Senate Backs Spending Bill, Ignoring Veto Threat

New York Times ^ | May 4, 2006 | CARL HULSE and DAVID STOUT

[ritewingwarrior]

WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Senate approved a $109 billion spending bill today to pay for the Iraq war and Gulf Coast recovery, ignoring a veto threat from President Bush and setting the stage for bitter negotiations with the House.

The Senate's 78-to-20 approval of the bill at a level far in excess of the president's request put the Senate at odds with the House, where the Republican leadership has taken an increasingly hard line against add-ons in the measure.

"The House will not take up an emergency supplemental spending bill for Katrina and the war in Iraq that spends $1 more than what the president asked for," Representative John A. Boehner, the House majority leader, told reporters today. "Period."

But Senator Thad Cochran, Republican of Mississippi and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he hoped there would be room for some negotiations with both the House and the White House.

"I view it as a challenge always to work out a bill in conference with the House," he said. "We know we are going to have to make compromises, but it is hard to predict right now exactly what those might be or what the bottom level of the bill might be."

[ritewingwarrior]

Once again our party has got their priorities all wrong. Our Senators are ignoring the President and going to war with him over this spending bill. We used to be the party of small government, low taxes, and low spending. The following is how our senators voted. Hard to agree with senators that agree with the likes of Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin and the bunch.

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---77 Akaka (D-HI) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Brownback (R-KS) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Grassley (R-IA) Harkin (D-IA) Hutchison (R-TX) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Salazar (D-CO) Santorum (R-PA) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---21 Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) McCain (R-AZ) Sessions (R-AL) Sununu (R-NH) Thomas (R-WY)

Not Voting - 2 Hatch (R-UT) Rockefeller (D-WV)

[CWOJackson]

Last year when this same bill came around a couple of Congressmen tied in $90,000,000 in pork for the Durfar in it...one of the co-sponsers was none other then Rep Tancredo.

[ritewingwarrior]

Part of my point is we have an election to win, and you don't do that by splitting up the party whether the president is popular or not. 20 Conservatives voted against it for a good reason.

[EternalVigilance]

Ignoring Veto Threat

And why not?

A threat from this White House to veto a bill, any bill, is like a threat from Bill Clinton to take up chastity.

[p23185]

This Senate looks more ridiculous every day. We need a good house cleaning this fall.

[ritewingwarrior]

Thats besides the point. Lets say you are in a business negotiation. And sitting at the table is your team and your boss is there. You dont call down your boss in the middle of the meeting in front of the other team so they can see your division. You deal with things internally. The public doesn't see it this way. They see a party that can't control itself or agree on issues. Same as the 60% of the Freepers who say they wont vote republican next election. Thats not how you win elections.

[EternalVigilance]

Thats not how you win elections.

Doesn't do any good to win elections if you won't exercise a veto, not even once, over a Congress that is spending money like drunken sailors.

[savedbygrace]

Republicans - Desperately Seeking Minority Status

[frankiep]

ROFL!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

"VETO" threat?

What the hell is a veto?

[frankiep]

Same as the 60% of the Freepers who say they wont vote republican next election.

Maybe that's because 60% of Freepers consider themselves conservatives rather apologists who "belong" to the republican party.

[ritewingwarrior]

Then we need to reform the party from the inside and not bail toward the other side that is absolutely hideous.

[MJY1288]

Watch what happens, the bill will be negotiated down in Conference to the cap GWB put on it, or it will be vetoed

All of this "Bush will never veto anything" coming from the "drive by FReepers" is nothing but another chance for them to express their hatred for the man.

The Posting history of the "Drive By Freepers" are all you need to see

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

A Bush veto threat has all the credibility of a bent noodle.

[Wormwood]

All of this "Bush will never veto anything" coming from the "drive by FReepers" is nothing but another chance for them to express their hatred for the man.

One only needs look to Bush's perfect record of unwillinness to pick up the Veto pen.

PLEASE prove me wrong, Mr. President. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[MJY1288]

When you control both houses... why would a veto pen be needed?

I'm not claiming he has vetoed anything, I'm only saying that everytime he has threatened one, the Bill changes

[Cobra64]

A threat from this White House to veto a bill, any bill, is like a threat from Bill Clinton to take up chastity.

You got that right!

[frankiep]

If it hasn't become obvious to you that the republican party doesn't give a damn about what it's conservative base wants, after the last two elections, then I don't know what to tell you. But you go right ahead and continue to give them your full support and think that someday they will have to start listening.

They will not change if everyone keeps voting for them and they keep winning elections doing what they are doing...because they will keep winning elections doing what they are doing. If they are winning elections, then what they are doing is working and there is no need for change or reform. I do not understand why some people just cannot comprehend this simple concept.

[Cobra64]

Same as the 60% of the Freepers who say they wont vote republican next election. Thats not how you win elections.

There's no difference between the spending libs and the spending GOP'rs. And W signs anything put before him and supports illegal aliens. That's why, for the first time in 40 years, I'm going to support the Constitution Party.

[frankiep]

I'm with you. It's the only conservative party out there. And call me crazy, but as a conservative, I like to vote conservative. Try telling that to some people here though and they will jump all over you for it.

[MJY1288]

The difference between you and "rational" conservatives is that most conservatives understand that WE cannot get everything we want. We understand that with a divided country we will have to accept some give and take. It is the mentality of people like you that will give us "Speaker Pelosi" and "President Hillary Rodham Clinton" because in your perfect little "True Conservative" world, unless you get every thing you want and demand, you will either sit out the next election or vote for an unelectable candidate that will ensure a Dem victory.

Keep on pouting about what you didn't get in this President and bend over for Hillary