FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Isakson Votes to Give President More Power to Force Congress to Eliminate Wasteful Spending
Voices Disappointment at Senate’s Refusal to Pass Amendment

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) today expressed disappointment after the Senate refused to end debate and allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment to allow the President to force Congress to take a second look at wasteful federal spending.

The procedural vote failed 49 to 48. Senate rules required 60 votes to proceed, ending consideration of the amendment for now. Isakson is a co-sponsor of the amendment.

“This amendment was an 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,” Isakson said on the Senate floor. “This country has a serious deficit problem, and it has had a serious spending problem. This amendment does not give a President unilateral authority. Enhanced rescission places the responsibility on the President to delineate a mistake and forces Congress to affirm if in fact it was a mistake.”

Congress passed a line-item veto bill in 1996, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. The 1996 bill allowed the president to cancel, but not reduce, spending items in budget bills.

The amendment Isakson co-sponsored would have given the President more flexibility by allowing him to send up to four rescission packages to Congress per year, forcing Congress to take a second look at discretionary or mandatory spending items the President deems wasteful.  Congress would have been required to fast track the President’s recommendations within eight days, and, unlike the previous 1996 line-item veto proposal, the amendment would have required Congress to affirm the President’s rescission package with a simple majority vote.

Savings from the President’s rescission packages approved by Congress would have been required to be used for deficit reduction. The President’s authority to offer the rescission packages also would have ended after four years so Congress could re-evaluate its merits and decide whether to continue it.

###