[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      REGARDING S. 14, THE LEGISLATIVE LINE-ITEM VETO ACT OF 1995

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, year after year, billions of the taxpayers' 
dollars are larded across the Nation for pork barrel projects created 
at the behest of our fellow Members.
  This is nothing new. Each session, Congress persists in passing 
appropriations bill groaning with this type of spending for individual 
projects in a Members home State or district.
  Pork barrel spending has become a symbol of political prowess and 
effectiveness. Members can stump back home, claiming that they have the 
clout to deliver these projects to their constituents.
  Although some of these projects no doubt have their merit, pork 
barrel spending has become an emblem of out of control spending. Pork 
is Congress' shameful scarlet letter.
  Ideally, Congress should exhibit the type of self-restraint and 
sacrifice that would swiftly put this wasteful practice to an end. We 
owe that to future generations of Americans and to our commitment to 
continue to reduce the deficit.
  However, I am a realist and I know that while some Members would 
voluntarily refrain from pork barrel spending, others would continue 
with business as usual.
  Mr. President, the American people are fed up with business as usual. 
It's time to change the Nation's spending habits.
  The President is also faced with an enormous dilemma. These pork 
projects are carefully woven into the appropriations legislation, or as 
Senators Bradley and Domenici have rightly observed, through targeted 
tax credits and expenditures in revenue acts. The President cannot 
simply pull out one thread without unravelling the entire bill. He does 
not have that authority.
  The President must look at each bill as a whole, determining whether 
to accept the bad with the good--whether the bad outweighs the good. 
More often than not, it's a case of the President holding his nose and 
signing the spending bill.

  The obvious solution is to grant the President the line-item veto. 
Today, 43 of the 50 State Governors have some form of veto authority. 
As Governor of the State of Nebraska, I was privileged to have the 
line-item veto authority. To me, it was an invaluable weapon in my 
arsenal to effectively control the spending of my State legislature.
  I have long believed that the President too should have this power to 
challenge wasteful Government spending and keep us on the path of 
deficit reduction. All but two Presidents in the 20th century have 
supported some type of line-item veto authority. It's not time; it's 
past time we granted the President this power.
  Mr. President, in previous years, I have championed efforts to amend 
the Constitution to allow for a line-item veto. I have led the charge 
to give the President enhanced rescission powers.
  Over 7 years ago, I worked with then Senator Dan Quayle in sponsoring 
a porkbuster enhanced rescission proposal. I also supported an 
amendment by my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain 
that would have granted the President greater rescission powers.
  It is a somewhat melancholy task to come to the Senate floor year 
after year seeking these powers for the President and then to come away 
empty handed. The McCain amendment garnered only 40 votes--far short of 
the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster that would surely occur on 
any such proposal.
  I have come to the sad conclusion that proposals such as these stand 
little if any chance of becoming law. But that does not mean that we 
should allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Through 
compromise--a bipartisan compromise--we can still move forward on this 
issue. As such, I am an original sponsor of the legislative Line-Item 
Veto Act.

  The bill would change our current rescissions process by giving the 
President the authority not to spend specific funding included in the 
appropriations bills.
  Upon making a decision to rescind certain spending, the President 
would then be required to seek congressional approval. If Congress does 
not agree by at least a majority vote--not a super majority--in both 
Houses, the funding is released.
  Members are less likely to pile on the pork in the appropriations 
bill if they know that they might have to defend each item on its own 
merits.
  Mr. President, there are some critics who argue that the savings 
reaped from such a proposal will not make a significant dent in the 
menacing budget deficit; but that is a feeble excuse to oppose these 
efforts.
  Of course, a single bill is not going to solve the budget deficit in 
and of itself, or erase a $4.5 trillion debt. These problems did not 
occur overnight and they will not be solved overnight. There are no 
quick fixes, silver bullets or panaceas. We should not rise to these 
shiny lures.
  I believe that those who think clearest about reducing the budget 
deficit realize that we will solve the problem in an incremental 
fashion. We will solve it in a bipartisan fashion.
  In the coming weeks I look forward to working with the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee Senator Domenici to move this 
legislation. I also plan further discussion with Senator Bradley of the 
Finance Committee as to whether we should include rescission authority 
over tax expenditures as well.
  What is demanded of us now is to push the process forward to a speedy 
and successful conclusion. This bill is the vehicle of compromise that 
will carry us to the finish line.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________