[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S4004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE FAMILIES FIRST BILL AND THE LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a couple of comments I wanted to 
make, a couple in response to the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota and also one concerning line-item veto.
  We heard from the Senator from Indiana many of the good things that 
would come in terms of accountability with the adoption of a 
responsible line-item veto for our procedure here in this Chamber. I 
suggest he may have overlooked one thing.
  It is true the President of the United States, whether he is a 
Republican or a Democrat, whether he is a liberal or a conservative, 
would be held accountable for those things in which he really believed. 
If you look at a spending bill that goes to the desk of the President 
of the United States that has 100 unrelated spending matters in it, 
there is pork for all the favorites, yet there may be something in 
there for veterans benefits. So he will stand up and say, ``I am 
against all this pork but I have to sign it because I am for the 
benefits for veterans. They are well deserved.'' If we had line-item 
veto, he can support those things he proclaims to support and reject 
those that he proclaims to reject.
  But the one thing that was not articulated by the Senator from 
Indiana is it also makes us more accountable, in that once you veto one 
item and that item is sent back to the Senate and to the House, it 
forces those Members to get on record so they can no longer answer 
their mail saying I was really against all those pork projects but I 
had to do it for the veterans.
  So I think the name of the line-item veto is really accountability 
for the President as well as for the Members of the House and the 
Members of the Senate.
  As far as the families first bill, I would only like to suggest, if 
one heard the complete presentation on this bill, he would see this 
could be accomplished and we could balance the budget by the year 2002, 
have the tax relief for the families, and at the same time have a 
slight growth in Government--not cut any Government programs.
  I think it was well articulated by the Senator from Minnesota that, 
if we had a 2-percent growth cap, this would accomplish what we are 
trying to accomplish. But when you look at some of the tax cuts that 
are going to be suggested in the families first bill, you have to go 
beyond the economics of it and look at the social aspects. It is a fact 
today that a family of four making $25,000, living together happily--if 
that family, the man and wife, should get a divorce and continue to 
cohabit out of wedlock, and each become the head of a household, they 
can increase their take-home pay by 13 percent. That is the issue we 
are trying to get to.
  The unfairness of the earnings test for our senior citizens in 
America--I have had people come to me in town hall meetings and say, 
``For the first time in my life I have been forced to be dishonest 
because I am not reporting income that I am making, because I do not 
think it is right for the Government to come along and say I cannot 
have the Social Security I was entitled to because I want to remain 
productive after age 65.''
  So I hope when people are considering the families first bill and the 
various tax cuts on the American family--all ages of that family--that 
they consider there are aspects other than economic aspects to be 
considered.
  Since the 1960's we have gotten ourselves into a position where 
families are no longer important, no longer relevant, no longer 
significant. This is what the revolution of November 8 was all about. 
We are going to reverse that.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am going to take some leader time. We 
are, hopefully, about to come to some agreement on the business of the 
day, but until that happens I have a statement I wish to make on 
another matter.


                          ____________________