“Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946″
They wouldn’t have to raise the debt ceiling unless it was going to be the largest debt ever.
WHAT YOU OWE
$16.699 trillion current debt ceiling
316,809,000 people in the USA
$52,709.99 the amount every person owes (the largest of all time)
Creating laws is the U.S. House of Representatives’ most important job. All laws in the United States begin as bills. Before a bill can become a law, it must be approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the President. Let’s follow a bill’s journey to become law.
Laws begin as ideas. These ideas may come from a Representative—or from a citizen like you. Citizens who have ideas for laws can contact their Representatives to discuss their ideas. If the Representatives agree, they research the ideas and write them into bills.
When a Representative has written a bill, the bill needs a sponsor. The Representative talks with other Representatives about the bill in hopes of getting their support for it. Once a bill has a sponsor and the support of some of the Representatives, it is ready to be introduced.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill is introduced when it is placed in the hopper—a special box on the side of the clerk’s desk. Only Representatives can introduce bills in the U.S. House of Representatives.
When a bill is introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill clerk assigns it a number that begins with H.R. A reading clerk then reads the bill to all the Representatives, and the Speaker of the House sends the bill to one of the House standing committees.
When the bill reaches committee, the committee members—groups of Representatives who are experts on topics such as agriculture, education, or international relations—review, research, and revise the bill before voting on whether or not to send the bill back to the House floor.
If the committee members would like more information before deciding if the bill should be sent to the House floor, the bill is sent to a subcommittee. While in subcommittee, the bill is closely examined and expert opinions are gathered before it is sent back to the committee for approval.
When the committee has approved a bill, it is sent—or reported—to the House floor. Once reported, a bill is ready to be debated by the U.S. House of Representatives.
When a bill is debated, Representatives discuss the bill and explain why they agree or disagree with it. Then, a reading clerk reads the bill section by section and the Representatives recommend changes. When all changes have been made, the bill is ready to be voted on.
There are three methods for voting on a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives:
If a majority of the Representatives say or select yes, the bill passes in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill is then certified by the Clerk of the House and delivered to the U.S. Senate.
When a bill reaches the U.S. Senate, it goes through many of the same steps it went through in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill is discussed in a Senate committee and then reported to the Senate floor to be voted on.
Senators vote by voice. Those who support the bill say “yea,” and those who oppose it say “nay.” If a majority of the Senators say “yea,” the bill passes in the U.S. Senate and is ready to go to the President.
When a bill reaches the President, he has three choices. He can:
If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.
Place your mouse over a word highlighted in blue to see its definition, or look at the full list.
Looking to bring the U.S. House of Representatives into your Grade School classroom? Visit our For Teachers section for resources, activities, and lesson plans that complement the material on this site.
Musicians and artists are finding the economy tougher than ever on the music business. The legislature has six issues on the agenda.
Excerpts from Billboard
By Glenn Peoples
From performance royalties to deciding how musicians travel with their instruments on airplanes, numerous issues central to the music industry are alive Washington D.C. The highest profile topic is webcasting royalties, a holdover from the Internet Radio Fairness Act introduced last year that sparked a strong public relations fight between its supporters, including Pandora and Clear Channel, and its opponents, mainly record labels and artists.
The music industry will have a receptive House during this 113th Congress. Although the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet lost Howard Berman, a longtime supporter of music industry issues it is now chaired by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), who sources say has a reputation for being friendly to content owners’ interests. In fact, RIAA senior vice president Mitch Glazier was Coble’s chief of staff. Mel Watt (D-NC), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, is also said to be a supporter of music industry causes.
1. Radio and Internet Royalties. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has indicated he wants to continue the discussion on music licensing issues that began with the November hearing on webcasting royalties. Many insiders expect 2013 will see a follow-up to the Internet Radio Freedom Act, the webcasting-focused bill introduced last year and expired at the end of the last Congress, and a counter bill that would seek to address broadcast radio’s lack of performance royalties for sound recordings. Performance royalty legislation won’t be a top priority, however. The House Judiciary is likely to deal with legislation on gun control and immigration early in the year.
Sony/ATV Negotiates 25% Royalty Increase From Pandora: Report
2. Section 115 Reform. Related to the performance royalties for sound recordings will be a move to address change to Section 115, the part of copyright law that grants a compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords. David Israelite, president of the National Association of Music Publishers, says music publishers and digital media companies have “largely agreed on the framework for a solution.” A higher rate standard in Section 115 would be consistent with Section 114 and would lead to “higher rates for songwriters, especially in the area of digital downloads.” As will be the case with performance royalties, a busy Judiciary Committee will handle Section 115 reform.
3. Intellectual property enforcement. There are rumors that Victoria Espinel, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for the White House, will not stay a second term, according to sources (a request for a comment from her office was not received). Espinel has been well received in the music industry for her work encouraging intermediaries to voluntarily address piracy. For example, her office was instrumental in the statement of best practices released in May by the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies that outlined a commitment not to support web sites that facilitate copyright infringement. “I think the office will try to be helpful in advancing those agreements and having a role,” says one executive, “[but] nobody has an expectation there will be more than that.”
4. PRO IP Act Reform. Rep. Zoe Lofgren is considering introducing a bill that will reform how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice seizes and blocks domain names from sites found to infringe on copyrights. The PRO IP Act, passed in 2008, allows law enforcement to seize property used to commit copyright infringement. Along with law enforcement agencies in other countries, ICE has seized hundreds of domains for websites that illegally sold counterfeit merchandise or hosted illegal downloads or streams. Lofgren explained that her proposal would focus on seizures “based on accusations that a website facilitates copyright infringement and not, for example, accusations of obscenity or libel.”
5. Copy Culture Legislation. Expect some sort of legislation will be introduced that tries to advance the type of concepts — reducing the term of copyright, limiting statutory damages — held by opponents to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). These concepts appeared in a policy brief by the Republican Study Committee in November that claimed copyright law “destroys entire markets” rather than serve the original intent of the Constitution and suggested sharply reduced copyright terms (the report was quickly retracted and the staffer was fired). The bills may not go anywhere but will publicize the concepts, says one source.
6. Traveling With Instruments. Last year Congress passed legislation that reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for another four years. Part of that bill was a provision to create a national policy for carrying musical instruments on airplanes. This year the FAA will draft rules from that legislation. The bill set standard weights and size requirements for checked instrument and allows musicians to purchase a seat for large instruments that are too fragile to be checked as baggage. This may sound wonky, but it will directly affect a lot of people.
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column
Rep. and Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul
If you thought the “Transportation Security Administration” would limit itself to conducting unconstitutional searches at airports, think again. The agency intends to assert jurisdiction over our nation’s highways, waterways, and railroads as well. TSA launched a new campaign of random checkpoints on Tennessee highways last week, complete with a sinister military-style acronym–VIP(E)R—as a name for the program.
As with TSA’s random searches at airports, these roadside searches are not based on any actual suspicion of criminal activity or any factual evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever by those detained. They are, in effect, completely random. So first we are told by the U.S. Supreme Court that American citizens have no 4th amendment protections at border crossings, even when standing on U.S. soil. Now TSA takes the next logical step and simply detains and searches U.S. citizens at wholly internal checkpoints.
The slippery slope is here. When does it end? How many more infringements on our liberties, our property, and our basic human rights to travel freely will it take before people become fed up enough to demand respect from their government? When will we demand that the government heed obvious constitutional limitations, and stop treating ordinary Americans as criminal suspects in the absence of probable cause?
The real tragedy occurs when Americans incrementally become accustomed to this treatment on the roads just as they have become accustomed to it in the airports. We already accept arriving at the airport 2 or more hours before a flight to get through security; will we soon have to build in an extra 2 or 3 hours into our road trips to allow for checkpoint traffic?
Worse, some people are lulled into a false sense of security and are actually grateful for this added police presence! Should we really hail the expansion of the police state as an enhancement to safety? I submit that an attitude of acquiescence to TSA authority is thoroughly dangerous, un-American, and insulting to earlier freedom-loving generations who built this country.
I am certain people will complain about this, once they have to sit in stopped traffic for a few extra hours to allow for random searches of cars. However, I am also certain it merely will take another “foiled” plot to silence many people into gladly accepting more government mismanagement of safety.
Vigilant, observant, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens defend themselves and stop crimes every day before police can respond. That is the source of real security in America: the 2nd Amendment right to defend oneself. The answer is for people to be empowered to protect themselves. Yet how many weapons might these checkpoints confiscate? Even when individual go through all the legal hoops of licensing and permits, the chances of harassment or outright confiscation of weapons and detention of citizens when those weapons are found at a TSA checkpoint is extremely high.
Disarming the highways and filling them full of jack-booted thugs demanding to see our papers is no way to make them safer. Instead, it is a great way to expand government surveillance powers and tighten the noose around our liberties.
by Rep. Ron Paul | Texas Straight Talk
August 1, 2011
One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involved one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase. No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the cuts being discussed are illusory and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in prospective spending increases. This is akin to a family saving $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda.
But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about the unrepentant plundering of the American people. The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith in the credit of the United States being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family’s income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.
In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of cuts that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to cut. It would only take us five years to cut $1 trillion in Washington math just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.
A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply referred to that year’s spending levels, which would hardly do us fear, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.
We pay 35% more for our military today than we did 10 years ago for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn’t have double the population or double the land area or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.
In Washington terms a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger cut than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.
Texas Straight Talk
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14
The remarkable confluence of recent events has brought unprecedented but very welcome attention to both U.S. monetary policy and the global political economy in general. First, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke recently announced that the Fed would embark upon another round of monetary easing by purchasing $600 billion worth of U.S. treasury debt. This amounts to admission that markets have run out of patience with our profligacy and therefore our own central bank literally must serve as the buyer of last resort for treasury debt.
Second, World Bank President Robert Zoellick openly suggested that gold could play a helpful role in the global monetary system by serving as reference against more volatile fiat currencies. This is almost heresy coming from a neoconservative globalist like Mr. Zoellick. It hints at an obvious but unspoken truth that is anathema to politicians and central bankers alike, namely, that gold could be viewed as money.
Finally, Mr. Obama attended the G20 summit in South Korea last week and found a very chilly reception for his vision of American economic policy. Mr. Obama argued for continued worldwide stimulus via continued debasing of the U.S. dollar to bolster American exports. Several powerful European and Asian finance ministers however rejected this approach out of hand as nothing short of a currency war. They are committed to austerity measures at home and don’t want to let the U.S. simply monetize its past sins at their expense.
All these events culminated in a tremendous amount of political and media scrutiny aimed at the Fed. Ordinary Americans are demanding answers and accountability and they are putting heat on their political representatives in Washington to end the cozy independence from congressional oversight the Fed has enjoyed for so long.
In the 35 years I have been studying, speaking and writing about monetary policy I have never before seen Congress or the financial press pay much attention to the Fed. Monetary policy has always been considered boring on Capitol Hill, something left to remote policy wonks far away from the den of presidential or congressional politics. Congress always has been eager to leave Fed governors well alone with no oversight or accountability as long as they played along and papered over the growing budget deficits.
But it’s amazing what a global economic meltdown will do to the political and media landscape. In just two short years the Fed has become the hot topic and a lightning rod for criticism. While it is gratifying to see so many formerly uninterested politicians, economists, talk show hosts and pundits suddenly rally to attack the Fed, one can only wonder whether they truly understand that central banking is inherently incompatible with our Constitution and a free market economy.
In other words, it’s not enough to show outrage at the latest Fed action or argue about the relative merits of Mr. Bernanke compared to his predecessors. To reclaim our dollar and our economy Americans must oppose central banking per se. Fiat currencies cannot be reformed or managed. They are fundamentally subject to ruinous debasement courtesy of the political and ruling class. History shows that this is true in all nations, at all times.
Originally posted on RonPaul.com on April 3, 2009
It has become even more relevant since last year.
A federal bill was introduced yesterday that, if passed into law, would remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp. The chief sponsors of HR 1866, “The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009,” Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), were joined by nine other U.S. House members split between Republicans and Democrats.
“It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, from competing in the global industrial hemp market,” said Representative Ron Paul during his introduction of the bill yesterday before the U.S. House. “Indeed, the founders of our nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and co-sponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act,” concluded Paul.
“With so much discussion lately in the media about drug policy, it is surprising that the tragedy of American hemp farming hasn’t come up as a ‘no-brainer’ for reform,” says Vote Hemp President, Eric Steenstra. “Hemp is a versatile, environmentally-friendly crop that has not been grown here for over fifty years because of a politicized interpretation of the nation’s drug laws by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). President Obama should direct the DEA to stop confusing industrial hemp with its genetically distinct cousin, marijuana. While the new bill in Congress is a welcome step, the hemp industry is hopeful that President Obama’s administration will prioritize hemp’s benefits to farmers. Jobs would be created overnight, as there are numerous U.S. companies that now have no choice but to import hemp raw materials worth many millions of dollars per year,” adds Steenstra.
U.S. companies that manufacture or sell products made with hemp include Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, a California company who manufactures the number-one-selling natural soap, and FlexForm Technologies, an Indiana company whose natural fiber materials are used in over two million cars on the road today. Hemp food manufacturers, such as French Meadow Bakery, Hempzels, Living Harvest, Nature’s Path and Nutiva, now make their products from Canadian hemp. Although hemp now grows wild across the U.S., a vestige of centuries of hemp farming here, the hemp for these products must be imported. Hemp clothing is made around the world by well-known brands such as Patagonia, Bono’s Edun and Giorgio Armani.
There is strong support among key national organizations for a change in the federal government’s position on hemp. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) “supports revisions to the federal rules and regulations authorizing commercial production of industrial hemp.” The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has also passed a pro-hemp resolution.
Numerous individual states have expressed interest in and support for industrial hemp as well. Sixteen states have passed pro-hemp legislation, and eight states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia) have removed barriers to its production or research. North Dakota has been issuing state licenses to farmers for two years now. The new bill will remove federal barriers and allow laws in these states regulating the growing and processing of hemp to take effect.
“Under the current national drug control policy, industrial hemp can be imported, but it can’t be grown by American farmers,” says Steenstra. “The DEA has taken the Controlled Substances Act’s antiquated definition of marijuana out of context and used it as an excuse to ban industrial hemp farming. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009 will return us to more rational times when the government regulated marijuana, but allowed farmers to continue raising industrial hemp just as they always had.”
More information about hemp legislation and the crop’s many uses can be found at www.VoteHemp.com.
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement Introducing HR 1866, Industrial Hemp Farming Act
April 2, 2009
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the federal government to respect state laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp.
Eight States–Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia–allow industrial hemp production or research in accord with state laws. However, federal law is standing in the way of farmers in these states growing what may be a very profitable crop. Because of current federal law, all hemp included in products sold in the United States must be imported instead of being grown by American farmers.
Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food.
The United States is the only industrialized nation that prohibits industrial hemp cultivation. The Congressional Research Service has noted that hemp is grown as an established agricultural commodity in over 30 nations in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act will relieve this unique restriction on American farmers and allow them to grow industrial hemp in accord with state law.
Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our nation’s history. In fact, during World War II, the federal government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film “Hemp for Victory” encouraging the plant’s cultivation.
In recent years, the hemp plant has been put to many popular uses in foods and in industry. Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil as well as food products containing oil and seeds from the hemp plant. Industrial hemp is also included in consumer products such as paper, cloths, cosmetics, and carpet. One of the more innovative recent uses of industrial hemp is in the door frames of about 1.5 million cars. Hemp has even been used in alternative automobile fuel.
It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
Texas Straight Talk
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14
Last week the National Bureau of Economic Research published a report on the effect of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq that confirmed what critics of our foreign policy had been saying for years. The killing of civilians, although unintentional, angers other civilians and prompts them to seek revenge. This should be self-evident. The Central Intelligence Agency has long acknowledged and analyzed the concept blowback in our foreign policy.
It still amazes me that so many think that attacks against our soldiers occupying hostile foreign lands are motivated by hatred toward our system of government at home, or by the religion of the attackers. In fact, most of the anger toward us is rooted in reactions towards seeing their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and other loved ones, being killed by a foreign army. No matter our intention, the violence of our militarism in foreign lands causes those residents to seek revenge if innocents are killed. One does not have to be a Muslim to react this way – just human.
Our battle in Afghanistan resembles the battle against the many-headed Hydra monster in Greek mythology. According to former General Stanley McChrystal’s so-called insurgent math, for every insurgent killed, ten more insurgents are created by the collateral damage to civilians. Every coalition attack leads to six retaliatory attacks against our troops within the following six weeks, according to the NBER report. These retaliatory attacks must then be acted on by our troops, leading to still more attacks, and so it goes. Violence begets more violence. Eventually more and more Afghanis will view American troops with hostility and seek revenge for the deaths of a loved one. Meanwhile we are bleeding ourselves dry militarily and economically.
Some say if we leave, the Taliban will be strengthened. However, those who make that claim ignore the numerous ways our interventionist foreign policy has strengthened groups like the Taliban over the years. I have already pointed out how we serve as excellent recruiters for them by killing civilians. Last week I pointed out how our foreign aid to Pakistan specifically makes it into the Taliban’s coffers. And of course we provided the Taliban with aid and resources in the 1980s when they were our strategic allies against the Soviet Union.
For example, our CIA supplied them with stinger missiles to use against the Soviets, which are strikingly similar to the ones now allegedly used against us on the same battlefield according to the Wikileaks documents. As usual, our friends have a funny way of turning against us. Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein are also prime examples. Yet Congress never seems to acknowledge the blowback that results from our interventionism of the past.
Our war against the Taliban is going about as well as our War on Drugs or our War on Poverty, or any of our government’s wars. They all tend to create more of the thing they purport to eradicate, thereby dodging any excuse to draw down and come to an end. It is hard to image even winning anything this way. We have done enough damage in Afghanistan, both to the Afghan people and to ourselves. It’s time to reevaluate the situation. It’s time to come home.
From an email today from John Dennis:
We took a major step on the road to defeating Nancy Pelosi. Thanks to your support I am the official Republican nominee taking on Nancy Pelosi for her congressional seat this November. I am honored to be one of the few Liberty candidates to have won a Republican primary.
Our opponent couldn’t be more infamous, reviled or polarizing. Nancy Pelosi has become the symbol of unconstitutional stimulus schemes, baliouts, nationalized healthcare programs, and now an ever growing undeclared war in Afghanistan.
With your support I continue to stand against these policies and will take the debate directly to and against the current Speaker of the House. Together we can retire Nancy Pelosi this November and begin restoring our Constitution.
We have made great strides since winning the Primary! Our campaign has hired a campaign manager and a communications director, we have taken on new fundraisers and this week we are opening a brand new Headquarters. Our team is also putting the finishing touches on new branding, web and advertising campaigns.
In order to stock up Headquarters with yard signs, push cards, t-shirts, bumper stickers and other volunteer materials we are having a Money Blast TODAY!
Can you make a contribution of $20 in order to help us purchase these promotional materials?
As Pelosi’s approval rating continues to plummet our political capital and momentum is on the rise. Nancy Pelosi must be retired; now is the time, I am the candidate, you are the resistance!
Stay tuned to our campaign as we continue to roll out new and exciting initiatives. I look forward to working with you over the next three months.
In Liberty,
John Dennis
