A Good Start, But More Reform Needed
By Senator Jim DeMint Posted in Congress | Congressional Contributors — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I did not expect my amendment to win approval in the Senate, but it did.
Before the Senate voted on my amendment, Senator Dick Durbin took the floor in opposition. Durbin made a motion to table (kill) my amendment. His motion was supported by Majority Leader Harry Reid who argued that the language in the underlying bill was far superior to the language in my amendment despite the fact that the Reid language would let 95 percent of all earmarks continue to go unaccounted for.
Fortunately, 9 Senate Democrats including Barack Obama (who was presiding over the Senate as the debate unfolded) and independent Joe Lieberman saw through the anti-reform efforts of their colleagues and cast their votes in favor of my amendment. The motion to table was defeated by a bipartisan vote of 51-46. As is customary in the Senate after such a motion is denied, I asked for unanimous consent that my amendment be adopted by a voice vote. Defying Senate tradition, Durbin with Reid’s support objected and held the vote open.
Read on...
It was not until five days later that we were able to work this matter out in the Senate. But what happened over those five days had a direct impact on how the issue was resolved.
Bloggers, liberal and conservative, led the charge for reform. Their numerous postings piqued the interest of the mainstream press and a multitude of editorial boards. Their message was all the same: reform now.
A chastened Senator Durbin proposed some minor tweaks to my amendment which I accepted. To Durbin’s credit, rather than weakening my amendment, he made it stronger. It would be fair to say that the outcry from the blogosphere created the best possible scenario in the Senate: a bidding war on reform in which both parties wanted to outdo the other. That is a climate that I was happy to see develop and one that we need to continue.
Before the final vote on S. 1, to my delight the Senate adopted another one of my amendments. This important amendment provides the means for reformers to eliminate new earmarks to a conference report that were not in either the House or Senate passed versions of the bill. This practice has been a boondoggle for pork-hungry lawmakers in the past because it allows pet projects to be quietly slipped into bills without debate or the accountability of the committee process. The means to stop these secretive earmarks is absolutely essential for the success of reform efforts in Congress.
But the adoption of these two amendments is not nearly enough. Congress still has plenty of work to do before we are out of the woods.
The way we spend the people’s money here in Washington needs to be completely changed. We are starting to change it by overhauling the earmarking process. On that front, we have another opportunity this week to take one more step in the right direction.
Senator Judd Gregg has offered a line-item rescission amendment that allows the President to eliminate wasteful congressional pet projects. I am the first co-sponsor of Senator Gregg’s amendment and I will do everything in my power this week to help it pass. Congress has proven over the years that it does not have the courage to police itself, and the checks and balances provided by allowing the President to point out wasteful spending is an essential new tool to fight pork.
I hope that you will continue to be supportive on this issue and other upcoming efforts to clean up Washington. I know first hand that our efforts of the last two weeks would not have been successful were it not for the support of the online activist community. I'm very thankful for those efforts and ask you to keep the pressure on.
A little more of this pro-reform "logrolling" and we may begin to see a functioning democracy in our government again.
Well done.
Senator, you're right to ask us to keep up the pressure. As we all know, people know how to find a way, and those with money (and those who receive money) will find a way, just as these people found a way around McCain-Feingold. Indeed I saw "somewhere" a mention that phones in federal agencies are ringing off the hook, since these groups have the ability to spend money where they wish. Porkbarrelers are circumventing Congress and going right to the soft underbelly of the bureaucrat to win their pet projects.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Sen. DeMint,
Excellent work in the Senate, and thanks for the update.
My only concern with all of this is the line item veto. At one point, I was for it, but I'm interested in an opposing line of reasoning that goes against the following:
A line item veto -- unless vigorously qualified -- would begin the process of turning the Executive into the Legislative. In other words, unqualified use of a line item veto could potentially change a piece of legislation at the Executive level to where it resembled nothing of what the Legislative passed on.
Having said the above, I appreciate the sentiment that Congress does not seem to have the backbone to deal with a plurality/majority of upset voters, nor does the President, at times, seem to want to simply veto a bill. However, I'm not sure that turning the President into a sort of quasi-legislator is necessarily the way to go.
Then again, my bias is to shut down government if appropriations are sent to the President and the President vetos it.
Thanks again for your fiscally responsible State representation.
-Phil
Senator Gregg feels that he has solved the constitutional test that the previous line-item leglislation failed when the Supreme Court struck it down.
EzOnTheEyez,
That would be great. Any chance you have a link or know of the bill with the specific language in it? Or, has it been tendered as a bill yet?
-Phil
I haven't read the Gregg Amendment myself, and I don't recall an article specifically addressing it. It may have been something I saw on Special Report with Brit Hume.
Anyway...I think that Senators Gregg and DeMint are rather sharp fellows and probably had a pretty good legal team parse the Supreme Court ruling and find a way around it.
If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court basically ruled that if a bill is passed by the House and Senate, then the president has to either sign the bill or veto it. He can't just sign into law the parts he wishes.
As I understand them, most bills seek to basically send a bill to the president's desk - almost like a draft - and then he basically sends back a version with highlighted spending he would like to see stripped and then I guess the initial bill is vetoed (or perhaps the bill goes to the president before the House and Senate actually vote,) and then the new bill is stripped of the highlighted spending - or not - voted on by the House and Senate, and then sent back to the president's desk for either final passage or a veto.
That's what I understand these types of bills to do, generally speaking. I don't know the particulars of the Gregg Amendment.
Somewhere on RS, if you look for it. It even made it to the Front Page.
It's good stuff, and I don't see why it would fail the constitutionality test (but then, I'm not a student of constitutional law).
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
So the majority to pass is the same to override. That would seem keep the balance of powers unchanged... I believe the original LIV had a super majority override... which would certainly give power to the executive at the expense of the legislature. I think that is the key provision that makes this constitutional.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yet another Club for Growth superstar. :-)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
The level of government corruption is directly related to the amount of money it steals from Americans. Only a moron could believe the crooks of both parties are gonna give up any power!
(read money)
That you have converted to Islam, and changed your name to Kareem DeMint?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
S.AMDT.17
Line Item Veto Amendment
1/18/2007:
Proposed amendment SA 17 withdrawn in Senate.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
I had the pleasure of interning for one of your Republican colleagues last year, and I would always cheer whenever seeing you in the news, because I learned while I was there that you were a true hero to the conservative movement. I have no doubts that you will continue to do the same into the future, and I would support you in a run for higher office if you are ever so inclined.
Once again, Senator, good work, and keep it up!
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
Excellent work on this Senator DeMint!
I'm also pleased that you have decided to support Mitt Romney for POTUS in 2008 as well.
Your wisdom is multi-demensional.
Romney seemed to like your actions as well http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/DeMint_Spending_Reform
You're endorsement letter for ROmney was also quite powerful and well thought out.
see: http://www.mittromney.com/img/pdf/387222Letter.pdf
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Thank you for this report. It is good to know you are watching out for us. You clearly understand that a major overhaul of the way Congress does business is long overdue. May you meet with continued success in such matters.