superbrowns's Blog

May 10, 1992Washington, D.C.- Today Senator John McCain spoke on the floor of the United States Senate regarding presidential rescissions legislation, and gave the following remarks:

Mr. President, in 1974, the Congress enacted the Congressional Budget Control and Impoundment Act. One of the declared purposes of this act was "to assure effective congressional control over the budgetary process."

Under the effective control of the Congress since 1974, the public debt has risen from $483.9 billion to $3.7 trillion. By the end of the year, that debt will surpass $4 trillion. Thus, under the process dictated by the 1974 Budget Act, we have seen our debt increase by $3.5 trillion. That is roughly $14,000 per person in the United States.

It is clear that the Budget Act failed to meet it's declared purpose of effectively controlling the budgetary process. It has failed the Congress and the American people.

Mr. President, the rescission process we are engaged in today is an example of the failed budgetary process of the Budget Act. Since 1974, the Congress' attitude toward Presidential rescissions has been, to put it mildly, neglectful.

President Ford proposed 150 rescissions and Congress ignored 97. President Carter proposed 132 rescissions and Congress ignored 38. President Reagan proposed 601 rescissions and Congress ignored 384. Prior to March 10th, President Bush proposed 47 rescissions and Congress ignored 45.

If Congress had accepted the 564 Presidential rescissions that it has ignored since 1974, the America taxpayer would have been saved $40.4 billion.

In this present round of rescissions, President Bush has offered 130 rescissions and the Appropriations Committee has rejected 97. I profoundly regret that this process appears to have become a reckless pursuit of narrow partisan advantage.

The distinguished President Pro Tempore's comments at last week's markup of S. 2403 on the rescission process were illuminating. My friend, the Senator from West Virginia, was quoted last Thursday as saying that:

"Sooner or later, the White House learns that when it comes to appropriations, they don't hold the upper hand... . Sooner or later, they need money to buy pens to veto bills with. The farther down the road it gets, the meaner it gets."

Mr. President, it is a sad commentary when the debate on our national priorities is reduced to political intimidation of the President. Threats will not solve our problems. Threats will not advance the debate. Threats will not balance the budget.

I also expect to be targeted for my support of these spending cuts. The meanness will not be limited to the President. I fear that my state, Arizona, will suffer to promote partisan advantage because I do not hold the upper hand in the appropriations process.

Arizona is threatened. Our nation is threatened by a process driven by threats and intimidation. This not the way to decide our national priorities.

And, Mr. President, threats will not serve the needs of the American people.

I am confident that the voters are angry and will be watching this debate. I am confident that they are not interested in "upper hands" or turf wars. They are interested in results which explains why Americans hold Congress in such low esteem.

It is clear that some in the Senate would prefer to pass a bill that the President cannot sign simply to embarrass the President in an election year. While that result may serve the needs of some Senators, it clearly does not serve the needs of the American public.

I plan to offer an amendment that will eliminate spending for the Seawolf submarine as requested by the President in his rescission message. The Seawolf class of submarines was designed to counter the Soviet threat, a threat that no longer exists. It is a weapons system without a mission. It is a line item that should be without funding.

Yet, the Appropriations Committee would rather reduce funding for systems that still have clearly defined missions to respond to clearly defined threats. I understand and appreciate members concerns about jobs, but the object of defense spending is to protect our national security needs. Funding systems without missions will not protect America from foreign threats. I will talk about the Seawolf in greater detail later.

Mr. President, in closing, I would like to comment again on our broken budgetary process. The funding for the programs included in the President's rescissions is miniscule relative to our enormous budget deficit, but that is not sufficient reason to tolerate glaring examples of wasteful spending.

We do not need a rescission bill drafted solely to provoke a Presidential veto. Perhaps, Congress is not interested in making spending cuts. Perhaps, it is only interested in making political statements. I hope not.

In choosing to turn this issue into a political football, the Appropriations Committee has implicitly stated that it is not interested in spending cuts. The Appropriations Committee should not be solely concerned with spending our revenues. It should also be concerned with the responsible management of our scarce resources.

Finally, if the Congress sends the President a rescission package that he feels he must veto, I hope he reconsiders his position on testing the constitutionality of the line item veto. He will never receive a better piece of legislation on which to test the issue.

Let the Supreme Court decide. If the Court denies the existence of line item veto authority, at the very least, attention will be focused on the real scandal in Washington--our national debt.