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

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

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 112^th 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)

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

———————————————————

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.

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.