Filter Results for "Josh Gillespie"

Please join Congressman Burton for his virtual live town hall!  If you’re not able to make the town hall in person, you can still participate from your computer.  If you would like to submit a question, please fill out this form.

The Town Hall will be Ivy Tech Community College in Alumni Hall at 1815 East Morgan Street, Kokomo, Indiana.  The Kokomo Town Hall will take place on Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 4:00pm. 

 

Live Videos by Ustream

Yesterday, Congressman Burton took to the floor to defend our military in their treatment of terrorists detainees.  

 

Today, he signed onto a letter directed to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be moved from New York City.  There has been growing opposition to the trial in New York City from local and state leaders and would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the trial.  

Below, you can read the text of the letter the Congressman agreed to co-sign.

 

Dear Colleague:

 

            We urge you to join us in co-signing the attached letter to Attorney General Eric Holder in support of local leaders who have expressed concern about the proposed trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City.  This is a dangerous and costly proposal that was unilaterally decided by the attorney general – without consultation with New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly or Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  

 

            In light of the growing opposition from New York’s local and state leaders, the Attorney General Holder is now reportedly “venue shopping” for a new location.  This strategy is no less dangerous, costly, or reckless than his decision to hold the trial in New York City.  We have both introduced legislation within the last week to prohibit funds for this trial in civilian court in the U.S.  

 

            We urge you to join us on this letter to let Attorney General Holder know that this Congress will not give him a “blank check” to impose this on other communities. 

 

Sincerely,

                                  Peter King                                            Frank R. Wolf

 

                                  Member of Congress                     Member of Congress

--------

Dear Attorney General Holder:

            We urge you to reconsider trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 conspirators in federal civilian court in New York City or other alternate sites under consideration.  This is a dangerous and expensive proposal that is opposed by a growing bipartisan coalition of federal, state, and local leaders, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.  

 

Last week, Mayor Bloomberg stated, “It would be great if the federal government could find a site that didn't cost a billion dollars, which using downtown [New York City] will.  [The trial] is going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people.”  We couldn’t agree more with the mayor.  

 

            We believe your decision to try these detainees in New York City is neither in the best interest of the American people nor does it provide the most appropriate venue for the trial of Mohammed -- the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and murderer of journalist Daniel Pearl -- and his co-conspirators.  We are deeply concerned that you never consulted with Commissioner Kelly or Members of Congress before declaring your intention to hold this trial in New York City.  If you had, you would have found bipartisan concern with regard to the security and cost.   

 

    First, the security implications of holding such a trial in the heart of New York City, or any urban center, expose such areas to an unnecessary security threat.  These detainees would not be transferred to a “supermax” facility, as the administration has wrongly implied, but to a less secure, local jail for years during this trial.  This is the same local jail where Mahmud Salim, charged with participating in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa, stabbed prison guard Louis Pepe in an escape attempt.  Despite efforts to secure the jail and the courthouse, the continued danger of holding a high-profile terrorist in New York City for an extended period seems ill conceived in light of recent terrorist plots against American citizens.  Furthermore, the director of the Federal Protective Service testified on November 18, 2009, that currently he does not have sufficient resources to fully secure key federal buildings that will be related to the planned trial.

 

    Additionally, it is our understanding that this trial would cost taxpayers approximately $250 million per year for the next 4-6 years – a total of more than $1 billion.  This is fiscally reckless, especially considering that there are secure facilities at Guantanamo Bay and on military bases that have been constructed to accommodate such a trial.  The trial would also place a dangerous strain on officers and deputies of the New York City Police Department and the U.S. Marshals Services, respectively, whose other important work could be compromised due to the extraordinary security measures that would be required for the trial.  

 

            We stand ready to work with you and the administration to support a military tribunal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and these co-conspirators.  A military tribunal would enjoy wide support from Members of Congress and the American people while providing a fair and appropriate trial for these detainees.  

 

Sincerely,

Congressman Burton, who has always been a fighter for fiscal stewardship in the House, signed onto legislation today that would provide for a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.  This isn't the first time that Burton has supported a Constitutional balanced budget amdendment.  In 1995, after the Republicans took the majority in Congress, Representative Burton also co-signed on to similar legislation.  And while it got a vote on the House floor, it did not get the required 2/3 majority vote to pass the House.  

Recently, Congressman Burton also signed on to a letter to President Obama supporting his rumored decision to put forth budgets that would include freezes and cuts on non essential funding for the upcoming fiscal year.  That letter has since been redirected to the House Budget Committee though since the President announced that he would be including a spending freeze this morning. 

You can read the text of the Dear Colleague being circulated by Congressman Paul Broun, who is the lead sponsor, regarding proposed Constitutional amendment below.

 

Dear Colleague:

 

For most of our nation’s history, deficits were only temporary in nature, brought on by wars or other emergencies, and the accumulated national debt was reduced once the crises passed.

 

Our nation’s debt recently passed $12 trillion, having more than doubled in less than a decade. Last year’s $700 billion bailout and the $787 billion "stimulus" bill have added record amounts to our obligations with no end in sight. To many in Congress, the debt is an incomprehensible, incalculable number with no effect on one's daily life. The reality, however, is that it imposes significant costs on American taxpayers every day and will only continue to get worse if Congress doesn't rein in out-of-control spending.

 

Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the President's budget would spend nearly $9.3 trillion more than what is expected in revenue - roughly equal to the total amount of debt we accumulated from 1791 through the beginning of February 2008. This unsustainable pattern cannot continue.

 

We must act to constitutionally protect future generations of Americans from excessive federal debt. Today, forty-nine states have balanced budget requirements, most of which are written into their constitutions. It is time that Congress abides by the same restrictions that states have placed on themselves.

 

My Balanced Budget Amendment would:

1. Other bills require a majority, or in some cases 3/5 to raise taxes or the debt ceiling. My bill requires a 2/3 majority vote to raise revenue and allow an excess of outlays over receipts.
2. Other bills do not have spending constraints. This bill limits spending growth of the entire budget to no more than population growth plus inflation.
3. Other bills allow waivers during declaration of war OR military conflict. This bill allows only for waivers during actual Declarations of War. Such waivers, since they would only be during actual war, need only a regular majority.
4. Other bills do not account for what happens when estimates are wrong. In other words, they can cook the books by saying they’ll have more tax revenues than they will. This bill forces the NEXT fiscal year to account for any imbalance in the previous year’s estimates by placing that amount in the spending column for that year.
5. This bill requires all excess revenue at the end of a fiscal year to be returned to the American taxpayer.

Paul C. Broun, M.D. (GA-10)

Member of Congress

Media reports have come out recently that have suggested President Obama is considering proposing several different budgets to Congress.  Included in some of those budgets could include freezes and cuts on non essential funding for the upcoming fiscal year.  The Congressman applauds the President for these steps in the right direction and for taking fiscal responsibility seriously.  That is why Congressman Burton signed onto the following letter supporting spending freezes and cuts in the President's budget and looks forward to working with him in a bi-partisan manner.

 

*****************************************************************

 

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20500

 

Dear President Obama:

 

As you prepare to unveil your Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Budget, several recent media reports have indicated you are giving strong consideration to proposing a non-defense discretionary spending freeze or cut. We applaud you for this and look forward to working with you in a bipartisan fashion to get such a proposal passed by the House.

 

The budget you submitted last February would have doubled our national debt in five years and tripled it in 10, our country simply cannot sustain such spending. American families are feeling the pinch of difficult economic times.  They are taking the responsible approach, saving what they can and not recklessly spending the money they don’t have. Unfortunately, Washington has been taking the opposite approach. Last year our national deficit was $1.4 trillion, 3 times larger than any previous year’s deficit and roughly 10 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. If projections hold true, the deficit for this year will be even greater. Additionally, our national debt has ballooned to over $12 trillion, an increase of over 40 percent since January 2007; and each citizen’s share of our national debt will soon eclipse $40,000.

 

With record deficits, decreased revenues and out of control expenses - our government is facing dire circumstances. In FY09, the federal government spent the record amount of $3.5 trillion. In the first two months of FY10, the federal government ran up a deficit of $292 billion.  Only five times in U.S. history has the U.S. run a higher annual deficit than what the FY10 deficit equaled through just two months. In December, the $91.85 billion federal budget deficit was a record high for the month of December. This signified the 15^th straight month where the government’s expenses outpaced revenues. It is time to put a stop to the excessive spending in Washington, and by submitting a budget with spending freezes or cuts, you will be taking the first serious step in assuring the American people about our intention to get our financial house in order.

 

We realize that difficult choices will have to be made and significant resources will be needed to continue to keep Americans safe, to support our troops around the world and to provide resources to those soldiers returning home. However, many other federal agencies and non-essential programs saw a significant spending increase in the FY10 Omnibus spending bill. In fact, through the appropriations process spending for many of these agencies has increased close to 20 percent over the last two years. This doesn’t even take into account what was allocated in the almost $1 trillion so-called Stimulus. As such, any additional increases at this time are simply not a wise use of taxpayer money.

 

Again, we applaud your efforts to finally reduce the financial burden on future generations by taking a serious look at our national budget and holding current levels firm. It is time Washington stop spending and start finding ways to help put Americans back to work. We look forward to working with you on future initiatives to do just that, while keeping the fiscal condition of our government order.

Congressman Burton has always been a vocal fighter for the lives of the unborn.  In the battle over health care, he has helped lead the charge against the federal funding of abortion.  In continuing that fight, Congressman Burton has signed onto the following letter urging Speaker Nancy Pelosi to prohibit the Federal funding of abortion.  He has asked her to acknowledge the overwhelming bitartisan support in the House and across the nation for such a messure in her negotiations with Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid over the version of the health care bill that was passed out of the Senate.

 

***********************************************************

 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker

 

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

 

We are writing to follow up on the December 2, 2009 letter that 40 of our House colleagues sent you regarding a prohibition on government funding of abortion in the final version of the pending health care legislation.  Since you received that letter, the Senate passed a health care bill (H.R. 3590) that would require federal funds to subsidize elective abortions.  This policy differs significantly from the Stupak/Pitts Amendment contained in the House-passed health care bill (H.R. 3962), which would maintain the current policy of preventing federal funding for abortion and for health benefit packages that include abortion.  As you know, 64 Democrats voted in favor of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, which passed the House by a wide, bipartisan margin of 240-194.

 

A significant majority of Americans – both those that identify themselves as pro-life and pro-choice – are opposed to the government funding of abortions.  Although you did not personally vote for the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to H.R. 3962, we request that you respect the significant bipartisan margin by which this amendment was adopted in our chamber and insist that the exact language of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment be included in the final version of health care legislation.  

 

Please respond to this letter to inform us of your intentions in negotiations with Senate Majority Leader Reid regarding the final version of health care legislation with respect to the Stupak/Pitts Amendment.  Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.  We look forward to your response.

 

Sincerely,

 

Greg Walden                                                                            Jerry Moran

Member of Congress                                                                Member of Congress