Sen. Kyl now argues against attaching unrelated items to a must-pass bill, hmmm

sdaddy

Dormant Account
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Location
Arizona
I was watching the debate in the US Senate yesterday on the bill to continue funding the war in Iraq. I just happened to tune in during Sen. Kyl's speech on the floor. Being a supporter of the President's policy, he opposes the bill because it sets a timetable for withdrawal of the troops. Fine. But at one point he criticizes the bill because it has unrelated spending items attached that wouldn't otherwise pass. Oh really, Sen. Kyl? So now all the sudden that practice is a terrible way to pass legislation. What a hypocrite!


Below is the excerpt from his speech in the Congressional Record. Pay particular attention to the parts in bold.

Outdated URL (Invalid)

U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007 -- (Senate - March 26, 2007)

Mr. KYL.
...It is amazing to me, and I won't get into all the pork that is in this bill, but here we have a security supplemental, emergency funding to support the troops, and we decide to lard it up with all manner of items that are not emergencies, have nothing to do with supporting the troops, but because everybody knows this is a must-pass bill, they figure this is a real good opportunity for them to get things in the bill that might otherwise be very difficult to pass in the Congress.

Just a couple ideas: $3.5 million related to guided tours of the U.S. Capitol. I am all for guided tours of the U.S. Capitol, but is this an emergency?

There is $13 million for mine safety research. I am sure mine safety is important to research. Is this an emergency which can't be put in a regular appropriations bill?

We are targeting funding for sugar beets. I presume I like sugar beets--I am not sure--but I don't think it is an emergency for which we need to spend $24 million.

There is another $3 million funding for sugarcane, which I understand goes to one Hawaiian cooperative.

Here is something which would appeal to all the politicians: $100 million for security related to the Republican and Democratic Presidential nominating conventions. Is that next month, Madam President? I have forgotten. Nominating conventions would be in July and August, not of this year but the following year--not exactly an emergency we need to fund in an emergency security supplemental to conduct this war.

Do my colleagues hear what I am saying? Politicians have decided this is a good train to get on board because it has to move, we have to fund the troops. Since it is hard for us to get the Senate and the House to act on these items otherwise, we will just try to attach them to this bill.
 

Mousey

Ueber Meister Mouse
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Location
Up$hitCreek
FOFLMAO!!! :lolup: :lolup: :lolup:

I guess he's a member of the "Don't do what I do, Do what I say" club.

Hypocrite. And a sanctimonious one, at that. :puke:
 

footdr

Banned User: PITA violations of the Forum Rules
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Location
cyberspace
U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007 --

My comments sent to Senator Kyl. The subject was U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007 --

Senator Kyl,

I can not believe your comments on the floor regarding this bill and the fact that they are trying to tack on non-related funding issues that would otherwise not pass, onto this bill.

I guess "when the shoes on the other foot"

Believe me, citizens have noticed your comments.

You seemed to have no trouble at all pulling a "fast one on the American Public" when it came to the Safe Port Act of 2006 and adding on the undebated Unlawful Internet Gambling Act.

How can you possible justify your actions? By the way, I really don't see the Federal Government banning forms of Gambling here in the U.S. so I guess it really was not a MORAL ISSUE, but more of a U.S. not getting its CUT of the pie issue.

This is why Citizens are losing faith in our elected officials. Either gambling is a moral issue or is not. I do not believe the U.S. Government should answer this question for it's Citizens. Our Founding Fathers gambled by the way. The State Lottos are taking millions of Citizens dollars and the odds of winning are far far less then placing a bet on line or in any casino. I see people spending hundreds of their hard earned dollars at gas stations every day. Scratching off those cards and not winning a cent.

You and your collegues are fooling nobody.

I can only hope the New Congress will actually represent the Citizens and not the Religious Groups and Lobbyists. But I will believe that when I see it.

You may not be a Senator from my State but your votes affect me and I feel I have the right to tell you how I feel about your actions.

I URGE EVERYONE TO EMAIL THE SENATOR WITH YOUR COMMENTS. LET'S CALL HIM ON THIS ONE. DON'T LET HIM GET AWAY WITH THIS CONTRADICTION. THESE GUYS DO WHAT SUITS THEM AT THE TIME, THEY STAND ON NO PRINCIPLES. THEY ARE WISHY WASHY. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT US. I AM SICK OF THEIR SELF-SERVING BULLSHIT
 
Last edited:

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Senator Kyl really is the ultimate in expedient politics - thanks for reminding us of this politician's ambivalent values, sdaddy.
 

VayCayMom

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Location
usa
KYL

Senator Kyl actually had been working on a stand alone bill for years. Although the one passed was not the exact bill he had worked on he was glad it did get through. So technically he is not a hypocrite. I went to his website just to see what his stand was. Since I am from AZ I was curious about this.
 

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Location
Pennsylvania
He's just sucking up to GW...if you remember, GW said "no more 'earmarking'" in his last state of the union address.
 

footdr

Banned User: PITA violations of the Forum Rules
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Location
cyberspace
WHAT?

He definately was one of the ones that President Bush asked to push it through with the Safe Port Act. If you read the floor transcripts on the day they passed the Safe Port Act, you will not find Senator Kyl objecting to adding the gambling act. Naturally, since he was one of the people introducing the Bill.

When something works for these guys, they don't object. The only object when it works against what they are trying to accomplish.

He is no different than the rest. They all vote based upon their own interests not ours.
 

sdaddy

Dormant Account
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Location
Arizona
Senator Kyl actually had been working on a stand alone bill for years. Although the one passed was not the exact bill he had worked on he was glad it did get through. So technically he is not a hypocrite. I went to his website just to see what his stand was. Since I am from AZ I was curious about this.
I don't see why it matters that he may have made a good faith effort to get the bill passed by the regular process. The point is that he didn't have any problem that underhanded tactics were ultimately used to get the bill through, and that is why he can fairly be accused of being a hypocrite in the remarks I quoted.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top