Discussion · Senate
Ron Johnson Republican
“I object to this request. The law being discussed is poorly written, and this change will not fix it. I support the president cutting this 810 million dollars. Our country is trillions of dollars in debt, and Congress spends too much money. Most of these cuts come from refugee programs that we no longer need because our border is secure.”
“Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to make two points. First of all, the law that is at stake here that we are discussing is the Impoundment Control Act--surprisingly, very poorly written. The good Senator from Oregon said that the Government Accountability Office--the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office--believes that pocket rescissions are illegal. Well, the fact is that is a reversal of their previous position. Every President since President Ford believed he had--or she had--that ability to do a pocket rescission. So, again, it shouldn’t surprise anybody that Congress wrote an awful law that is hard to interpret. It will probably all have to be sorted out by the Supreme Court. The modification that the Senator from Oregon is proposing certainly wouldn’t fix it. It certainly wouldn’t clarify it. If anything, it would probably even make it more murky. So that is one reason to object to this unanimous consent request. The other reason--this is probably the more important one--is this is a pretty small pocket rescission. Personally, I wish it was a lot larger. This storied Chamber--``Chambers’’ includes the House--has allowed this country to accumulate $40 trillion in debt with no end in sight. Over the course of the next 10 years, the total estimate of additional deficits and added debt is $26 trillion. So I personally am glad--I don’t care who the President is, out of what party. I will generally support that President reducing spending, and I would applaud it. So I am happy to allow the President to do pocket rescissions, other types of rescissions--whatever it takes--because Congress is certainly not fiscally responsible. But, in particular, this $810 million--that is what we are talking about, $810 million. That is not even pocket change in our budget. Seventy percent of it is for funding in HHS’s Refugee and Entrant Assistance Program. Now, the reason we can rescind that money is because President Trump secured the border. Under the Biden administration, they threw the border wide open, creating a clear and present danger to this Nation and also a clear and present danger to unaccompanied children. The Biden administration lost track of hundreds of thousands of children who were probably sold into involuntary servitude, sex slavery. That is what the Biden administration did with the help and abetting of the Democrat Members of Congress. So 70 percent of the $810 million--$567 million--is simply money we don’t have to spend to try and handle unaccompanied children that the Biden administration lost track of and probably got sold into horrific situations. That money doesn’t have to be spent, and it shouldn’t be spent. And I am glad that President Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought have recognized that and will do a pocket rescission so we don’t spend it. We can’t afford it. So those are the reasons that I am happy to object to this unanimous consent request.”
Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to make two points. First of all, the law that is at stake here that we are discussing is the Impoundment Control Act--surprisingly, very poorly written. The good Senator from Oregon said that the Government Accountability Office--the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office--believes that pocket rescissions are illegal. Well, the fact is that is a reversal of their previous position. Every President since President Ford believed he had--or she had--that ability to do a pocket rescission. So, again, it shouldn’t surprise anybody that Congress wrote an awful law that is hard to interpret. It will probably all have to be sorted out by the Supreme Court. The modification that the Senator from Oregon is proposing certainly wouldn’t fix it. It certainly wouldn’t clarify it. If anything, it would probably even make it more murky. So that is one reason to object to this unanimous consent request. The other reason--this is probably the more important one--is this is a pretty small pocket rescission. Personally, I wish it was a lot larger. This storied Chamber--``Chambers’’ includes the House--has allowed this country to accumulate $40 trillion in debt with no end in sight. Over the course of the next 10 years, the total estimate of additional deficits and added debt is $26 trillion. So I personally am glad--I don’t care who the President is, out of what party. I will generally support that President reducing spending, and I would applaud it. So I am happy to allow the President to do pocket rescissions, other types of rescissions--whatever it takes--because Congress is certainly not fiscally responsible. But, in particular, this $810 million--that is what we are talking about, $810 million. That is not even pocket change in our budget. Seventy percent of it is for funding in HHS’s Refugee and Entrant Assistance Program. Now, the reason we can rescind that money is because President Trump secured the border. Under the Biden administration, they threw the border wide open, creating a clear and present danger to this Nation and also a clear and present danger to unaccompanied children. The Biden administration lost track of hundreds of thousands of children who were probably sold into involuntary servitude, sex slavery. That is what the Biden administration did with the help and abetting of the Democrat Members of Congress. So 70 percent of the $810 million--$567 million--is simply money we don’t have to spend to try and handle unaccompanied children that the Biden administration lost track of and probably got sold into horrific situations. That money doesn’t have to be spent, and it shouldn’t be spent. And I am glad that President Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought have recognized that and will do a pocket rescission so we don’t spend it. We can’t afford it. So those are the reasons that I am happy to object to this unanimous consent request.