Posted by evad1089 on 07/18/09

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported. I appreciate hearing your views on this legislation, and I appreciate this opportunity to clarify some potential misunderstandings of recent Senate floor action regarding this matter.

As you know, the Senate recently passed the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, H.R. 2918. As you may also know, as the Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, I have the responsibility of drafting and managing Senate consideration of the annual Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. During debate on this bill, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina offered an amendment "to amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes." In addition to amending title 31, this amendment ordered the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The amendment was ruled out of order by the Presiding Officer of the Senate under Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which prohibits legislating on appropriations bills.

Some have suggested that the DeMint Amendment was inappropriately ruled out of order; or that H.R. 2918 contained other requests for GAO audits and, thus, applying Rule XVI to the DeMint amendment exhibited "hypocrisy"; or that this amendment was selectively "blocked" while other provisions requesting GAO audits were allowed to remain in the bill. In fact, H.R. 2918 does not order any GAO audits. There is legislative language in the bill to repeal certain statutory requirements for ongoing audits - such as recurring audits of small business participation in construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline and recurring audits of assistance under Compacts of Free Association - which GAO has requested be eliminated because they are outdated, unneeded, or duplicative. These provisions were included in the bill because they eliminated wasteful analyses and reports, thus saving taxpayer dollars.

The Legislative Branch Subcommittee has the authority to mandate reports and studies only within our area of authority. In recent years, we have requested studies of the U.S. Capitol Police, the Capitol Visitor Center, and the Library of Congress. While no audits were requested in the legislative text of this year's bill, the Committee Report does include GAO directives to: 1) conduct a Capitol Police sworn staffing analysis; and 2) conduct an Architect of the Capitol Senior Level Employees Study. While it may sound bureaucratic, the Senate rules do not give my Subcommittee the jurisdiction to order the GAO to conduct studies of areas outside of the agencies and departments covered by the bill. A study of the Federal Reserve is the proper jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee.

Regarding the substance of the DeMint Amendment, which is identical to the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, S. 604, I agree that transparency and accountability are important for all governmental and public agencies. This is why I have supported recent efforts to increase transparency at the Federal Reserve, especially with regard to their recent actions and exercise of emergency authority resulting from the ongoing financial crisis. As far as the specific objectives of S. 604, that legislation has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and I will certainly keep your views in mind should it come to the floor for debate. I agree that it is an important issue which deserves to be considered in the appropriate fashion, and I look forward to the opportunity to do so.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I realize the importance of this issue to you and always appreciate hearing from civic-minded Nebraskans such as yourself. Please do not hesitate to contact me again on any other issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator

Posted 07/26/09 Dragon Lincoln, NE

I didn't get a letter. Oh well. Anybody look into what Senate amendment 913 is and how it relates to auditing the federal reserve? Funny how they suddenly got 96 votes. Are they really going to audit the fed?

Posted by evad1089 on 10/11/09

I received this post card today from Adrian Smith.

###

Dear Friend:

Knowing of your support requiring legislators to read bills in their entirety befor they are considered for a vote, I am writing to update you on recent developments.

As you may know, on June 17, 2009, a resolution was introduced to require legslation be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House (H.Res 554). This measure emerged in respose to Congress passing rushed, unsound legislation which has radically expanded the government's role. Because I believe this bipartisan resolution merits consideration, I have joined 177 of my colleagues in signing a discharge petition which, with 218 signatures would automatically place H.Res. 554 on the House floor for a vote.

Rest assured, I will continue to work to ensure Congress runs efficiently, effectively, and transparently. Please feel free to contact me regarding this or any issue of your concern.

Sincerely,

(signature)

ADRIAN SMITH

Member of Congress

###

Excuse any spelling mistakes; I was typing pretty loosely.

I do wonder why he has signed a discharge petition but not cosponsored it (ref: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HE00554:@@@P)? (not a conspiracy theory or anything; I am more curious about the working of Congress)

Posted by evad1089 on 08/28/09

I understand it is not likely anyone will read this, but I would like to ask any ways.

I was reading some articles on C4L today and a significant portion of them engaged in "liberal" bashing. Name calling is not the way to make friends or allies. Its not the word itself that is a turn off, it is the derogatory manner in which it is used. Libertarians deal in IDEAS not partison politics. I believe most are generally against a two party system. Few if any members of this site supported President Bush by the end of his second term, and he is not rutinely called a "liberal". Conversly, most people on this site, agree with a lot of Pres. Jefferson's views, even though he was a "liberal" in his time. Please, just play nice, you attract more flies with honey that vinegar.

Posted 08/28/09 bruceray crystal river, FL

PLAY NICE HA.Bring back our real Government and we wont have to play the liberal conservative game to worry about being nice!Please Enjoy my site.It's a solution to most all tea party issues. http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/ makes a factual showing of how high treason was committed to create a different form of government that what our founding fathers set up(gun laws,income tax, national debt,90% of the laws and government)an illegal act done through the unconstitutional citizenship of the United States created in 1868 Washington D.C. District of Columbia Incorporated doing business as THE UNITED STATED 1871 a different form of government than the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.See where the state of TEXAS gave up a Republic form of government. A 16 minute all factual showing with documents you can view and download proving such,all free.Ray Riggs 352 464 3246.

Posted 09/05/09 LauraEbke Crete, NE

For what it's worth, I think you're right--at least for the most part. We need to concentrate on ideas, not on personalities. The current crop of "leadership" in Congress and in the White House happen to be "liberal" Democrats, and they should be criticized--but for their flawed policies. Likewise, "conservative" Republicans who promote their own brand of statism ought to be criticized when appropriate, as well. That said, we probably need to be careful that we don't allow our criticisms of the policies of the government which is dominated by "liberals" today be viewed as "liberal bashing." We don't need to sugar coat our opposition to bad policy--we just need to be sure that we are equally critical of bad policy on all sides of the political spectrum.

Posted by evad1089 on 08/12/09

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet
known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25
assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons,
giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since
Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected,
because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny
amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less
than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to
complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 4 years. It does not decay, but
instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each
reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to
believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an
element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has
half as many peons but twice as many morons.