Whip Journal
-
House Majority Leader Concedes…
Apr 3, 2008
-
House Majority Leader Concedes…
During today’s colloquy on the House floor I, the Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) conceded that the Iraq supplemental funding measure needs to be considered expeditiously due to constraints on our armed forces, and that the majority is considering larding up the same bill with unrelated spending.
Both of these are two very troubling prospects and our soldiers deserve better.
Republicans are committed to giving our troops in the field the resources, equipment and supplies they need to complete their mission and return home successful. Now is the time for Democrats to permanently shelve their failed ‘slow-bleed’ strategy, pass a clean troop supplemental and stop using the needs of our troops as blackmail for unrelated pork projects.
Here is a transcript.
On whether to consider the troop funding bill in an expedited fashion:
Mr. Blunt:
First of all the supplemental budget, I know General Petraeus is in Washington next week and I believe Ambassador Crocker. The president sent up a supplemental request in February of last year by approximately and June of this year we are told that the army will run out of money and that by July their ability to use transfer authority will be exhausted. I wonder at what point in conjunction with or following the Petraeus visits next week does the leader think we'll be talking about that supplemental request. I yield.
Mr. Hoyer:
It's our expectation that following the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, the committees will be meeting to not only discuss substantive policy but also to discuss the supplemental appropriation bill. It would be my expectation that that bill would be on the floor either the end of April or the first week in May. We are cognizant as the gentleman indicated of the June period, so we want to move this before that -- significantly before that debate so that there will not be any lag.
On whether the majority plans to lard up critical troop funding legislation that is due for consideration by the end of April/beginning of May with unrelated spending:
Mr. Blunt:
I'm confident that the White House has had lots of requests from the administration side for additional spending [in the supplemental spending bill], which I believe they have held the line on. Are we going to be able to -- does the gentleman have a sense whether this bill will be able to be contained to the defense supplemental or will it possibly get bigger than that? I'd yield.
Mr. Hoyer:
There are obviously needs in addition to Iraq that are being discussed, and I would tell my friend that those discussions are ongoing. A decision on what may or may not be added in addition to the supplemental that may be necessary for Iraq – there may be other things – that decision has not been made at this point in time. That decision has not been made at this point in time. But I do want the gentleman know that that is under discussion.
Permalink
|
-
Wall Street Wisdom
Mar 21, 2008
-
Here are a few lines from the Wall Street Journal's editorial this morning. I think it is a pretty accurate description of the irresponsible action taken by the Democratic leadership since they allowed our nation's foreign surveillance laws to expire back in February. Since then, we've had more than 75 votes - mainly on legislation that won't become law and none on the bipartisan FISA bill the Senate overwhelmingly passed - and Democrats have adjourned the House for 3 weeks of vacation.
“Democratic cynicism on national security reached new heights with a House vote last Friday that deserves more public scrutiny … The real purpose of the legislation, which ostensibly updates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), was to cover political backsides as the House adjourned for a two-week recess.”
“In January, 21 ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats in the House even sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi that said the Senate FISA legislation ‘contains satisfactory language’ and that ‘we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change.’ Ms. Pelosi's reply was to force the signatories to take a vote that repudiates their earlier position”
“This exercise shows that the Democratic left that runs the House is a danger to American security.”
Permalink
|
-
The Budget: The Numbers Don’t Lie
Mar 18, 2008
-
The budget the Democratic majority passed before heading back home for the Easter District Work Period, despite arguments to the contrary, is the largest tax increase in the history of our country. The numbers just don’t lie.
In addition to new taxes, the Democrats will also allow the pro-growth tax relief Republicans passed to expire by 2012. The combined effects of these taxes will ring in to the tune of about $683 billion dollars by 2012 when the American taxpayer feels the full impact of this ill-conceived budget.
While some say that allowing taxes to expire isn’t a tax hike, the truth is expiring tax relief will still take money out of your paycheck that was there last month.
According to this report issued by The Heritage Foundation, the new majority’s ill-conceived budget will raise taxes by an average of just more than $1,500 for every Southwest Missouri taxpayer. That works out to about $125 more a month coming out of your paycheck. That works out to about two tanks of gas a month, even with gas costing almost $3.30 a gallon.
The Democrats’ budget will also cause a $189 million loss to Southwest Missouri’s economy by 2012. And, the 7th Congressional district of Missouri is projected to lose 2,190 jobs simply because of the turbulent economic conditions this budget will impose.
The graph below pulls a few figures from the report on the effects, by 2012, of the Democrats' budget to my Southwest Missouri district:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Avg. Tax Increase Loss in Jobs Loss to Local Economy
MO-7 $1,506 2,190 $189,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers are hard things to argue against, and those numbers aren’t something that I think many would want to argue for or argue is good for our economy.
The price of gasoline is on the rise; health care costs are spiraling out of control; mortgages are worth more than homes, and more hardworking Americans are working harder just to break even.
It isn’t a surprise that Americans are worried about the economy. Congress is worried too, but the budget Democrats offered shows their solution just doesn’t make very much sense.
Permalink
|
-
Bush Raises Stakes On Free Trade
Mar 13, 2008
-
Below are a few excerpts from an Investor's Business Daily editorial on the importance of passing the Colombia trade agreement. Click here for the full article.
Bush Raises Stakes On Free Trade
Investor’s Business Daily
Editorials & Opinions
March 12, 2008
Economy: President Bush soon will take one of the biggest risks of his presidency by forcing Congress to vote on Colombian free trade without Democratic leaders' consent. A big gamble, yes. But it's the only way to win.
...For two years, Congress has dithered about its passage, constantly changing the terms of approval, and in the end just stalling because most members can't justify openly scuppering it.
...Colombia is our best ally in the hemisphere and, coming up from a long war, has a sharply improving democracy and human rights record.
...America's economy and strategic interests have been held hostage to partisan politics for too long.
...Right now it's under threat from FARC, an al-Qaida-like transnational terrorist gang bankrolled with $300 million from Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Both FARC and Chavez fear the prosperity and the American alliance that will come of this treaty.
...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who enforces congressional discipline with an iron hand, adamantly opposes free trade for Colombia. Her allies in the AFL-CIO and now a seven-member union coalition called "Change To Win" — none of which cared about Colombia until now — have stepped up efforts against free trade.
Permalink
|
-
$6.2 Billion
Mar 12, 2008
-
If any of you were watching the House floor today, you probably didn’t even realize that without much fuss or fanfare Republicans saved you – the American taxpayer – more than $6 billion over the next five years. Republicans believe in a balanced budget, and Democrats say they do as well. The one key difference is how we get there. Personally, I believe we should balance the budget by spending less money and Democrats think we should get there by taking more of your money through taxes. Spending cuts start by deciding how and how much of your tax dollars we spend every year – the choices aren’t always easy and sometimes they aren’t popular.
Like today, the bill that was defeated on the floor was the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act – it’s called the GIVE Act for short. With a name like that it’s not exactly the type of thing a lot of people would want to be against. The bill would authorize federal dollars go to funding programs like AmeriCorp and other programs at the Corporation for National Service.
In my Southwest Missouri district, we’ve had our share of ice storms and tornados in recent years, and after each disaster when things looked the darkest, the flood of volunteers – mostly folks in our communities simply helping their neighbors – meant a lot. But, unlike the programs supported by the so-called GIVE Act, I’d be willing to bet that those volunteers didn’t help out because they wanted a paycheck. Some of them probably even paid their own way or took vacation time to help.
That’s what volunteering is about. But, the Democrats’ feel good GIVE Act would have essentially used $6.2 billion tax payer dollars to pay volunteers – who volunteer to be good Samaritans – over the next five years. No one wants another natural disaster, but the next time one happens I bet the volunteers show up because they want to help and it’s the right thing, not because they want a paycheck.
Permalink
|
-
163 and counting...
Mar 12, 2008
-
As you probably know, Republicans introduced a discharge petition (click here for details) on a bipartisan, enforcement only immigration bill. This is a serious issue that must be dealt with -- not for politcs, but for our national and economic security. As of this posting and in just over 24 hours, the petition has 163 signatures, just 55 shy of the needed 218.
Here's a story from today's Congressional Quarterly that can give you some good insight into the issue.
CQ
House Republicans Seek to Force Floor Vote on Immigration Enforcement Bill
March 11, 2008
By Edward Epstein and Karoun Demirjian
House Republicans planned to start circulating a discharge petition Tuesday in a bid to force a floor vote on a tough immigration enforcement bill sponsored by a conservative Democrat.
Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he expects about 100 Republicans to sign the petition by Rep. Thelma Drake, R-Va., which seeks to bring to the House floor border enforcement legislation introduced by Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C.
Schuler’s bill (HR 4088) has 141 cosponsors — 93 Republicans and 48 Democrats. But it is not clear how many of the Democrats would sign the discharge petition, which represents a direct challenge to their party’s leaders, who have not embraced Shuler’s bill.
“Not bringing the bill to the floor is a big mistake,’’ Blunt said.
Asked if enough members can be rounded up to get the needed 218 signatures to force the bill to the floor, Blunt said the focus will be on the Democrats who have orally supported the legislation.
“We can get to 218 if the 49 or 50 Democrats who say they are for border enforcement really are for border enforcement. We think it’s a bill that could pass and move us in the right direction,’’ he told reporters.
“I think some of those Democrats will sign. But there was a lot of pressure on Democrats not to sign,’’ he said, adding that the next few weeks, when the House will be on its Easter recess, will be key.
“If they don’t sign this week they’ll be home for two weeks and we’ll see what their people back home say,’’ Blunt added.
Shuler’s bill would authorize the hiring of 8,000 additional border agents over five years along with more technology at the border. It would replace the current voluntary system for employers to check the legal status of their workers with a mandatory verification system and deny tax deductions for the employment of illegal immigrants, among other provisions.
Although discharge petitions are traditionally a long shot, unusual political alliances and election pressures on immigration make the issue unpredictable.
Until recently, the conventional wisdom had been that immigration legislation would be a non-starter in this presidential election year. But an electorate seemingly exasperated with illegal immigration has yielded a flurry of get-tough proposals from conservatives in both parties.
As Democratic leaders seek to balance such demands with concerns of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and other advocates of legalizing the status of many workers now in the United States illegally, they are facing pressure to relieve an impending shortage of seasonal summer workers.
That issue cuts across regions, parties and ideologies. If it isn’t addressed, lawmakers say, summer businesses — from fisheries in Maine to crawfish-shelling facilities in New Orleans and carnival operators on the Jersey shore — will be scrambling to find temporary employees.
H2B visas give foreign workers non-immigrant status to work seasonal jobs that can’t be filled by Americans. Congress capped the visas in 1990 at 66,000 annually, but the need has far exceeded that, so in recent years lawmakers have enacted exemptions for workers who have previously been employed in such positions. In fiscal 2006, that exemption allowed an additional 50,000 workers to be admitted.
Last year, though, efforts to renew the exemption got caught up in the nasty fight over broader immigration issues. Bills to address the H2B shortage (HR 1843, S 988) were filed by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., but they have languished in committee. The issue is complicated by the fact that Congressional Hispanic Caucus members have been unwilling to support any H2B visa increases absent of other immigration reforms.
Permalink
|
-
-
The Good Ol' Days
Feb 25, 2008
-
Remember the days when gas cost an outrageous $2.33 a gallon? It wasn’t that long ago. In fact, that’s how much gas costs when the House of Representatives convened under Democratic control last January.
Democrats promised “commonsense” plans to lower gas prices while campaigning for office. But the reality is that the price of a gallon of gas has increased 90 cents since they took over. Now the price of gas has gone from outrageous to outright offense at a national average of $3.13 a gallon, they are again attempting to implement their reforms. It should hardly be a surprise from this tax and spend majority that their solution is to raise taxes.
Is this the “New Direction” Democrats are always talking about? Raising taxes on gas when Americans are already struggling to fill up their tanks?
Permalink
|
-
Irresponsible!
Feb 14, 2008
-
IRRESPONSIBLE
Democrats Allow Terrorist Loophole to Re-Open While They Vote on Political Resolutions
Democrats Assure America, “Things Will Be Fine”
Democrats Claim:
Democrat House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX): “’The old FISA law works and it works effectively,’ Reyes said. ‘Things will be fine.’” (Roll Call, 2/14/08)
Chairman Reyes: “Expiration [of the Protect America Act] ‘doesn't mean that we're somehow vulnerable again.’” (The Wall Street Journal, 2/14/08)
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD): “’There is no danger’ of impairing intelligence gathering…"(Roll Call, 2/14/08)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "It is my belief the nation will not be more at risk.” (CwNN, 2/13/08)
But the truth is:
“…[M]ost experts agree that the administration would have to go back to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for new warrants in cases where foreign-to-foreign communications are routed through the United States’ telecommunications infrastructure. ...[I]f a backlog of warrant applications were to build, as happened last summer, it could begin to cause problems.” (CQ Today, 2/12/08)
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on the Senate-passed FISA extension: “This is the right way to go, in terms of the security of the nation.” (Washington Post, 2/13/08)
Director of National Intelligence Mike “McConnell told the Senate panel … that half of ‘what we know’ comes from electronic surveillance, and the outdated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had degraded those intercepts by two-thirds.” (AP, 9/25/07)
“‘This was an intolerable situation,’ McConnell said, adding that employees who are critical to uncovering al-Qaida's next steps have been spending their time writing lengthy justifications for a warrant” under the FISA statute. (Cox News, 9/26/07)
“As the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General have explained, ‘[t]he expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of uncertainty, which would cause us to delay the gathering of, or simply miss, critical foreign intelligence information. Expiration will result in a degradation of critical tools necessary to carry out our national security mission. Without these authorities, there is significant doubt surrounding the future aspects of our operations.’” (Statement of Administration Policy, HR 5349)
Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security: “There is a risk,” Mr. Wainstein said, that the officials would not be able to use their broadened authority to identify and focus on new suspects and would have to revert to the more restrictive, pre-August standards if they wanted to eavesdrop on someone.” (The New York Times, 1/23/08)
Permalink
|
-
It's a vote they don't want to take...
Feb 7, 2008
-
WHAT THEY’RE SAYING
Today’s Republican Vote on Immediate Earmark Moratorium
It’s become evident to the American people, as well as a good many of us in Congress, that the system Congress uses to dole out earmarks is badly broken and in need of thorough, fundamental reform. Unfortunately, it’s also evident that Democrats in Congress have demonstrated neither the will nor the appetite to work with Republicans in bringing about that change voluntarily. So it’s incumbent upon us to use every opportunity available to speak up for the millions of Americans who have had enough.
John Boehner and I were disappointed that Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose to reject our calls for an immediate moratorium on all taxpayer-funded earmarks. So, in another attempt to have true reform, we will force an earmark reform vote as a higher education authorization bill comes to the floor today.
Here are some national headlines:
Riverside (CA) Press-Enterprise: “Democrats on Monday rejected a GOP call for an earmark moratorium … earmark abuses have contributed to record-low approval ratings for all of Congress ... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should work with Republicans on curbing earmarks. Such cooperation would be a step toward restoring public trust in Congress …But Americans need to be able to trust Congress to prudently spend their tax money. Curbing earmarks is crucial to restoring that trust.” (2/5/08)
Heritage Foundation: “Facing a potentially embarrassing defeat on earmarks tomorrow, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally decided to say something about Republicans’ request for an immediate earmark moratorium … In her letter, Pelosi makes several misleading or downright inaccurate claims about the Democrats’ attempts to curtail earmarks … The letter arrived only after Boehner and Whip Roy Blunt promised a showdown over earmarks tomorrow … Pelosi claimed Democrats instituted tough new rules related to earmarks and cut the number in half. Her first assertion has been challenged by conservatives … Her claim that Democrats cut the number of pork-barrel projects in half is completely false. There were 2,658 earmarks in fiscal 2007 and 11,043 in fiscal 2008. But most disappointing is Pelosi’s refusal to even ask her own caucus to adopt the new earmark standards Republicans have already unilaterally adopted." (2/6/08)
Victorville (CA) Daily Press: “Democrats are using loopholes to flout the spirit of new rules that are supposed to require earmarks to be in appropriation bills and open to challenge on the floor. It is lack of public scrutiny and debate that allows stealth spending projects to divert money from real budget priorities to low-priority earmarks." (2/5/08)
Instapundit: “PELOSI: No earmark moratorium for Democrats. I think she's handing the G.O.P. an issue …” (2/4/08)
Heritage Foundation: “House Republican leaders were serious when they promised to hold Democrats accountable for ignoring the request for an immediate earmark moratorium.” (2/6/08)
National Review Online: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) essentially ignored Republicans' letter calling for a bipartisan moratorium on Congressional earmarks — that is, the pet projects that members of Congress slip into the budget for their own districts. In response, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will use a parliamentary maneuver tomorrow to force a vote on a six-month moratorium. … This is certainly not a vote that Democrats will want to take.” (2/6/08)
Club for Growth: “Big Earmark Vote Tomorrow. House GOP leaders are going to force a vote tomorrow on an immediate earmark moratorium after Democrats initially rejected their proposal. This is a pretty bold move.” (2/6/08)
Americans for Prosperity: “[S]hould be interesting to see how Democrats respond.” (2/6/08)
Permalink
|
|
|
