[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Page S11779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SAVING OUR TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me recognize that Minnie Pearl is a 
tough act to follow. Nonetheless, we must move on. Today, I am going to 
announce a one-sentence initiative that I will try to put on the Labor-
HHS appropriations bill. I won't be successful because there are some 
procedural reasons. It would take a supermajority. But at least we will 
get a vote down so we will have an idea about who in this Chamber is 
really serious about doing something about the deficit.
  I had to oppose my dear friend and junior Senator from Oklahoma last 
week because of the unintended consequences of interfering with local 
self-determination, and I caution any effort that would substitute or 
preempt States' sovereignty in favor of centralized control in the 
Federal bureaucracy unless substantial cuts in spending are 
accomplished.
  The Framers of the Constitution feared one thing above all else, and 
that was a tyrannical central Government made up of unaccountable 
Federal bureaucrats would someday be able to supersede States' rights 
in decisionmaking by locally elected representatives. There is nothing 
more conservative than this very principle of preserving local control 
against the centralized Government.
  As the author of the Transportation reauthorization bill, I was very 
pleased at the way we drafted the legislation. We took a formula so 
that we could allocate funds to the States but then didn't tell the 
States what to do with them and said: You determine what your 
priorities should be at the State level. I believe it is a very good 
process. I was proud to be a part of that process.
  There is a mentality in Washington, DC, that if a decision isn't made 
in Washington, it is not a good decision. The controversial Ketchikan 
to Gravina Island bridge in Alaska has become a rallying point about 
boondoggles, and maybe it is a boondoggle, but the people in Alaska 
didn't think so. They have 100 projects. All States do it differently. 
But in Alaska, they list 100 projects that are the projects they want 
to have someday. That particular bridge is ranked in the top 4 of those 
100. I think also that we have to recognize that we in Washington do 
not really know what is the best thing for them.
  The other thing that is very important is that most of the money, had 
this amendment passed, is in accordance with the formula. So if we 
directed them not to build their bridge, that money could still be 
spent in Alaska on other projects. We would just be saying that you 
have to spend the dollars in a way that we in Washington say is best 
for you.
  I will support future amendments that will save taxpayers' dollars. 
In the meantime, there is something we can do: support the one-sentence 
amendment that I will introduce.

       Beginning with fiscal year 2007 and thereafter nondefense, 
     nontrust fund discretionary spending shall not exceed 
     previous years without a two-thirds vote.

  That is very simple, very straightforward, and something that will 
work. I recognize that we are only talking in this case about 20 
percent of the budget because we have so many entitlements and, of 
course, the defense spending. But those entitlements are being 
addressed right now in the budget reconciliation. We need to wait and 
see how that washes out.
  I had this as kind of a mission for a lot of years. I introduced the 
first amendment in 1987, the first year that I was here over in the 
other body at that time. But it goes all the way back to 1969 when then 
Senator Carl Curtis from Nebraska came up with the idea. He was the one 
who always wanted to the pass the amendment as an amendment to the 
Constitution. So he said, Why don't you out in Oklahoma preratify a 
constitutional amendment, so if we get enough States to do it, that 
would give us the power needed to try to pass a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution.
  It never worked. I think the idea was right. I think this very simple 
solution is one we can address today. It will be something that will 
take care of these problems in a much simpler way and will maintain the 
authority out in the States where I believe it belongs. I have served 
as a mayor of a city, I have served in the State legislature, and I 
have served here. It has been my experience that the closer you get to 
home, the better the decisions, and that is consistent with what I am 
asking for today.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________