[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 11 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E158-E159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    INTRODUCTION OF STIMULATING LEADERSHIP IN CUTTING EXPENDITURES 
                            (``SLICE'') ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 19, 2007

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I disagree with President Bush 
on a number of things, but we agree that a constitutionally-sound 
version of a line-item veto could help increase fiscal responsibility 
and Congressional accountability.
  In fact, I first introduced such legislation even before the 
president first proposed it, and last year I joined in helping win 
House passage of a line-item veto bill.
  Unfortunately, the Senate did not complete action on that bill before 
the end of the 109th Congress.
  So, I am today again introducing a similar measure--the ``Stimulating 
Leadership in Cutting Expenditure, or ``SLICE'' Act of 2007, 
cosponsored by Representative Ryan of Wisconsin.
  Over the last 6 years we've seen a dramatic change in the Federal 
budget--a change for the worse. We've gone from budget surpluses to big 
deficits, and from reducing the national debt to increasing the ``debt 
tax'' on our children.
  There's no mystery about how this happened.
  Partly, it was caused by a recession. Partly, it was caused by the 
increased spending needed for national defense, homeland security, and 
fighting terrorism. And in part it was caused by excessive and 
unbalanced tax cuts the president pushed for and the Republican-led 
Congress passed.
  Some of those tax cuts--for example, eliminating the marriage 
penalty, fixing the 10 percent bracket and extending child care tax 
credits--were good. I supported them because they gave a reasonable 
boost for the economy and increased the fairness of the tax laws. But 
overall they were excessive.
  Many of us warned against reducing the surplus so recklessly. We 
urged the administration and Congress to be more responsible, and we 
voted for Blue Dog budget resolutions that would have set a better 
course.
  But our pleas for restraint were ignored, and since the attacks of 9/
11--which led to increased spending on homeland security, a military 
response in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq--the budget has nosedived 
from surplus into deep deficit. And, even in the face of national 
emergency, neither the president nor the Republican-led Congress has 
called on Americans for any sacrifice, and instead of temporarily 
scaling back some of the tax cuts the president has insisted on making 
all of them permanent even as Federal spending has skyrocketed.
  So we have gone on putting the costs of war and everything else the 
government does on the national credit card--but the debt is owed not 
just to ourselves (as in the past), but to China, Japan and other 
foreign countries.
  Why have we allowed things to get so far out of hand?
  Part of the answer is that budget and tax policy in Washington has 
been so captive to very partisan and extreme ideological voices that it 
has been hard to find common ground and moderate consensus.
  Even in this time of war, extremists in the Republican Party view tax 
cuts as almost a religious calling, while some in my party tend to 
reject any spending cuts. And the Vice President has dismissed 
complaints by saying ``deficits don't matter.''
  But this cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to 
give. And, if the result is a new sense of responsibility, sooner is 
better--because there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our 
budget policies, including both taxes and spending.
  Last year, the House did belatedly take one step forward, by passing 
a bill similar to the ``SLICE'' bill I am introducing today.
  And already this year, under our new leadership, the House has taken 
another good step by restoring the ``PAYGO'' rules that helped bring 
the budget into balance in the past--something the Republican 
leadership refused to even consider last year.
  But I think we also should take the step of again passing a 
constitutionally-sound line-item veto--like SLICE--because it also can 
help to promote transparency and accountability about spending.
  We have heard a lot of talk about spending ``earmarks''--meaning 
spending based on proposals by Members of Congress instead of the

[[Page E159]]

Administration. And here, too, the new leadership of the House has made 
possible important changes in our rules that will increase their 
transparency and our accountability--changes I supported.
  But while some people are opposed to all earmarks, I am not one of 
them.
  I think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and 
I think Congress as a whole has the responsibility to decide how tax 
dollars are spent. And earmarks can help fund nonprofits and other 
private-sector groups to do jobs that federal agencies are not able to 
do as well. In short, not all earmarks are bad. In fact, I have sought 
earmarks for various items that have benefited Coloradans--and I intend 
to keep on doing that.
  Still, we all know some bills have included spending earmarks that 
might not have been approved if they were considered separately.
  That's why President Bush--like many of his predecessors--has asked 
for the kind of line-item veto that can be used by governors in 
Colorado and several other states.
  And that's why about ten years ago Congress actually passed a law 
intended to give President Clinton that kind of authority.
  However, in 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that the legislation was 
unconstitutional--and I think the Court got it right.
  I think by trying to allow the president to in effect repeal a part 
of a law he has already signed--and saying it takes a two-thirds vote 
in both Houses of Congress to restore that part--that Republican-led 
Congress of 1998 went too far. I think that kind of line-item veto 
would undermine the checks and balances between the Executive and 
Legislative branches of the government.
  But the SLICE bill is different. It is a practical, effective--and, 
best of all, constitutional--version of a line-item veto.
  It is not unprecedented. It follows the approach of legislation 
passed by the House of Representatives in 1993 under the leadership of 
our distinguished colleague, Representative Spratt and others, 
including our former colleagues Charlie Stenholm, Tom Carper, Tim Penny 
and John Kasich.
  Under SLICE, the president could identify specific spending items he 
thinks should be cut--and Congress would have to vote, up or down, on 
whether to cut each of them.
  Current law says the president can ask Congress to rescind--that is, 
cancel--spending items. But Congress can ignore those requests, and 
often has done so.
  SLICE would change that.
  It says if the president proposes a specific cut, Congress can't 
duck--it would have to vote on it, and if a majority approved the cut, 
that would be that.
  So, it would give the president a bright spotlight of publicity he 
could focus on earmarks, and it would force Congress to debate those 
items on their merits.
  That would give the president a powerful tool--but it also would 
retain the balance between the Executive and Legislative branches.
  Madam Speaker, presidents are elected to lead, and only they 
represent the entire nation. My SLICE bill recognizes this by giving 
the president the leadership role of identifying specific spending 
items he thinks should be cut.
  But, under the Constitution it is the Congress that is primarily 
accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars will be 
spent. The bill respects and emphasizes that Congressional role by 
requiring a vote on each spending cut proposed by the President.
  Of course, without knowing what the president might propose to 
rescind, I don't know if I would support some, all, or any of his 
proposals.
  But I do know that people in Colorado and across the country think 
there should be greater transparency about our decisions on taxing and 
spending. And I know that they are also demanding that we be ready to 
take responsibility for those decisions.
  That is the purpose of this bill. It will promote both transparency 
and accountability, and I think it deserves the support of all our 
colleagues.
  For the information of our colleague, I am attaching an outline of 
the bill.


       STIMULATING LEADERSHIP IN CUTTING EXPENDITURES (SLICE) ACT

       The purpose of the bill is to facilitate Presidential 
     leadership and Congressional accountability regarding 
     reduction of other spending to offset the costs of responding 
     to recent natural disasters.
       The bill would amend the Budget Act to provide as follows--
       The President could propose rescission of any budget 
     authority provided in an appropriations Act through special 
     messages including draft bills to make those rescissions.
       The House's majority leader or minority leader would be 
     required to introduce a bill proposed by the president within 
     two legislative days. If neither did so, any Member could 
     then introduce the bill.
       The Appropriations Committee would be required to report 
     the bill within seven days after introduction. The report 
     could be made with or without recommendation regarding its 
     passage. If the committee did not meet that deadline, it 
     would be discharged and the bill would go to the House floor.
       The House would debate and vote on each proposed rescission 
     within 10 legislative days after the bill's introduction. 
     Debate would be limited to no more than four hours and no 
     amendment, motion to recommit, or motion to reconsider would 
     be allowed.
       If passed by the House, the bill would go promptly to the 
     Senate, which would have no more than 10 more days to 
     consider and vote on it. Debate in the Senate would be 
     limited to 10 hours and no amendment or motion to recommit 
     would be allowed.

                          ____________________