Skip to Content

Release: Connolly Cites Deficit in Voting Against $115 Billion Spending Bill

Calling on Congress to cut wasteful spending and rein in the federal deficit that has been building since 2001, Congressman Gerry Connolly bucked House leadership and voted against a $115 billion spending bill on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today. Read more.

Calling on Congress to cut wasteful spending and rein in the federal deficit that has been building since 2001, Congressman Gerry Connolly bucked House leadership and voted against a $115 billion spending bill on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today.

Despite pressure from House leadership and the White House, Connolly voted against the legislation – H.R. 4213 -- because $31 billion of the $115 billion bill was not paid for and would add to the federal deficit.

 “While there were many worthwhile and important elements in this bill, it was not paid for and therefore I could not support it,” Connolly said.  “Congress needs to get serious about spending and the deficit.”

The bill, known as the American Jobs, Closing Tax Loopholes Act, passed the House with Connolly voting No.  The vote against a leadership-supported spending bill was in line with past votes Connolly has cast against measures that increased the federal deficit. 

Last December, Connolly voted against a $154 billion spending bill that increased the deficit and twice he has voted to deny automatic pay raises to members of Congress.  “Congress should be finding ways to reduce wasteful spending, rather than increasing the deficit and giving itself a pay raise,” Connolly said.

Also, Connolly has sought to steer unused and returned TARP bank bailout money to deficit reduction rather than spend it on new programs, and he was a strong supporter of PAYGO legislation that requires all spending included in bills before the Congress be offset by comparable cuts to make them deficit neutral.

“We must practice some fiscal responsibility,” Connolly said.  “While this bill is an improvement over the original version, it would still add to the deficit and I could not support it.” 

Back to top