[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S4002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S4002]] LINE-ITEM VETO
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we hope later today to be bringing to the
floor the line-item veto. Senator McCain and I are leading that effort.
We are in final stages of negotiation as to the final form of the
legislation. It is something that has been discussed at length over the
past several years. Senator McCain and I have offered it alternately
and jointly several times. We have not been able to secure the
necessary 60 votes to break a filibuster on the line-item veto or to
secure a budget waiver.
This is the year we believe that it is time for the Senate and time
for the Congress to fulfill its commitment to the American people on an
item that an overwhelming majority of the American people support. Poll
after poll show the support for line-item veto in the 70 to 80 percent
range; 43 Governors enjoy the line-item veto and have for many, many
years and have effectively demonstrated that it works in their State.
Line-item veto is simply a measure by which the President can provide
a check and balance against the gaming that Congress has engaged in on
appropriations bills, in particular, and also on tax bills, I would
say, in terms of attaching an item that has not been exposed to the
light of debate on that item and a separate vote on that item, but has
been attached to an otherwise necessary appropriations bill or tax bill
that is being sent to the President.
Under the current law, the President has only one of two options:
Either accept the entire bill as it is written--sometimes it covers
thousands of items--either accept that or reject the entire bill. So
the President, in a sense, is being held in a position that some will
describe as blackmail but others will say is at least extraordinarily
difficult because it allows Members of Congress, when they see a
popular bill moving through the Congress, to attach an item that could
at best be described as pork barrel, an item that does not benefit the
national interest, but an item that goes to the benefit of a very
selected parochial interest.
We are annually embarrassed by the disclosure in the popular news
media of some of the items that have been attached to these bills.
Constituents say, ``How in the world could you pass that? How in the
world could you allow a grant that studies the well-being of America's
lawyers? How could you pass something that would allow the study of the
bathing habits of South American bullfrogs? How in the world could it
be made a priority the expenditure of money to refurbish the Lawrence
Welk Museum,'' and on and on and on it goes, schools in France, special
bridges, special buildings--items that go toward, I suppose, pleasing a
selected constituency in someone's congressional district or someone's
State, but certainly would not fall within the list of priorities and
receive, I believe, a majority vote if that specific item was debated
on the floor of the Senate and voted on.
But Members know, if a bill is rolling through here that provides
necessary funds for the Department of Defense, as this supplemental
appropriations bill we have been dealing with this week does, or a
measure provides earthquake relief or hurricane relief for either
California or Florida or other parts of our country, or if a measure
goes to fund something popular or needed or necessary health care
measures, veterans' benefits, whatever, they know that the President is
going to find it very, very hard to veto that entire bill to get rid of
the extra pork that is attached to that bill.
And so the President's only choice is to veto the whole thing and
sometimes, as a consequence of that, shut down the entire Government or
accept the bill, and more likely than not, he has to accept the bill.
Line-item veto gives the President the opportunity to say, ``I'll
take that bill, but I won't take this special interest provision that
is on line 16 of page 273, and I'm going to line-item veto that
particular item.''
This is a check and balance on what I would say are the egregious
habits of Congress to accomplish in the dark of night without the light
of debate, without the risk of a yea-or-nay vote on a particular item,
to accomplish something that could never be accomplished in full debate
and with a vote. It is designed to check that practice.
Congress, if it thinks that the President has not followed its
wishes, can bring that item up, because under the Constitution, if the
President vetoes an item, we can override that item. Yes, it takes a
two-thirds vote. It ought to be harder to spend the taxpayers' dollars,
particularly on those items that the executive branch does not think
are appropriate and have not had the normal process of authorization
and debate and vote so that their constituents, our constituents, know
where we stand on these particular items. That is the whole concept and
purpose behind line-item veto.
The President of the United States has supported line-item veto. Some
people have said, ``Why would Republicans want to give a Democratic
President the line-item veto?'' We think the Presidency deserves that
authority to check the excessive and unnecessary, unwarranted spending
habits of Congress that do not follow the normal procedures in devising
these spending items.
So we will be debating that. I expect the debate to be fairly fierce.
We probably will get a filibuster on our efforts. This is the year,
though, that if we are going to fulfill our commitment to the American
people to make substantive changes in the way we do business, this is
the year to do it.
We will hear all kinds of excuses about delegation of power and will
this really work and how much will this save. I guarantee you, it will
save more than if we do nothing. This is a debate between the status
quo, let us keep doing things the way we are doing them; oh, we will
promise to change, we will promise to do it differently, we will summon
the will, we will do what is necessary--no, we will not, because we
have not. Year after year, decade after decade, promises--just
rhetoric--no reality, no fulfillment of the promise.
This is the time. I am deeply and bitterly disappointed that we could
not pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That would
have provided the mechanisms by which we can eliminate this debt which
would force us to own up to our responsibilities, which we have not
done over the past several decades. But at the very least let us enact
line-item veto so that we can get at some of this problem and so that
we can restore credibility with the American people that we are
responsible in handling their money and we can eliminate this practice
of providing pork-barrel spending that never gets the debate it
deserves and is never subjected to a vote.
Mr. President, we will be talking a lot about that later. I think my
5 minutes has about expired. Given the fact no one was available to
speak, I thought it might be more interesting than a quorum call.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes.
____________________