jerri, there’s not a whole lot going on there right now.  We have seen Presidential politics start in an earlier period than ever in the 18 years that I have been involved in service.  I think it will continue to dominate the direction of the legislative debate up here.  I believe that means very little gets done this year, and that’s sad based on the financial condition of the United States.
JAMESON:  With that, Senator Burr, we thank you for your time.  We look forward to speaking with you regularly.

Response to Email Survey from Walter Jones + Survey

I have a couple of comments on your recent email survey.

Question #1 I checked other. That is because the most important thing to me is to reestablish the balance of powers between Congress, the courts and the Executive Branch. For too many years, especially during the current administration, Congress has willfully permitted the President to violate his Oath of Office and the US Constitution. I view this as Congressional malfeasance based on individual congressman selfish desire to get reelected at the expense of the US Constitution and the freedom of the people of the United States. When the President does anything that exceeds his authority under the Constitution, Congress should challenge that action in court and pass further laws as needed to prevent these excesses in the future. But Congress has done NOTHING when the current President tramples on the US Constitution.

Question #8: Didn’t have a choice that I could pick. The Defense Department should operate more efficiently, and they should not cut critical programs whatever they may be (your selection #1 in part). All Defense spending should be on the table (your selection #2) but not bases in the US or new weapons based on need not politics, but certainly foreign bases in countries like Germany should be on the table for cuts and elimination including NATO. Your choices were too politically creative to make address defense spending in a comprehensive approach.

Kenneth Lang

 

 

OFFICIAL WEBSITE BILL SEARCH CONSTITUENT SERVICES UNSUBSCRIBE
I NEED YOUR FEEDBACK!

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new session of Congress is now underway.  I would like your thoughts on

the most important issues of the day so I can better represent you.  Please fill out this survey to let me

know your views and opinions. Thank you in advance. It’s a privilege to represent you on Capitol Hill!

 

1. What is the most important issue you would like me to address in Congress?

 

Economy/Creating Jobs
Deficit/ Government Spending
Health Care
National Security
Immigration
Energy
Education
Moral Issues
Other
2. The national debt is $15 trillion. I believe we must balance the budget, cut spending and reduce the debt. What do you think we should do to balance the budget?

 

Cut spending (including Medicare) and raise taxes
Cut Spending (including Medicare) but don’t raise taxes
Raise taxes, but don’t cut spending
Let budget deficits continue
Other/Unsure
3. What do you think is the best way to create jobs?

 

Reduce government spending
Cut taxes
Reduce government regulations
Invest tax dollars in private companies
Increase government spending for “economic stimulus”
Other/Unsure
4. I voted against President Obama’s giant health care “reform” law because it will increase costs and threaten the quality of our care. What should we do now?

 

Keep the law the way it is
Reform and rewrite the law
Repeal the entire law and start from scratch
Other/Unsure
5. Do you share my belief that we should allow the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built to carry Canadian oil to U.S. markets, creating jobs and increasing oil supplies?

 

Yes, I’m tired of getting our oil from the Middle East and Venezuela
No, the environmental risks are too great
Other/Unsure
6. I haven’t voted for a foreign aid spending bill in over 16 years because I believe it is wrong to send your tax dollars overseas when we have so many fiscal problems here at home. What do you think about foreign aid spending?

 

No to foreign aid; we can’t afford it
Yes to foreign aid; we need it to support our allies
Unsure
7. We’re spending $120 billion a year in borrowed money to fund the war effort in Afghanistan. President Obama wants to keep a significan number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the end of 2014. What do you think?

 

We’re spending too much in Afghanistan trying to prop up a corrupt leader. We killed Osama bin Laden and we’ve done all we can do. Let’s save the money and withdraw our troops as soon as possible.
Let’s stick with the president’s schedule
We should borrow as much money as needed to stay in Afghanistan however long it takes to ensure the terrorists never return
Other/Unsure
8. The Administration recently announced plans for $487 billion in defense spending reductions over ten years. I strongly oppose closing bases in Eastern North Carolina; slashing pay, benefits or services for active duty service members or veterans; or canceling critical next generation capabilities like the F-35 fighter. What are your thoughts on reducing defense spending?

 

I agree with you. The Defense Department should operate more efficiently, but we shouldn’t close domestic bases; slash pay, benefits or services for active duty or retired; or cancel critical programs like the F-35 fighter
All Defense Department spending should be on the table, including cutting U.S. bases, benefits for troops, and new weapons
Don’t touch defense spending. Balance the budget through the other available options including cutting entitlement programs and/or raising taxes
Other/Unsure
9. I believe law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to own guns. What is your view about gun ownership?

 

We have a basic constitutional right to own guns
There should be more restrictions on gun ownership
Other/Unsure
10. There are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. I am a strong supporter of actions to secure the border and stop illegal immigration. What should be our top priority when it comes to illegal immigration?

 

Secure the borders and don’t give amnesty to illegal immigrants
Secure the borders, then develop a comprehensive solution which may include amnesty for some illegal immigrants
Provide amnesty now
Don’t worry about it; illegal immigration is not a problem
Other/Unsure
11. Do you think there should be more resticitions on abortion?

 

I would vote pro-life
I would vote pro- choice
I am pro-choice, but taxpayers should not fund abortions
Unsure

Email from Walter Jones – Straight Talk about the Military Budget and Eastern North Carolina

February 2, 2012

 

Dear Fellow Eastern North Carolinian,

This is a critical time for Eastern North Carolina, our nation, and our armed forces.  As we begin this new session of the 112th Congress, I wanted to quickly brief you on what President Barack Obama is proposing, why I think he is badly off the mark, and ways that I believe we can responsibly address the deficit while still preserving and modernizing our military strength.

I don’t need to remind you that America is $15 trillion in debt and running annual deficits of over $1 trillion.  Last week the Obama Administration rolled out a new budget proposal to cut military spending by $487 billion over 10 years.  Meanwhile, last year’s compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling – which I strongly opposed and voted against – requires an additional $500 billion in military “sequestration” cuts over 10 years starting in 2013.

While there is no doubt that there are billions of dollars of wasteful spending in the Defense Department (DOD), and that taxpayers’ money must be spent much more efficiently, I oppose both the President’s defense cut proposal and the ‘military’ sequestration cuts, and I’d like you to know the reasons why.

I make no apologies for being a leader in the fight to cut wasteful federal spending and eliminate the debt.  Among other things, I have been a champion of and always voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution; I voted against the President’s $1 trillion ‘stimulus’; I voted against the bailouts for Wall Street and Detroit; I voted against every foreign aid bill in the last 16 years; I was one of only 8 members to vote against the pork-filled Highway Bill that included the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere”; I voted against Obamacare; and I am proud to be the only member of the House of Representatives to have voted against every single increase in the debt limit in the past 8 years.

Going forward, I believe there are many steps we should be taking to eradicate deficit spending and the debt.  Those steps include eliminating foreign aid, the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the taxpayer bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and profligate European governments; repealing Obamacare; and downsizing many other federal agencies.  But attempting to balance the budget through devastating, disproportionate cuts to our military is not the way to go.

Before the Obama Administration even thinks about proposing to take jobs, services and benefits away from our troops and veterans, or about slashing crucial programs like the F-35B fighter jet – two cost reduction proposals which I have strongly opposed throughout my career in Congress – they need to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars in the Pentagon.

For instance, did you know that DOD has never audited its own books even though it was statutorily required to do so over 20 years ago?  As a result, a recent DOD Inspector General (IG) report demonstrated that wasteful spending at the Pentagon is out of control.  In some cases taxpayers are paying nearly $1700 for items that cost $7.  That’s ridiculous!  Finalizing the audit of DOD and reforming the defense procurement process to cut wasteful spending and give taxpayers more bang for their buck should be this Administration’s top priority – reducing pay, benefits and services for our troops and veterans and making major cuts to the F-35B should be off the table.

I also oppose the Administration’s request for another round of domestic military base closures (BRAC).  Amazingly, right now,  President Obama is opening a new base in Australia and increasing our military presence in the Philippines – while at the same time threatening to close bases in the United States.  The fact is that DOD already has 622 overseas sites.  Before anyone talks about closing bases here at home, we need to evaluate and eliminate any overseas sites that are no longer in our national security interest. 

Finally, it is no secret that I disagree with President Obama’s decision to keep our troops in Afghanistan through 2014.  America is borrowing $10 billion a month from the Chinese and other foreigners – over $120 billion a year – and then sending that money back overseas to spend on that operation.  At a time when this nation is over $15 trillion in debt, we simply can’t afford it.  The reality is that if the President weren’t spending that money in Afghanistan, military spending reductions of any kind would be much, much less necessary.

Since being elected to Congress in 1994, I have taken my responsibility to represent Eastern North Carolina’s values seriously.  As one of the most senior members of the House Armed Services Committee, I fully understand how critical our military facilities are to our economy and way of life.  During the last BRAC round in 2005, I was able to use that seniority to successfully protect Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station, the Naval Air Depot at Cherry Point (NADEP) and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base.  And with this seniority I will have significant input into how the recent defense cut proposals play out.  Please rest assured that I will use my position to continue to do everything in my power to fight for Eastern North Carolina’s military installations and for the courageous men and women – past, present and future – who protect our freedom. 

Please know that I will never forget what an honor it is to represent you.  If I can be of service to you and your family, please don’t hesitate to contact me at any time.  Thanks for all you do to make America the greatest nation the world has ever known.

Sincerely,

 

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress (NC-03)

Email from Walter Jones – Three Positive Steps for Taxpayers

February 2, 2012

 

Yesterday was a small victory for taxpayers in the House of Representatives.  My Republican colleagues and I voted to pass three bills that will help reduce the wasteful spending that is drowning this nation.  Now it’s time for Majority Leader Harry Reid and the U.S. Senate to act on these important measures.

 

The first bill passed yesterday was H.R. 1173, the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act.  This bill would repeal the CLASS Act, a major Obamacare provision that ‘in theory’ would provide long term care.  Although the program was totally unworkable it was included in Obamacare for two simple reasons.  First, it fit with the Obama Administration’s desire to get the government as deeply involved in health care as possible.  And secondly, it was included as a budget gimmick.  The program would collect for many years before it began paying out benefits.  This made the cost of the program appear to be a winner in the short term, but any honest assessment made it obvious that this provision would be a major drain over the long term.  The Obama Administration announced last year that this program would not work and would be abandoned, but many of my colleagues and I remain concerned that it could be revived.  That is why the CLASS Act needs to be repealed now.

 

The House also voted on H.R. 3835, a bill that would freeze pay for Members of Congress and bureaucrats.  It’s no secret that America is broke and that the spending spree must stop.  Freezing the pay of Congressmen and bureaucrats is a great place to start.

 

The final bill approved last night would add a common sense reform to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare block grant program.  H.R. 3567, the Welfare Integrity Now (WIN) Act would restrict welfare funds from being used at strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos.  It is outrageous to think that hard working Americans’ tax dollars are being spent at these facilities.  This practice is unacceptable and must stop.

 

Taxpayers need their elected representatives to deliver a lot more days on Capitol Hill like yesterday.  I’m doing what I can to make that goal a reality.  A little help from the Senate would be appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Walter

Email from Walter Jones – America Then and Now

January 30, 2012

 

In 1980, President Ronald Reagan asked the American people if they were better off after nearly four years of President Jimmy Carter.  The answer was an obvious NO! If you listen to President Obama you might think all is well in America.  We all know better.  The chart below shows just how bad things are.  I encourage you to review and share with others.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter

 

America Then and Now – Obama Policies Have Put America at Risk

 America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

 

Before

Now

Change

Number of Unemployed1

12.0 Million

13.1 Million

+9%

Long-Term Unemployed2

2.7 Million

5.6 Million

+107%

Unemployment Rate3

7.8%

8.5%

+9%

“High Unemployment” States4

22

43

+95%

Misery Index5

7.83

11.46

+46%

Price of Gas6

$1.85

$3.39

+83%

“Typical” Monthly Family Food Cost7

$974

$1,013

+4%

Median Value of Single-Family Home8

$196,600

$169,100

-14%

Rate of Mortgage Delinquencies9

6.62%

10.23%

+55%

U.S. National Debt10

$10.6 Trillion

$15.2 Trillion

+43%

 

1 Number of unemployed in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
2 “Long-term unemployed” means for over 26 weeks; data for January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
3 Unemployment rates in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
4 “High unemployment” means having a 3-month average unemployment rate of 6% or higher.  From the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Extended Benefits Trigger Notice” for January 18, 2009 and January 22, 2012. http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/trigger/2009/trig_011809.html and http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/euc_trigger/2012/euc_012212.html.
5 The “Misery Index” equals unemployment plus inflation.  For January 2009 and December 2012.  http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.asp.
6 Average retail price per gallon, January 2009 week 3 and January 2012 week 4. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W.
7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, values represent monthly “moderate” cost per family of four for January 2009 and November 2011. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm.
8 U.S. median sales price of existing single-family homes for metropolitan areas for 2008 and 2011 Q3. http://www.realtor.org/research/research/metroprice.
9 Residential mortgage delinquencies (real estate loans) for 2008 Q4 and 2011 Q3. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/default.htm.
10 Values for January 21, 2009 and January 23, 2012.  http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np.

Email from Walter Jones re. Straight Talk on America's Fiscal Crisis

January 27, 2012

 
I don’t have to tell you that deficit spending is crippling our nation. American needs its elected leaders to level with them about our fiscal crisis, but this President and many of my colleagues in Congress continue to kick the can down the road. That’s just wrong.

It was very disappointing to watch President Obama fail to use his State of the Union address to come clean about our nation’s dire financial situation. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away.

The infographic below was prepared by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It shows the true state of America’s fiscal emergency. I encourage you to check it out and share with your friends.

Thanks,

Walter

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12577/budgetinfographic.png

Email from Walter Jones re. Obama's Contempt for the Constitution

January 13, 1012

 

I thought you might be interested in seeing today’s Wall Street Journal editorial, “Contempt for the Constitution.”  In the piece, the Journal expounds on one of President Obama’s most recent total disregards of the Constitution.  As you will recall, earlier this month the president made a number of recess appointments—a new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) members.

The president’s power to make recess appointments is only valid when the Congress is in recess.  However, these appointments were made during a time in which the Senate was not in recess, which is a clear violation of the Constitution.

Please feel free to share this with your friends and family, because unfortunately this appears to be part of a pattern of disregard for the Constitution that needs to be known and opposed.

Thanks,

Walter

————————————————

Wall Street Journal Editorial

 

Contempt for the Constitution

Justice invents a legal rationale for Obama appointments

 

Where’s John Yoo when President Obama needs him? The famous Bush Administration legal official was much maligned for issuing opinions supporting Presidential power, and he surely would have come up with something better than the junk law issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel yesterday.

The 23-page memorandum (dated January 6) by Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz is meant to justify Mr. Obama’s recess appointments last week of Richard Cordray at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members of the National Labor Relations Board—even though the Senate was not in recess but was holding pro forma sessions. The House also did not consent to the Senate’s adjournment, as required by the Constitution’s Article I, section 5, clause 4.

 

Ms. Seitz concedes that “The question is a novel one, and the substantial arguments on each side create some litigation risk for such appointments,” and little wonder. Most of the opinion is an off-point digression on the constitutionality of recess appointments between Senate sessions, which no one disputes. But on that “novel” question, Ms. Seitz’s legal reasoning is remarkably weak.

She avers that the pro forma sessions aren’t technically sessions. As “a practical matter,” she writes, in those sessions the Senate isn’t capable of receiving and acting on nominations to the executive branch and therefore cannot exercise its advice and consent duties. Ms. Seitz points in particular to a Senate “standing order”—the rules of order it adopts to govern its procedures—that no business would be transacted during the pro forma sessions. If the Senate itself says it can’t conduct business, she says, then the President can conclude it isn’t really in session.

The problem is that the Senate does most of its work by unanimous consent—meaning without objection from present Members and without a vote or quorum. Even a single Senator alone on the floor (or “as a practical matter” one from each party) can use this process to modify the standing order in a heartbeat and conduct business.

The Senate did exactly that to pass Mr. Obama’s payroll tax holiday in December, changing a standing order by unanimous consent to conduct business during an ostensibly pro forma session. Mr. Obama signed that bill. Either that was a real session and therefore his recess appointments are unconstitutional or the bill was invalidly enacted and therefore unconstitutional. Both can’t be true.

The practical effect of Ms. Seitz’s legal logic is that the President could make a recess appointment when the Senate adjourns for the day, or for lunch. He could also decide that the Senate isn’t functioning to his liking—for instance, by dragging its feet on his nominations—and recess appoint nominees even when the Senate is conducting other business.

Last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney claimed Mr. Obama relied on the advice of White House counsel and didn’t mention that the Office of Legal Counsel had been consulted beforehand. Now we know why: The Administration’s position is a made-to-order legal invention.

Email from Walter Jones – Stop a US Bailout of Europe

December 12, 2011

 

Today I joined Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and 21 other colleagues in urging House and Senate appropriators to save U.S. taxpayers’ money by rescinding $108 billion in U.S. contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that is being used to bail out wealthy European nations.  In 2009, Congress approved the $108 billion increase in IMF contributions at the request of President Obama and over the objection of myself and nearly all House Republicans who voted against it.  Americans for Prosperity and 19 other conservative organizations recently sent their own letter to Congress also calling for the IMF European bailout money to be rescinded (letter here).

 

It’s absolutely unacceptable to force U.S. taxpayers to pick up the tab to bail out foreign nations, particularly wealthy ones like those in Europe.  With almost $15 trillion in federal debt and an annual deficit of over $1 trillion, Uncle Sam can’t afford to bail itself out, much less other countries.

 

The full text of the letter sent to House and Senate appropriators is below.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter

 

——————————–

 

Dear Conferees:

 

As you consider the funding issues for FY2012, we are writing to ensure that provisions of H.R. 2313, a bill that rescinds the $108 billion in increased quota contributions and borrowing authority to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are included in your final appropriations package.

 

As the European financial crisis continues to unfold, the IMF continues to spend hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out members of the European Union.  As the largest contributor to the IMF, the United States and the American taxpayer are condoning the practice of profligate spending undertaken by members of the European Union with bailout packages.  Bailout packages have been made available to European Union members that don’t even meet their own economic requirements for membership, such as Greece that maintains a reported debt to GDP ratio of 140 percent and Italy with a reported debt to GDP ratio of 120 percent, and have provided little to no guarantee that any fiscal reform will be enforced.  What’s more disturbing is that over the last several days, the Administration has made clear its intent to continue supporting these bailout efforts.

 

Earlier this summer, the House State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Subcommittee issued a draft report for its FY 2012 State, Foreign Operation, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, which included language “requiring all funds provided to the International Monetary Fund in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32) be de-obligated, withdrawn, and rescinded.”  H.R. 2313 continues these efforts rescinding the $108 billion in increased quota and new borrowing authority.

 

The time for wasteful spending is over – both here and abroad.  The United States cannot continue this wasteful practice.   We urge you to rescind the $108 billion in enhanced quota contributions and borrowing authority that were requested by the Administration in 2009.

Email from Walter Jones re. Balanced Budget Amendment

On Friday I voted for H. J. Res. 2, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring the federal government to have a balanced budget.  Unfortunately, the measure failed to pass the House with a vote ­of 261-165, roughly two dozen votes short of the two-thirds majority required to pass a Constitutional amendment.  236 Republicans voted for H.J. Res. 2, while 161 Democrats voted against it.

 

I am a long-time supporter of the Balanced Budget Amendment.  I voted for the Amendment the last time it passed the House in 1995.  I’ve also cosponsored Balanced Budget Amendment legislation in every term I have served in Congress, and am a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 2.

 

The last time a Balanced Budget Amendment passed the House was in 1995, when a measure which contained language almost identical to H.J. Res. 2 was approved by a vote of 300-132.  The amendment then failed to pass the Senate with the necessary two-thirds majority, falling just one vote short.

 

I am very disappointed that the House failed to advance this crucial legislation. Years of out-of-control spending have put our country at great risk.  With a national debt of roughly $15 trillion, this measure was backed by a strong majority of the American people.  It is unfortunate that members of the House can’t come together to solve the major problems of this country and get America back on the right fiscal track.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter

JONES [Press Release] VOTES TO PROTECT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Washington, Dec 15, 2011 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last night Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) voted against H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, because it included language that would significantly weaken the constitutional rights and protections of all Americans.  Specifically, H.R. 1540 included Senate-backed provisions that authorize the federal government, including the Administration of President Barack Obama, to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.  Although 42 Republicans joined Jones in voting against the bill, it passed the House and now goes to the Senate for a final vote.

“Our founding fathers understood how easily it could be for the government to oppress the people, so they wisely sought to limit the government’s power through the Constitution,” said Congressman Jones.  “Ronald Reagan’s FBI Director, William Sessions, has advised that the provisions in H.R. 1540 represent a dangerous threat to our national security and an erosion of our constitutional rights.  Giving President Obama or any other President the ability to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial is unacceptable. As James Madison once said: ‘The essence of government is power, and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.’”

Earlier this week, Congressman Jones and a bipartisan group of colleagues joined Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-3) in sending a letter to the House negotiators on the H.R. 1540 expressing  concern regarding the Senate detention provisions.  That letter can be found here.

Also this week, the New York Times published an editorial by retired four-star Marine Corps generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar which criticized the Senate detention provisions.  Their editorial can be found here.

For further commentary on this issue from Mr. William Sessions, who served as FBI director under President Ronald Reagan, a U.S. Attorney and a federal judge, click here.

Email from Walter Jones on Keystone Pipeline

Representative Walter Jones sent the email below with two articles on the Keystone Pipeline:

 

I thought you might be interested in seeing two editorials from today-one from the Wall Street Journal, and even one from the Washington Post-regarding President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.  The editorials do a great job of showing what is at stake with Keystone XL and why President Obama should reconsider.

 

It is incomprehensible for this president to spend so much time talking about jobs, and then to reject a proposal that would create thousands of jobs. Americans are tired of the lip service; we want action. Keystone XL has been studied to death. Even the president’s own State Department has twice determined that the project would have “no significant impacts” on the environment. It’s time for the president to stop the excuses and start creating jobs.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter

 

———————————————————

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/sites/twpweb/img/logos/twp_logo_300.gif

Obama’s Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept

By Editorial Board, Published: January 18

ON TUESDAY, President Obama’s Jobs Council reminded the nation that it is still hooked on fossil fuels, and will be for a long time. “Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy,” the council reported, “is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel.”

It added that regulatory “and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed.”

Mr. Obama’s Jobs Council could start by calling out . . . the Obama administration.

On Wednesday, the State Department announced that it recommended rejecting the application of TransCanada Corp. to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and Mr. Obama concurred. The project would have transported heavy, oil-like bitumen from Alberta — and, potentially, from unconventional oil deposits in states such as Montana — to U.S. refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast.

Environmentalists have fought Keystone XL furiously. In November, the State Department tried to put off the politically dangerous issue until after this year’s election, saying that the project, which had undergone several years of vetting, required further study. But Republicans in Congress unwisely upped the political gamesmanship by mandating that State make a decision by Feb. 21. Following Wednesday’s rejection, TransCanada promised to reapply — so the administration has again punted the final decision until after the election.

We almost hope this was a political call because, on the substance, there should be no question. Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen — with long-term trends in the global market, it’s far too valuable to keep in the ground — but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude — just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn’t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers.

Environmentalists and Nebraska politicians say that the route TransCanada proposed might threaten the state’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region. But TransCanada has been willing to tweak the route, in consultation with Nebraska officials, even though a government analysis last year concluded that the original one would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” Surely the Obama administration didn’t have to declare the whole project contrary to the national interest — that’s the standard State was supposed to apply — and force the company to start all over again.

Environmentalists go on to argue that some of the fuel U.S. refineries produce from Canada’s bitumen might be exported elsewhere. But even if that’s true, why force those refineries to obtain their crude from farther away? Anti-Keystone activists insist that building the pipeline will raise gas prices in the Midwest. But shouldn’t environmentalists want that? Finally, pipeline skeptics dispute the estimates of the number of jobs that the project would create. But, clearly, constructing the pipeline would still result in job gains during a sluggish economic recovery.

There are far fairer, far more rational ways to discourage oil use in America, the first of which is establishing higher gasoline taxes. Environmentalists should fight for policies that might actually do substantial good instead of tilting against Keystone XL, and President Obama should have the courage to say so.

The Wall Street Journal

The Anti-Jobs President

Obama rejects the Keystone XL pipeline and blames Congress.

The central conflict of the Obama Presidency has been between the jobs and growth crisis he inherited and the President’s hell-for-leather pursuit of his larger social-policy ambitions. The tragedy is that the economic recovery has been so lackluster because the second impulse keeps winning.

Yesterday came proof positive with the White House’s repudiation of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada’s $7 billion shovel-ready project that would support tens of thousands of jobs if only it could get the requisite U.S. permits. Those jobs, apparently, can wait.

Unless the President objected, December’s payroll tax deal gave TransCanada the go-ahead in February to start building the pipeline, which would travel 1,661 miles from Alberta to interconnections in Oklahoma and then carry Canadian crude to U.S. refiners on the Gulf Coast.

The State Department, which presides over the Keystone XL review because it would cross the 49th parallel, claimed yesterday that the two-month Congressional deadline was too tight “for the President to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest.” The White House also issued a statement denouncing Congress’s “rushed and arbitrary deadline,” which merely passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

This is, to put it politely, a crock.

Keystone XL has been planned for years and only became a political issue after the well-to-do environmental lobby decided to make it a station of the green cross. TransCanada filed its application in 2008, and State determined in 2010 and then again last year that the project would have “no significant impacts” on the environment, following exhaustive studies. The Environmental Protection Agency chose to intervene anyway, and the political left began to issue ultimatums and demonstrate in front of the White House, so President Obama decided to defer a final decision until after the election.

The missed economic opportunity was spelled out Tuesday by Mr. Obama’s own Jobs Council, which released a report that endorsed an “all-in approach” on energy, including the “profound new opportunities in shale gas and unconventional oil.” The 27 members handpicked by the President recommended that he support “policies that facilitate the safe, thoughtful and timely development of pipeline, transmission and distribution projects,” and they warned that failing to do so “would stall the engine that could become a prime driver of U.S. jobs and growth in the decades ahead.”

Only last week the White House issued a “jobs” report praising domestic energy production, but that now looks like political cover for this anti-jobs policy choice.

State did give TransCanada permission to reapply using an alternate route, timetable indefinite. The construction workers, pipefitters, mechanics, welders and electricians who might otherwise be hired for the project—well, they must be thrilled with this consolation prize. Not to mention all the other Americans who might fill “spin-off” jobs on the pipeline’s supply chain like skilled manufacturers and equipment suppliers, or still others who might work in oil refining and distribution.

Environmentalists seem to think they can prevent the development of Canada’s oil-rich tar sands, and that their rallies against Keystone XL will keep that carbon in the ground. They can’t, and it won’t. America’s largest trading partner will simply build a pipeline to the Pacific coast from Alberta and sell its petroleum products to Asia instead, China in particular.

Such green delusions are sad, and Mr. Obama’s pandering is sadder, though everything the country stands to lose is saddest. If Mitt Romney and the other GOP candidates have any political wit, they’ll vindicate the Keystone’s “national interest” and make Mr. Obama explain why job creation is less important than the people who make a living working for the green anti-industrial complex.

Email from Walter Jones re. Border Security

JONES TO OBAMA: DON’T TAKE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS OFF THE MEXICAN BORDER


WASHINGTON
, D.C.Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) has joined Texas Republican Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) in urging President Barack Obama not to reduce the presence of U.S. National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border this coming year. In a letter to the president, Jones and a bipartisan group of lawmakers cited their deep concerns with recent reports that the Obama Administration plans to withdraw half of the National Guard troops currently in the region.

 

“The violent crimes along our southern border have escalated substantially in recent years,” said Jones. “These crimes are not just taking place on the Mexico side; innocent Americans are in frequent danger. It is of the utmost importance that our National Guard maintains a strong presence along our southern border in order to protect the American people.”

 
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported that the U.S. Border Patrol only has operational control of 44 percent of the southern U.S. border. While this number is disappointing, it illustrates the need for the continued presence of the National Guard to help secure the border.

 
The full text of Congressman Jones’ letter to President Obama can be read here.

Email from Walter Jones re. Project Gunrunner

Dear Mr. Kukulinski:

 

Thank you for contacting me about holding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Justice Department accountable for its actions as part of Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious. I appreciate hearing your thoughts and concerns on this important issue.  Please see my recent press release below calling for Eric Holder’s resignation.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) joined several of his fellow Republican colleagues in calling for the resignation of US Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious.  Though he was briefed on the issue in 2010, Holder appears to have knowingly given false testimony under oath regarding his knowledge of the plan.  This development is the latest in a troubling string of incidents which have called Mr. Holder’s fitness to serve as America’s chief law enforcement officer into question.  At least 35 members of Congress have now called for Attorney General Holder to resign.  Congressman Jones is the first member from the North Carolina delegation to do so.

In July of 2010, Attorney General Holder filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer over the state’s anti-illegal immigration policy.  In February of this year, Holder and the Obama administration decided to no longer recognize the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.  Holder also dismissed a case against the New Black Panther Party in August of 2009 for one of the most blatant acts of voter intimidation in recent memory.

“Since the Attorney General seems unable to be honest with the American people, it is time for him to go,” said Jones.  “Mr. Holder’s tenure has been marked by troubling decisions, but in the case of ‘Fast and Furious’, it appears that under his watch the lack of judgment at the Justice Department may have cost people their lives.”

 

Again, thank you for contacting me on this issue. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 
Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

Email from Walter Jones Calling for Resignation of Eric Holder

Last week I  joined several of my fellow Republican colleagues in calling for the resignation of US Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious.  Though he was briefed on the issue in 2010, Holder appears to have knowingly given false testimony under oath regarding his knowledge of the plan.  This development is the latest in a troubling string of incidents which have called Mr. Holder’s fitness to serve as America’s chief law enforcement officer into question.  At least 35 members of Congress have now called for Attorney General Holder to resign.  I am the first member from the North Carolina delegation to do so.

 

In July of 2010, Attorney General Holder filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer over the state’s anti-illegal immigration policy.  In February of this year, Holder and the Obama administration decided to no longer recognize the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.  Holder also dismissed a case against the New Black Panther Party in August of 2009 for one of the most blatant acts of voter intimidation in recent memory.

 

Since the Attorney General seems unable to be honest with the American people, it is time for him to go.  Mr. Holder’s tenure has been marked by troubling decisions, but in the case of ‘Fast and Furious’, it appears that under his watch the lack of judgment at the Justice Department may have cost people their lives.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter