Tom Carper

You need somebody out here in the government that is checking everything that is done with regard to security.

We have to have a group with robust powers to be a counterbalance to the argument for security.

I go back to 1982 Commission on Social Security which Congressman Hamilton, Senator McCain, and I voted for.

I am told that you have airport security officials who try to identify and prevent bad guys from getting on airplanes and causing trouble.

You have excellent reputations, and nothing you have said or done here today serves to demean those reputations.

Our relationship with the Islamic world is a huge foreign policy challenge, and will be for decades to come.

I promise we will do. That is an easy one.

I know it is extraordinary. And to your staffs. Thank you for standing up and saying, all right, this is where we draw the line.

The reason Senator Gregg and I reached the conclusion of no amendments is because in watching the process here, we have concluded if there are amendments, the Republicans will put up an amendment that will say, we will address the deficit…

If we do not rein in the growth of health care costs as we go through this process, we may extend coverage to people who do not have it, but we will not be able to sustain that extension of coverage for very long.

The Constitution does not give Congress a blank check to spend tax dollars on anything that it wants.

I think speaking from the Concord Coalition's point of view, the value in enhanced rescission is the deterrent effect it would have.

I really cannot understand why line-item veto is good enough for 41 States, but when it comes to the Federal level a much tamer expedited rescission authority is viewed by some as an unacceptable shift in power from one branch to another.

I am not sure I can say what the reasons are behind President Bush's decision.

I am not a prolific earmarker. I am actually a piker compared to most.

I would rather, if this is as aggressive as you can get through the House and Senate, then I would support it because any small adjustment there that even on the margin helps control it I think is a good thing.

I do not think it would be a major shift.

The threat of voting on a rescission would at least help to deter legislators from trying to advance wasteful spending in the first place.

One of the findings that you presented in your testimony is that line-item veto authority is used much more frequently during periods of economic stress and hardship.

Mr. Chairman, successive Presidents have asked Congress to provide them with the line-item veto.

I believe you said that he never used it in 8 years.

Do you think it is fair to say that if S. 907 was to pass, then for the bill to survive judicial review the courts would have to address the constitutionality of both fast-track authority and the President's existing rescission authority?

Senator Carper's bill also includes the same types that are in the Impoundment Control Act.

I thought maybe we are making better use of our rescission powers than the President.

As a percentage of GDP, our national debt stands today at almost 85 percent, a level I think exceeded only during World War II, during the past 70 years.