Senate blocks high spending budget 'caps'

On June 20, by a vote of 59 to 40, the Senate fell one vote short of the three-fifths supermajority (60 votes) that would have been necessary for adding budgetary caps as a rider on the Defense Authorization Act (S 2514).

Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.) proposed the amendment, which had the support of all Senate Democrats (eager to pass something resembling a budget for 2003) as well as eight Republicans. The bill would have capped spending to save the so-called Social Security "surplus" from being spent. Although the amendment sounded appealing, most Republicans found it actually ineffective.

"To get the government out of the business of using Social Security surpluses to fund other government spending, we have to strengthen our budget process," said Feingold.

Sen. Phil Gramm (R.-Tex.), however, raised an objection against the amendment, forcing the three-fifths vote. He explained that the amendment was actually a spending Increase cloaked in the language of budget restraint, because It would have set the spending level $9 billion above the level that President Bush had requested for the coming year. It proposed spending $52 billion above what was spent last year, and would have allowed $25.4 billion in advance appropriations. "Advance appropriations"-a form of creative budgeting reminiscent of WorldCom and Enron-style accounting-authorizes spending this year that will not be counted oil the books until the next fiscal year.

"The President does not want this, said Gramm. "This amendment is not about budget control. This amendment is about spending, pure and simple. If you want to spend more, you want this amendment."

A "yes" vote was a vote for an amendment to impose budget caps that would also have allowed higher government spending than the President has called for and employed questionable accounting practices In measuring the budget for fiscal 2003. A "no" vote was a vote against the amendment and was a vote upholding President Bush's position.

FOR THE AMENDMENT (59)

REPUBLICANS FOR (8): Chafee, Collins, Domenici, Gregg, McCain, Shelby, Snowe and Stevens.

DEMOCRATS FOR (50): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Breaux, Byrd, Cantwell, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Clinton, Conrad, Corzine, Daschle, Dayton, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Edwards, Feingold, Feinstein, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Miller, Murray, Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Reed Reid (Nev.), Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Stabenow, Torricelli, Wellstone and Wyden.

INDEPENDENTS FOR (1). Jeffords.

AGAINST THE AMENDMENT (401

REPUBLICANS AGAINST (40): Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Cochran, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Ensign, Enzi, Fitzgerald, Frist, Gramm, Grassley, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Specter, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner.

NOT VOTING (1): Helms.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Jul 22, 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved