HOUSE - WHITE HOUSE TEAM UP AGAINST SENATE TO CONTROL SPENDING

House Policy Committee ^ | June 28, 2002

[ReleaseTheHounds]

More than 145 Representatives—more than enough to sustain a Presidential veto—have pledged to uphold a veto of supplemental spending legislation that busts the budget, House Policy Chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA) announced today.

“The Senate’s failure to pass a budget has left it to the House and to the President to take more responsibility to control spending,” Chairman Cox said. “Our pledge lets President Bush and our conferees know that they have full authority to save taxpayers billions of dollars. It creates a House-White House alliance in support of the bipartisan House bill, approved 280-138 on May 24.”

The Senate remains unwilling to make tough spending decisions—the latest example being a prescription drug bill more than double the size of the just-passed House bill. A House-Senate conference on the supplemental spending bill is expected the week of July 8, after Congress returns from the Independence Day District Work Period.

The text of the letter to control spending and a list of signatories follow:

Dear Mr. President:

To win the War on Terrorism and sustain economic growth, the federal government must control spending.

To this end, we will sustain your veto of any supplemental appropriation legislation that:

· Requires that you spend in excess of $27.1 billion, the amount of emergency 2002 supplemental spending you requested; or

· Provides less than you requested to win the War on Terrorism, or to rebuild New York.

The bill passed by the House on May 24 by a vote of 280-138 meets these criteria. We write to show our strong support for holding the line on excessive government spending.

Sincerely,

1. W. Todd Akin 2. Dick Armey 3. Spencer Bachus 4. Richard Baker 5. Cass Ballenger 6. Bob Barr 7. Roscoe Bartlett 8. Joe Barton 9. Charles Bass 10. Judy Biggert 11. Michael Bilirakis 12. Roy Blunt 13. John Boehner 14. Mary Bono 15. John Boozman 16. Kevin Brady 17. Henry Brown 18. Dan Burton 19. Ed Bryant 20. Steve Buyer 21. Ken Calvert 22. Dave Camp 23. Chris Cannon 24. Eric Cantor 25. Steve Chabot 26. Saxby Chambliss 27. Howard Coble 28. Mac Collins 29. John Cooksey 30. Christopher Cox 31. Phil Crane 32. Ander Crenshaw 33. Barbara Cubin 34. John Culberson 35. Tom Davis 36. Jim DeMint 37. Lincoln Diaz-Balart 38. David Dreier 39. John Duncan 40. Jennifer Dunn 41. Phil English 42. Jeff Flake 43. Ernie Fletcher 44. Mark Foley 45. Randy Forbes 46. Elton Gallegly 47. Greg Ganske 48. George Gekas 49. Jim Gibbons 50. Paul Gillmor 51. Ben Gilman 52. Virgil Goode* 53. Bob Goodlatte 54. Porter Goss 55. Lindsey Graham 56. James Greenwood 57. Sam Graves 58. Mark Green 59. Felix Grucci 60. Gil Gutknecht 61. James Hansen 62. Melissa Hart 63. Doc Hastings 64. J.D. Hayworth 65. Joel Hefley 66. Wally Herger 67. Van Hilleary 68. Pete Hoekstra 69. Stephen Horn 70. John Hostettler 71. Amo Houghton 72. Kenny Hulshof 73. Duncan Hunter 74. Henry Hyde 75. Darrell Issa 76. William Jenkins 77. Sam Johnson 78. Tim Johnson 79. Walter Jones 80. Ric Keller 81. Mark Kennedy 82. Brian Kerns 83. Mark Kirk 84. Ron Lewis 85. John Linder 86. Frank Lucas 87. Don Manzullo 88. Scott McInnis 89. John Mica 90. Gary Miller 91. Jeff Miller 92. Jerry Moran 93. Sue Myrick 94. Charlie Norwood 95. Jim Nussle 96. Tom Osborne 97. Doug Ose 98. C.L. Butch Otter 99. Michael Oxley 100. Ron Paul 101. Mike Pence 102. Thomas Petri 103. Chip Pickering 104. Joe Pitts 105. Todd Russell Platts 106. Richard Pombo 107. Rob Portman 108. Deborah Pryce 109. Adam Putnam 110. George Radanovich 111. Jim Ramstad 112. Tom Reynolds 113. Bob Riley 114. Mike Rogers 115. Dana Rohrabacher 116. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 117. Ed Royce 118. Paul Ryan 119. Jim Ryun 120. Jim Saxton 121. Bob Schaffer 122. Edward Schrock 123. Pete Sessions 124. John Shadegg 125. Christopher Shays 126. Clay Shaw 127. John Shimkus 128. Bill Shuster 129. Rob Simmons 130. Chris Smith 131. Nick Smith 132. Mark Souder 133. Cliff Stearns 134. Charles Stenholm 135. Bob Stump 136. John Sullivan 137. John Sununu 138. Thomas Tancredo 139. Billy Tauzin 140. Lee Terry 141. Bill Thomas 142. Mac Thornberry 143. Patrick Tiberi 144. Patrick J. Toomey 145. Fred Upton 146. David Vitter 147. Greg Walden 148. Curt Weldon 149. Dave Weldon 150. Jerry Weller 151. Joe Wilson

*Concurring letter

[RAT Patrol]

This is a good start anyway.

[AAABEST]

So really, it doesn't matter to you whether they spend or save. You just like to bitch. What a life!

Read with comprehension .... child. My problem isn't with saving money, that's always a good thing. I just find it facinating that all of a sudden everyone in Washington is passing a bowling ball over 6 billion , yet while they were gayly blowing hundreds of billions there wasn't a peep.

I stated this clearly in my original post but obviously I have to repeat myself, like someone who's teaching a parrot to talk.

[AAABEST]

This is a good start anyway.

Can't argue with you there bud.

That said, these guys can spend 6 bil an hour so my optimism is guarded.

[Linda Liberty]

It's ugly, and messy, but that's how you have to play the game. Our guys do our principles no good if they lose elections.

I have real trouble believing you're serious here. This letter is about $4 billion in overspending on the supplemental bill, on the same day that the house voted $330 billion, that they admit to, on drug benefits, which figure is more than Al Gore promised last Fall. The farm bill was, I forget, 100 billion or some such? And on and on.

Frankly, I think spending this year would have been smaller if Al Gore had won, and I'm completely serious about that.When the republicans are out of power, at least they fight for smaller spending. When they are in power, they propose more spending because they want credit for the goodies just like the dems do. I can't see why you care if "our guys" win elections if they behave the way they do.

[Sir Gawain]

You know you've hit the big time when you have forum stalkers.

[Bill Davis FR]

who said the president will use the veto pen?

[AAABEST]

You know you've hit the big time when you have forum stalkers.

LOL, you should see some of the FReepmail I get. I'd get a restraining order but I wouldn't even want the mo-mos amongst us disarmed.

This one and a couple of others repeatedly pop up with their silly one liners (that usually have nothing to do with the debate) and buzz around my head doing their best imitation of horses*** flies.

[hchutch]

Because I consider tax cuts, judicial nominations, and foreign policy/national security to be much more important at this point in time. They also happen to be issues that we do much better at with the American people.

Kindly explain to me how we will keep liberal activists like the two who voted down the Pledge of Allegiance off the bench. George W. Bush has promised to find and appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas to the federal courts. If the Dems win, then they will put folks like those that occupy most of the seats Ninth Circuit in other circuits, and then we will be ROYALLY screwed.

The courts and foreign policy/national security (particularly the war) are the first priority. We should deal with other issues LATER.

I am VERY serious here. We got a gutted national security establishment with eight years of Clinton. We cannot afford to lose elections, not with this war, and not with the judicial nominations at stake.

[Linda Liberty]

Kindly explain to me how we will keep liberal activists like the two who voted down the Pledge of Allegiance off the bench.

FYI, the guy who wrote the pledge decision is a Republican, appointed by none other than Richard Milhouse Nixon.

[hchutch]

And he was pulled from Senior Judge status because Daschle and Leahy are blocking Bush's appointments.

The two vacancies would not make that big a difference. Of the 26 judges currently sitting, 20 are Carter or Clinton niminees. But if we get good guys in the last two spots on that bench, and put more Scalia or Thomas-type judges in when Clinton and Carter judges retire, we might have less of these BS rulings.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

"Our guys do our principles no good if they lose elections"

FINALLY.. someone "gets it"!! Thanks for a succinct well stated reply!!

[Linda Liberty]

Your assumption is that Bush will make good appointments if Republicans are elected. But the fact that Nixon appointed this guy, and Bush Sr. appted Souter, shows that Republican Presidents are pretty near as capable of appointing assholes as Democrats, just as Republicans in Congress are about as likely to overspend as democrats. Also, one of the two apptments to fill the vacancies on the 9th court was actually recommended by Judicial Committee, and is being held up by yet another Republican, the worthy John McCain.

Tell me again why I should care if Republicans are elected? And even more to the point, why I should cheer when a bunch of Pubbies try to save face with a meaningless letter like this one?

If you are outraged by the pledge decision and want to make a difference, follow Farah's advice and pull your kids out of school. That kind of action would make a real difference. Cheering on the latest pubbie BS will only encourage them to behave even worse in the future than in the past.

[sinkspur]

Frankly, I think spending this year would have been smaller if Al Gore had won, and I'm completely serious about that.

You may be serious, but I'm laughing anyway at the cluelessness of the above statement.

[sinkspur]

Tell me again why I should care if Republicans are elected?

Who cares if you care? You think Gore is a spendthrift.

[Linda Liberty]

Me:Frankly, I think spending this year would have been smaller if Al Gore had won, and I'm completely serious about that.

you: You may be serious, but I'm laughing anyway at the cluelessness of the above statement.

What's clueless about it? Spending has gone up faster since Bush than under Clinton. Today the House voted a drug benefit bill bigger than Al Gore promised.

Also, over the past boom spending rose faster in states controlled by republicans than in states controlled by democrats.

With pubbies in control, they propose a big bill hoping to get credit from their special interest friends, and the democrats negotiate it bigger. Nobody negotiates smaller. With dems in control, the pubbies fight for smaller spending. When the pubbies are out, they have a lot more gumption cause they know they won't take over by throwing money around. When they're in, they just hope to spend enough to get reelected based on special interest favors, just like the dems.

[Sabertooth]

More than 145 Representatives—more than enough to sustain a Presidential veto—have pledged to uphold a veto of supplemental spending legislation that busts the budget, House Policy Chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA) announced today.

“The Senate’s failure to pass a budget has left it to the House and to the President to take more responsibility to control spending,” Chairman Cox said. “Our pledge lets President Bush and our conferees know that they have full authority to save taxpayers billions of dollars. It creates a House-White House alliance in support of the bipartisan House bill, approved 280-138 on May 24.”

What a crock!

$320 Billion GOP Prescription Drug Bill Passes House

By resorting to shameless pandering and lying, I suppose we are once again, "Taking the Democrats' issues AWAY!™"

Sheesh.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

42. Jeff Flake
64. J.D. Hayworth
124. John Shadegg
135. Bob Stump
That's 4 of 5 AZ Republicans. Paging Jim Kolbe!

[Clemenza]

ITS ABOUT DAMN TIME! When will Bush use his F--kin' veto pen?

[hchutch]

And running off to be a third-party sunshine patriot, merely handing the Demcorats the keys to put more of these activists in is going to make the situation better in what way?

In case you also haven't noticed, let me list another one of the folks who Bush Sr. also nominated: Clarence Thomas. More often than not, Republicans have made good appointments. The two prior GOP Presidents gave us three good justices (Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas), one that is okay about half the time (O'Connor), and ONE dud (Souter).

Are you seriously telling me that there is NO difference between a President who would appoint and a senate that will confirm a Clarence Thomas as opposed to a President that would appoint and a Senate that would ONLY confirm a Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

[Deb]

You are never satisfied, encouraged or insightful. Amazing. You must enjoy gloom, you're so good at speading it.