[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S875-S877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      WASTEFUL SPENDING AMENDMENT

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment pending 
on the floor, the second look at wasteful spending amendment, otherwise 
known as the Gregg amendment, after the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire. The truth is, we might call this really the Daschle 
amendment or the Byrd amendment or the Levin amendment or Murray or 
Dodd, other Senators who have supported virtually this same proposal on 
previous occasions. I will explain that more in just a moment.
  If we look at this amendment, compared with one offered by the former 
majority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, when the Democrats were, again, 
in leadership, we can see how the Gregg amendment corresponds 
virtually, precisely with the proposal made by then-Democratic majority 
leader Tom Daschle. It established a fast-track congressional process 
for consideration of Presidential rescissions. It required 
congressional affirmation of rescissions. It allowed the President to 
suspend funds for a maximum of 45 days. It does not permit the 
President to resubmit rescissions once rejected by the Congress. It 
allowed rescissions of discretionary funding and targeted tax benefits. 
It did not allow rescissions of new mandatory programs. That is one 
area where this differs from the Daschle amendment. The Gregg amendment 
would permit rescission of new mandatory spending.
  I interject, if we are going to get a handle on runaway Federal 
spending, it is not going to be in discretionary spending alone. We 
have actually--contrary, perhaps, to popular perception--done a pretty 
good job limiting nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary 
spending. But to paraphrase, that is not where the money is. Where the 
money is actually in mandatory spending--in entitlement spending, such 
as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  So the Gregg amendment quite appropriately addresses rescission of 
new, not existing, new mandatory spending programs. We can see here 
that in virtually every respect except two--the one I just mentioned 
and that only four rescission packages would be permitted annually 
under the Gregg amendment--there is virtual identity between these two 
amendments.
  Why is this so important? I have to tell my colleagues that as I 
travel around my State of Texas, there are issues people talk to me 
about, as with other Members. They are concerned about our lack of 
border security. They are concerned, obviously, about the war on terror 
and the way forward in Iraq. But one of the really top three issues 
that my constituents talk to me about is Federal spending. They worry 
about the deficit. They worry about the long-term obligation under 
Social Security and Medicare, a bill that is going to be paid by our 
children and grandchildren, about the morality of basically putting 
this burden on their backs in the future. So what this amendment does, 
this second look at wasteful spending, it allows us to cut out some of 
the pork, cut out some of the waste in a way that I think responds to 
this very realistic concern by the American people.
  You will note that in 1995, when Senator Daschle offered this 
amendment, this was, of course, during the Clinton administration--I 
want to note that--we had 21 Democratic Senators--virtually all of 
whom, I guess, are still in the Senate--who supported that Daschle 
amendment. My hope is they would vote for cloture so we can have an up-
or-down vote on this Gregg amendment, which, as I showed a moment ago, 
is virtually identical.
  Let's look at some of the quotes back then by distinguished Members 
of the Senate in support of the Daschle amendment. My hope would be 
that Senators would remember, perhaps have their recollection refreshed 
by this exercise in a way that would encourage them to have at least an 
open mind and possibly even embrace the Gregg amendment today as they 
did the Daschle amendment back in 1995.
  Senator Byrd, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, someone who respects congressional prerogative and 
understands the separation of powers perhaps better than anybody else 
in this body, said:

       I have no problem with giving the President another 
     opportunity to select from appropriations bills certain items 
     which he feels for his political or for whatever reasons, I 
     have no problem with his sending them to the two Houses and 
     our giving him a vote.

  That was on March 22, 1995.
  Then there is this comment by Senator Feinstein, the distinguished 
Senator from California. She said:

       Really, what a line-item veto is all about is deterrence, 
     and that deterrence is aimed at the porkbarrel. I sincerely 
     believe that a line-item veto will work.

  What we are talking about, this so-called rescission provision, is in 
essence a version of the line-item veto, something Presidents have 
called for in

[[Page S876]]

the past on both sides of the aisle and something I believe, obviously, 
there has existed bipartisan support for in the Senate.
  Then there is Senator Dorgan, who has said:

       Fully 43 Governors have the line-item veto, which suggests 
     to me that it is a power that the President can safely wield 
     . . . That is why I voted for it, and why I am pleased it is 
     now the law of the land.

  This was back on April 25, 1996.
  Of course, we know what happened to the line-item veto. It ultimately 
was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why we have had to 
come back with this modification of this rescission package in order to 
address the Court's concerns and to ensure its constitutionality.
  Then there is the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Joe 
Biden, who said:

       Mr. President, I have long supported an experiment with the 
     line-item veto power for the President.

  That was Senator Biden on March 27, 1996.
  Then there is Senator Dodd who has said:

       I support the substitute offered by Senator Daschle.

  That is the Daschle amendment.

       I believe it is a reasonable line-item veto alternative. It 
     requires both Houses of Congress to vote on a President's 
     rescission list and sets up a fast-track procedure to ensure 
     that a vote occurs in a prompt and timely manner.

  There are just a couple of more. Mr. Feingold, the Senator from 
Wisconsin, said this:

       The line-item veto is about getting rid of those items 
     after the President has them on his desk. I think this will 
     prove to be a useful tool in eliminating some of the things 
     that have happened in Congress that have been held up to 
     public ridicule.

  That obviously goes with the pork spending, the embarrassing earmarks 
that we have heard so much about from our constituents, particularly 
leading up to this last election.
  Senator Murray said:

       I want to give the President the ability to line-item veto 
     all those portions of the appropriations bills that have not 
     been through the hearing and authorization process. All those 
     pork items contribute to our deficit.

  I think we have one more from Senator Dorgan, but we have already 
heard from him. There is one last one from Mr. Levin, the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan. He said:

       That so-called expedited rescission process, it seems to 
     me, is constitutional and is something which we can in good 
     conscience, at least I in good conscience, support.

  My point is obvious, perhaps, but let me, at the risk of beating a 
dead horse, say it again. If this was good policy back in 1995 and 
1996, what has changed in 2007? I submit the only thing that has 
changed is that our deficit has increased for many years, part of which 
is porkbarrel spending which can be eliminated with the kind of 
cooperation that this particular amendment would allow. I suggest to 
our Democratic colleagues--in the spirit of bipartisanship in which we 
have started this new Congress with the overwhelming bipartisan passage 
of an ethics and lobby reform bill and consideration of this minimum 
wage bill with appropriate relief for small businesses when it comes to 
regulations and tax relief that will attenuate some of the blow--this 
is an appropriate amendment for us to consider and pass.
  I hope the spirit of bipartisanship does not end so early on in this 
session of the Senate. I know there are many cynics who believe it will 
die an early death. I am not one of them. I remain hopeful and 
optimistic that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will embrace 
this opportunity to do the right thing for the people of this great 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Ten minutes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the Senator from 
Texas on his remarks. I commend Senator Judd Gregg on the submission of 
this amendment. I commend Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, for 
his insistence on bringing this amendment to the floor of the Senate 
early. It had been my preference that it be debated during the lobbying 
reform and ethics bill, S. 1, which we debated last week because the 
remarks I am going to make tell you how much I think the enhanced 
rescission and a second look at wasteful spending is so important to 
end, curb, and finally do away with what has been an abuse in this body 
for a long time, and that is the abuse of earmarks.
  In fact, I want to tell a story. When I first came to the Congress of 
the United States in 1999, the first budget that I voted on and was 
passed was a voluminous, huge budget--appropriations bill. It had 
spending in thousands of different categories, many of which I never 
even looked at, A, because I was not on the committee that had 
jurisdiction or, B, because so much of it went into last-minute 
negotiations in the conference committee on the appropriations bill.
  I will never forget a telephone call I got at 8 o'clock in the 
morning from a reporter, shortly after--about 2 weeks after the passage 
of an Omnibus appropriations bill. A newspaper reporter called and said 
to me:

       Congressman, why did you vote for a $50,000 appropriation 
     for a tatoo removal parlor in California?

  I said:

       I didn't vote for any such a thing.

  The reporter said:

       Yes, you did. Didn't you vote for the Omnibus budget?

  I said:

       Yes, I did.

  The reporter said:

       Well, it was right there in clear view.

  I said:

       Well, it wasn't in clear view to me.

  Well, it turned out, after going through that embarrassing 
experience, which all of us in this business go through from time to 
time, I started digging around trying to find the $50,000 appropriation 
for a tatoo removal parlor in California. Finally, I found it. It went 
into the budget on the appropriations bill on the last night of 
negotiations. It was on something like page 1186, line 33, in small 
print. The appropriations act we voted on was put on our desk about 8 
hours before we voted on it.
  I am not a fast reader anyway, but I couldn't read 1,100 pages in 8 
hours. I would go blind. And the fact is, Congress was embarrassed, the 
Representative who put it in there was very embarrassed, but this 
Representative was very embarrassed. So I introduced legislation the 
next year to basically put an end to the last-minute earmark that said 
the earmark had to be in bold type, large fonts, and on the front page 
of each appropriations act, and had to lay on the desk for 24 hours to 
at least give us a chance to look at it.
  What Senator Gregg has proposed today is the opportunity for us to 
not only get a second look, but in the case of a lot of these earmarks 
a first look, at wasteful appropriations. That is why I thought it 
should have gone on the previous bill we debated last week, the 
lobbying reform and ethics bill for, you see, if a President of the 
United States had gotten that omnibus budget and had the right of 
rescission, that President could have said: I think we ought to strike 
the $50,000 for a tatoo removal parlor in California. And under the 
Gregg proposal, it would come back to the Senate and the House, and we 
would have to affirm that. I do not think there is a single person in 
either party, including the author of that earmark 9 years ago, who 
would not have voted to affirm the President's rescission.
  The light of day, sunshine, the power of knowledge, facts are 
stubborn things. But so often in the appropriations process facts get 
obliterated or not seen. Appropriations get written in late at night in 
negotiations between conferees, and we end up with wasteful spending.
  This is an outstanding proposal by Senator Gregg. As Senator Cornyn 
has said, and others who have spoken today have said, it actually 
reflects what has been approved by Members of both parties in this 
Senate before. But it makes good, common, horse sense and passes the 
constitutional test, which is so important.
  The President gets four times a year to send rescissions to the 
Congress. The Congress has to fast-track its response within 8 days. 
The Congress has to affirm the rescission, which is the

[[Page S877]]

key point in the balance of power between each of the bodies of 
Government that are so important to our Constitution. It does not give 
a President unilateral authority, but it forces the light of day on a 
Presidential decision for us to take a second look at what was probably 
a mistake that this body might have made.
  Lastly, I have had some experience with this process. I had the 
privilege of representing the great State of Georgia for 17 years in 
its statehouse, in its State senate. At the time I was in the minority, 
and the Democratic Party in Georgia was in the majority. A dear friend 
of mine, a fellow against whom I ran for Governor of Georgia in 1990, 
and who came to this Senate, Zell Miller, and whom I later replaced in 
this Senate, a great Georgian--I watched him use the line-item veto, 
which is legal in Georgia, to cause accountability on the part of 
legislators, to let the light of day shine on appropriations and, most 
importantly, to see to it that Georgia was run in a fiscally sound way 
and we didn't get away with things that we should not have gotten away 
with.
  If it is good enough for the States, it is good enough for the 
Federal Government. If it passes the constitutional test of the 
division of power in our Government--legislative, executive, judicial--
it ought to be a part of the body of law, and this proposal does.
  Most important of all, although all the promotion pieces I have read 
call this a second look at the budget process, in many cases because of 
the volume it gives us, as individuals, a first look at a mistake we 
made. Instead of current law, where once that mistake is made it is 
there, under this right of recision we have a second chance at what was 
a first impression, and we can make the right decision and do the right 
thing.
  The money, when it is struck, goes where it ought to go--to deficit 
reduction. This country has a serious deficit problem, and it has had a 
serious spending problem. Enhanced rescission places the responsibility 
on the President to delineate a mistake and forces us to affirm if 
that, in fact, was a mistake, and the benefit from that savings goes to 
reduce the deficit, which is the mortgage on our children's future and 
the future of our grandchildren.
  I am delighted to come to the floor today as a cosponsor of the 
enhanced rescissions amendment proposed by Senator Gregg to speak in 
its favor, and I encourage every Member of the Senate to take a second 
look at this proposal.
  It makes sense. It is constitutional. It is the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________