On the recordFebruary 8, 2012
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, a lot of people have asked whether or not this bill is constitutional. Frankly, I think it is. I don't think there's much doubt about it. A lot of people have raised the point that it enhances the power of the Presidency. I don't think there is much question that it does do that. A lot of people have argued it's substantive, and there I have to respectfully disagree. There's nothing substantive about this legislation at all. We already have gotten rid of earmarks, don't use them anymore, and the Appropriations Committee has already shown that on its own it can cut spending. It's done it in 2 budget years in a single calendar year. The sad thing here is we had a chance to do something substantive. We had amendments offered by Ms. McCollum and myself that actually would have made tax expenditures in order to be reviewed, that actually would have looked at direct spending. Those amendments, unfortunately, were ruled out of order. Pursuing bipartisanship and providing Members with political cover at the expense of substantive policy, frankly, is unworthy of the Congress, in my view, and certainly of this majority. Our budget problems are serious. They deserve serious solutions. The Ryan budget is a serious solution. The 2006 legislative line-item veto bill, which included provisions to cover the very items that this bill does not, was a serious solution. This legislation, sadly, is not serious and ought to be rejected.…
