[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4074-S4080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we begin discussion and debate on the 
line-item veto, I would like to express my appreciation to the majority 
leader for his assistance in gathering together people who have very 
different views on this very volatile issue. The majority leader and 
his staff assistant, Sheila Burke, have worked night and day to get a 
consensus amongst Republicans. I believe that we on this side of the 
aisle look forward to a unanimous vote--at least on cloture. I do not 
think that, at least some time ago, that many observers believed that 
was possible. I believe it is probable now.
   [[Page S4075]] Mr. President, I would also like to express my 
appreciation to Senator Domenici, who has a very longstanding 
involvement in this issue. He has some very strongly held views. But 
most importantly, Senator Domenici has been very important in shaping a 
compromise. Most of all, I would like to thank my friend from Indiana, 
Senator Coats, who has been my partner for many, many years on this 
issue. He has worked very hard. He has done, I think, a magnificent 
job, and I am very proud that he and I have been able to engage in this 
kind of partnership, which I believe will fundamentally change the way 
the Government does business and will fundamentally bring about changes 
and a restoration, frankly, of confidence on the part of the American 
people as to how their tax dollars are spent.
  Mr. President, there are many ways to interpret the election of 
November 8. There is no doubt in my mind, and in most observers' minds, 
that an overwhelming message was sent that the American people do not 
have confidence in their Government in Washington, and part and parcel 
of that lack of confidence is the way that we spend their tax dollars. 
Fodder for talk shows across America today is the indiscriminate pork 
barrel, wasteful spending practice that has become a way of life and 
indeed a disease which has consumed both bodies of Congress.
  Everyone has their favorite anecdote as to how we spend millions or 
billions or tens of billions of dollars on frivolous or unnecessary 
projects, frivolous or unnecessary items, that have no bearing on the 
purpose for which they are stated--but perhaps more importantly, would 
never, ever be authorized and appropriated under the normal procedures 
that the Senate should adhere to. What I mean by that is a hearing 
authorization and subsequent appropriation.
  I do not know how this vote is going to turn out at the end of a week 
or so. I am grateful that the leader has said that we intend to move to 
cloture at a fairly early point. We do not intend to drag this issue 
out. This issue is well known to every Member of this body. It 
certainly should be. On seven different occasions in the last 8 years, 
either Senator Coats or I have brought up this measure, although we 
have always been stymied in the past because a budget point of order 
has lain against the amendment. The reason for that is obvious. I was 
in the minority party.
  Now that we are in the majority, we are able to bring this measure to 
the attention of this body.
  And it is possible that we will not achieve 60 votes in order to cut 
off debate in order to move to amending and serious final consideration 
of the bill. I believe that we will reach 60 votes. But if we do not, I 
want to assure my colleagues again that I will continue to pursue this 
effort until I either succeed or leave this body.
  I want to point out an added dimension to this issue, Mr. President, 
and that is the role of the President of the United States.
  The President of the United States, in his booklet that he put out 
when he ran for President in 1992, ``Putting People First,'' said a 
line-item veto is a necessary item. Let me quote, Mr. President, from 
``Putting People First,'' Governor Bill Clinton on the line-item veto:

       I strongly support the line-item veto because I think it is 
     one of the most powerful weapons we could use in our fight 
     against out-of-control deficit spending.

  ``In our fight against out-of-control deficit spending.''
  Mr. President, shortly after President Clinton took office, I had a 
meeting with him. He said, ``I look forward to working with you on the 
line item veto.'' And, I must say, in the succeeding 2 years, I was 
disappointed that the White House refused to take a position in support 
of the line-item veto.
  I have heard public statements since the November election on the 
part of the President of the United States. I strongly urge his 
involvement in this issue if he believes in it, as he said he does, and 
I do believe that he is committed to it. I look forward to his active 
participation in this issue because it is clear that there will have to 
be 6 votes from that side of the aisle in order to reach the number of 
60, which is what is required in order to invoke cloture.
  Mr. President, we have a $4 trillion debt, approaching $5 billion. We 
have a growing budget deficit. We have misplaced priorities and, as I 
mentioned, we have a loss of public confidence and cynicism.
  Mr. President, we are going to hear a lot of history during this 
debate. We are going to hear about the days of the Greeks, the Roman 
Empire, Great Britain, our earliest days. But I want to talk about 
something that happened a little over 20 years ago.
  In 1974, the Congress of the United States enacted the Budget and 
Impoundment Act. The Budget and Impoundment Act basically prevented the 
President of the United States from impounding funds which were 
authorized and appropriated by the Congress of the United States.
  I understand why that happened at that time. We had a weakened 
Presidency and that President had also abused that impoundment 
authority to the point where billions of dollars, which Congress had 
appropriately authorized and appropriated, were being impounded and not 
spent.
  President Nixon was not the first President to do this. The first 
President to do this, from the record that I can find, was President 
Thomas Jefferson, who impounded $50,000 that the Congress had 
appropriated for the purchase of gunboats and he impounded that money.
  From the earliest times in our history, when impoundment was 
practiced by the President of the United States, until 1974, the 
President of the United States, for all intents and purposes, had a 
line-item veto power. In other words, he had the authority to not spend 
moneys and use so-called impoundment authority. In 1974, Mr. President, 
the Budget Impoundment Act was enacted.
  Mr. President, it is not a coincidence--it is not a coincidence--if 
we look at this chart, that beginning around 1974-75, the deficit began 
to rise. There obviously are a couple of valleys in it, but the overall 
trend is not only significant but it is clearly alarming.
  What happened, Mr. President? I think it is clear the real restraint 
on the appropriations process and the appropriations of funds, which 
really had no real fiscal governing on it, took place, and we went from 
fundamentally a rather small deficit and accumulated debt to one which, 
as we know now, is approaching $5 trillion.
  And the bad news is, as we know, Mr. President, that as a result of 
actions taken in the last few years by Congress, there will be a 
temporary decline in the annual deficits, but never a decline to zero. 
And, tragically, because of a variety of reasons, the deficit will 
start on a very steep upward climb, and there is no end in sight of 
deficits. And this year, Mr. President, we are going to spend more 
money to pay interest on the national debt than we are on national 
defense.
  Now, if someone had said in 1974, when a much larger proportion of 
the budget was devoted for national defense than it is today, that 20-
some years later we would be paying more in interest on the national 
debt than we are on national defense, they would have thought that we 
were actually inhaling wrong and incorrect substances. The fact is that 
it has happened. The fact is it is approaching $5 trillion, and we are 
beginning to hear the confidence in the American economy translated in 
the stock market, but, most of all, translated in the strength of the 
American dollar which is being eroded because of the burgeoning debt 
that has been accumulated. And, again, as I said, there is no end in 
sight.
  Mr. President, later next week, probably on Tuesday, the majority 
leader will be offering a substitute which will contain a couple of 
additional items to supplement S. 4, which is the result of the 
consensus amongst those people who are interested in the bill. Let me 
briefly explain the details of the measure that will be proposed by the 
majority leader.
  It will direct the enrolling clerk to enroll each item where money is 
allocated to be spent in an appropriations bill as a separate and 
distinct bill. This would allow the President to sign or veto each 
item.
  Number two, it would also mandate that any language in a report to 
accompany an appropriations bill that specifies how money be spent must 
be 
[[Page S4076]] included in the bill itself. Further, if the report 
contains direction on how Federal funds are to be spent and the 
legislation itself does not, a point of order would lie against the 
bill.
  Mr. President, this legislation would enable the President to veto 
pork-barrel spending and other nonpriority spending
  without sacrificing appropriations for important and necessary 
functions of the Government.

  This bill would allow the President to use his constitutional right 
to veto legislation in order to prevent wasteful, unnecessary spending. 
It is a simple, but very necessary approach to help solve the problem 
of wasteful spending in this era of crippling Federal budget deficits.
  Mr. President, pork-barrel politics is certainly not a new phenomenon 
in our Republic. However, given the systemic damage inflected on our 
economy by Federal deficit spending, it is unacceptable that Congress 
should still expect the taxpayer to continue underwriting our addiction 
to pork. The political appeal of pork-barrel spending has clearly lost 
its luster as the people have come to recognize the gravity of our 
fiscal dilemma. The failure of a Speaker of the House and the chairmen 
of powerful committees to be returned to office is stark testimony to 
the people's determination that the cost of pork-barrel spending to the 
Nation greatly exceeds its value to them individually.
  As usual, Mr. President, the people have grasped the essence of this 
Faustian bargain well in advance of Congress' common understanding of 
the conflict between immediate political gratification and the progress 
of our civilization. Parents sacrifice for the future well-being of 
their children. Certainly, parents are willing to dispense with 
temporal pleasures if payment for those pleasures would require their 
children to live in greatly diminished circumstances from those into 
which they were born. That is, of course, the Faustian bargain that 
wasteful Federal spending represents. Why is it, Mr. President, that we 
expect American parents to prove more selfish with regard to the 
squandering of their children's national inheritance than they are when 
husbanding the family's wealth?
  I know that Senators opposed to this bill will declaim eloquently on 
the indispensable contribution that public works projects have made to 
America's development as a great nation. I will not argue the fact. But 
neither will I accept that all public works projects have been 
necessary or even defensible expenditures of public resources. Today, 
the near insolvency of the Federal Government requires that all Federal 
spending meet much stricter standards of need than have governed 
congressional appropriations in the past.
  Mr. President, let us review the facts regarding our Nation's fiscal 
health.
  The Federal debt is approaching $5 trillion.
  The cost of interest on that debt is now almost $200 billion a year. 
That is more money than the Federal Government will spend on education, 
science, law enforcement, transportation, food stamps, and welfare 
combined.
  The Federal budget deficit set a record of $290 billion in 1992.
  By 2003, the deficit is expected to leap to a staggering $653 billion 
and will have reached its largest fraction of gross domestic product in 
more than 50 years.
  Mr. President, it is impossible to exaggerate the urgency with which 
we must restrain the further, reckless descent of this Nation into 
bankruptcy. Nor can we take much comfort from our past attempts at 
restraining spending. The simple and unavoidable fact is that following 
each of the last major budget deals, the deficit increased, spending 
increased, and taxes increased.
  No remedy to our escalating debt proposed by Congress or the 
Executive has been adequate to the task. Neither, Mr. President, will 
the line-item veto--even if exercised vigorously by the President--be 
sufficient means to secure the end of deficit spending. But of this I 
am confident: without the discipline imposed on Congress by a 
Presidential line-item-veto authority, we will forever spend more money 
than the Treasury receives in revenues. Opponents of this measure will 
resent that charge, but the examples of Congress' inability to live 
within the Nation's means--even in the midst of fiscal crisis--are 
simply too numerous for me to conclude that Congress will meet its 
responsibilities without some measured restoration of the balance of 
power between the Congress and the executive branch.
  Mr. President, I might point out that for the last 10 years, as I 
have been a supporter of the line-item veto, some who are perhaps a bit 
cynical have said, ``You would probably not support the line-item veto 
if it was a member of the other party who was President of the United 
States.'' I am here on this floor today to State unequivocally, I am as 
fervently in support of a line-item veto under this President or any 
other President no matter what that President's party affiliation might 
be.
  Mr. President, it will be very hard to measure the exact effects of a 
line-item veto, because when a line-item veto is threatened we will 
find a dramatic reduction in the kinds of anecdotal appropriations 
which have plagued this body's reputation with the American people.
  No longer, Mr. President, will we see $2.5 million appropriated to 
study the effect on the ozone layer of flatulence in cows. No longer 
will we see billions of dollars appropriated out of the defense account 
on items that have nothing to do with national defense.
  The reason for that is because before that is tucked into an 
appropriations bill, Mr. President, there is the great fear that that 
piece of pork will be exposed to the light of day by the President of 
the United States and there will be time for something to be done about 
it. One of the great tragedies and dilemmas I faced over the years is 
that I always seem to find out most of the egregious aspects--most, not 
all, most--of the egregious aspects of pork in appropriations bills 
after they are passed.
  That has to do with the system in which we do business, and perhaps, 
with the lack of efficiency on my part. Time after time after time, I 
have seen appropriations bills, and much to my astonishment, seen items 
in there which are egregious.
  If it is believed that there is a strong likelihood that the 
President of the United States would highlight that particular item, 
send it to the Congress of the United States with all the attendant 
publicity and veto it, and then ask the Congress of the United States 
to examine it in the light of day

 and debate it, I do not think we will see those kinds of examples, Mr. 
President.

  I do not think we will see that. Time after time, we have seen the 
amendment that is accepted on both sides--not read, then accepted on 
both sides--and then placed in as a line in an appropriations bill. I 
believe that, and I am convinced that nowhere will we be able to total 
up how much of those will be prevented from appearing in an 
appropriations bill.
  Ending deficit spending is, of course, a monumental undertaking that 
will involve asking all, including many powerful coalitions, to 
sacrifice immediate and parochial rewards for the greater good of the 
Nation. The line-item veto--whether it is derived from enhanced 
rescission or separate enrollment--is a small, but indispensable part 
of real budgetary reform.
  Mr. President, if we are to take control of the budget process we 
must change the process. We must restore what has come to be an 
imbalance in the checks and balances between the executive and 
legislative branches, and we must balance the power between the 
congressional authorizing committees and the Appropriations Committee.
  Now is the time to rise above jurisdictional rivalries and political 
turf wars. We must avoid letting institutional pride deprive the Nation 
of an effective response to the critical problems clouding our future. 
And most importantly, we must stop the microscopic focus on local wants 
and desires to the exclusion of national needs. Now, Mr. President, is 
the time for statesmen who--for the sake of the Nation which our 
children will inherit--are prepared to relinquish some of the personal 
power they have accrued through their service to the Nation.
  We must reinstitute budgetary restraint and take firm action to 
control 
[[Page S4077]] spending. This will involve implementing specific 
strategies and standing behind a commitment to decrease spending--no 
matter what the political climate. This will involve accepting one set 
of budgetary goals and not allowing them to float or be adjusted.
  Mr. President, one glaring example of our failure to resolutely 
adhere to spending discipline is the alteration-beyond-all-recognition 
of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit targets. The Congress had sought 
when it passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to impose mandatory 
spending caps on the Congress. During recent years, however, these 
fixed budget targets have become relaxed and are now meaningless.
  Mr. President, when push came to shove, the Congress allowed these 
ceilings to be altered. Due to the pressure of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings on 
the Congress to curtail its deficit spending, the Congress curtailed 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. As a result, the 1990 Budget Act was passed and 
new higher targets were established.
  Now, 4 years into that agreement, deficits and domestic spending are 
being allowed to increase without penalty, despite the massive cuts in 
defense and huge tax increases. The problem of ending the deficit, 
although mentioned frequently and solemnly in our political discourse 
as the Nation's first priority, has yet to be addressed seriously by 
this or any previous Congress.
  The only solution to our budgetary problems and our profligate 
spending habits is substantial process reform. One key aspect of that 
process reform is the line-item veto. Mr. President, I implore those 
who say there is no need for the line-item veto to listen to the 
arguments in support of that authority made by Americans of varied 
experiences and political persuasions who are united only in their 
concern for the fiscal health of the nation.

       Ross Perot on Good Morning America stated: ``There's every 
     reason to believe that if
      you give the Congress more money, it's like giving a friend 
     who's trying to stop drinking a liquor store. The point is 
     they will spend it. They will not use it to pay down the 
     debt. If you don't get a balanced budget amendment, if you 
     don't get a line-item veto for the president, we might as 
     well take this money out to the edge town and burn it, 
     because it'll be thrown away.''

  Then-Governor Clinton on Larry King Live: ``We ought to have a line-
item veto.''
  Candidate Bill Clinton in Putting People First: ``Line-Item Veto. To 
eliminate pork-barrel projects and cut government waste, I will ask 
Congress to give me the line-item veto.''
  President Bill Clinton in his Inaugural Address:

       Americans deserve better * * * so that power and privilege 
     no longer shout down the voice of the people. Let us put 
     aside personal advantage so that we can feel the pain and see 
     the promise of America. Let us give this Capitol back to the 
     people to whom it belongs.

  According to the CATO Institute, December 9, 1992, Policy Analysis:

       Ninety-two percent of the governors believe that a line-
     item veto for the President would help restrain federal 
     spending. Eighty-eight percent of the Democratic respondents 
     believe the line-item veto would be useful.
       America's governors and former governors have a unique 
     perspective on budget reform issues. Most of them have had 
     practical experience with the line-item veto and balanced 
     budget requirement in their states. The fact that most 
     governors have found those budget tools useful in restraining 
     deficits and unnecessary government spending suggests that 
     they may be worth instituting on the federal level.

  Additionally from the CATO Institute Study:

       Keith Miller (R), former Governor, AK: ``The line-item veto 
     is a useful tool that a governor can use on occasion to 
     eliminate blatantly ``pork barrel'' expenditures that can
      strain a budget. At the same time he must answer to the 
     voters if he or she uses the veto irresponsibly. It is a 
     certain restraint on the legislative branch.''
       Michael Dukakis (D), former Governor, MA: ``The line-item 
     veto is helpful in stopping efforts to add riders and other 
     extraneous amendments to the budget bill.''
       L. Douglas Wilder (D), Governor, VA: ``To the detriment of 
     the federal process, the President is not held accountable 
     for a balanced budget. Congress takes control over budget 
     development with its budget resolution, after which, the 
     President may only approve or veto 13 appropriations bills. 
     Without the line-item veto the President has minimal 
     flexibility to manage the Federal budget after it is 
     passed.''
       S. Ernest Vandiver (D), former Governor, GA: ``Tremendous 
     tool for saving money.''
       Ronald Reagan (R): ``When I was governor in California, the 
     governor had the line-item veto, and so you could veto parts 
     of a bill. The President can't do that. I think, frankly--of 
     course, I'm prejudiced--government would be far better off if 
     the President had the right of line-item veto.''
                     the greater threat of inaction

  Mr. President, many have characterized this legislation as a 
dangerous ploy to centralize political power in the hands of the 
Executive. Since the President has no authority to appropriate money 
for projects he believes are important, he will always have abundant 
incentive to compromise with Congress. Such compromises will always be 
necessary for the President to govern at all and will, of course, 
prevent the unlikely danger of a tyranny emerging at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue. Congress will still dispose of whatever the 
President proposes and thus the checks and balances which distinguish 
our Republic will remain secure.
  What the opponents of this measure often ignore is the greater danger 
presented by our out-of-control budget process.
  For instance, as my colleagues know, I believe one of the most 
dangerous consequences of pork-barrel spending is its weakening of the 
national security of the United States. I do
 not make that charge lightly. As thousands of men and women who 
volunteered to serve their country have to leave military service 
involuntarily because of declining defense budgets, money is still 
found in defense bills to underwrite billions of dollars worth of 
nondefense spending in the defense bill. At a time when we need to 
restructure our forces and manpower to meet our post-cold war military 
needs, we have squandered billions to build projects on bases that are 
slated to be closed.

  Mr. President, every Member of Congress has pursued projects for his 
or her district or State which may lack obvious merit. It is an 
institutional problem. There are no saints here of my acquaintance. 
Certainly, I am not one. I have been guilty in the past of pursuing 
projects in my State. But the supporters of this measure are trying to 
change this system that has so clearly failed the country. We are 
trying to make a difference. I am not here to cast aspersions on other 
Senators who secured projects for their States. I am not here to start 
a partisan fight.
  But it serves no one--not the Members of this institution nor the 
people we represent--to ignore or attempt to obscure our individual and 
collective responsibility for the piling up of $3.7 trillion in debt. 
We have done this. And while we have often done this in the name of the 
people we serve, those very people believe we have done it to sustain 
ourselves in power. And those people, Mr. President, are not buying it 
any longer.
  Anyone who feels that the system doe not need reform need only 
examine the trend in the level of our public debt. As I have stated in 
my analysis of the most recent budget plans, the deficit has continued 
to grow and spending continues to increase. In 1960, the Federal debt 
held by the public was $236.8 billion. In 1970, it was $283.2 billion. 
In 1980, it was $709.3 billion. In 1990, it was $3.2 trillion, and it 
is expected to near $5 trillion this year.
  With line-item veto authority, the President could play a more active 
role in helping to prevent the further waste of taxpayers' resources 
for purposes that do not really serve our national security needs, our 
infrastructure needs, and other important purposes that merit public 
support.
  According to a recent General Accounting Office [GAO] study, $70 
billion could have been saved between 1984 and 1989, if the President 
had a line-item veto--$70 billion.
  The line-item veto will, indeed, change the way Washington operates. 
I know that very admission will provide grounds for some Members to 
oppose this measure. As I previously noted, I am completely confident 
that the constitutional distortions which some opponents fear the line-
item veto will cause will not occur.
 But there will be change. Unnecessary parochial spending will decline. 
Thus, this change that we should all welcome.


    return to the views of the founding father and the constitution

  Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that a President empowered 
with a veto was not considered a threat 
[[Page S4078]] to our Republican form of Government by the Framers of 
the Constitution.
  This bill in no way alters or violates any of the principles of the 
Constitution. It preserves wholly the right of the Congress to control 
our Nation's purse strings--a trust the Congress has sometimes abused. 
On the contrary, this legislation helps sustain the sound checks and 
balances which provide enduring protection from tyranny.
  The veto was designed by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the 
President retains the authority to govern should Congress exceed the 
bounds of responsible stewardship of the Nation's wealth.
  According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 73 the views of the 
Founding Fathers on Executive veto power are as follows:

       It [the veto] not only serves as a shield to the executive, 
     but it furnishes an additional security against the inaction 
     of improper laws. It establishes a salutary check upon the 
     legislative body, calculated to guard the community against 
     the effect of faction, precipitancy, or any impulse 
     unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence 
     a majority of that body.

  Given Congress' predilection for unauthorized and/or pork-barrel 
spending, omnibus spending bills, and continuing resolutions, it would 
seem only prudent and constitutional to provide the President with 
functional veto power.
  The President must have more than the option of vetoing a spending 
cut bill and shutting down Government or simply submitting to 
congressional coercion.
  The authority provided him by this strictly defined and limited line-
item veto will not fundamentally upset the balance of power between the 
executive and legislative branches. It is consistent with the values 
expressed in our Federal Constitution.
  The President is given very limited power by this bill. It is limited 
to appropriation bills and it can only be exercised for a limited time 
after the passage of an appropriations bill.
 Congress is guaranteed--by the Constitution--the opportunity to 
quickly overturn the President's veto. Opponents speak of their alarm 
over the prospect of Presidential coercion. But does any Member truly 
believe that Members--irrespective of their political affiliation--
would not unite in opposition to a President who was attempting to 
abuse his powers. When has any Congress failed to do so in the past? 
Did not a majority of Congress--including many members of the 
President's party, oppose President Roosevelt's attempt to pack the 
Supreme Court? Did not a majority of Congress, including most members 
of the President's party, join in opposition to President Nixon's abuse 
of his office? I have no doubt, whatsoever, that Congress would not 
submit to extortion from a President with line-item veto authority. 
They would expose the President's coercion, and overturn any offensive 
rescission.

  Charges that the President would abuse this power are also misleading 
and unfounded.
  Again, I will rely upon Alexander Hamilton, who posed this question 
to his contemporaries in Federalist No. 73:

       If a magistrate so powerful and so well fortified as a 
     British monarch would have scruples about the exercise of the 
     power under consideration, how much greater caution may be 
     reasonably expected in a President of the United States, 
     clothed for the short period of four years with the executive 
     authority of government wholly and purely republican?

  Mr. President, the Constitution gives each House the power to set and 
establish its own rules. Additionally, the Constitution does not define 
the term ``bill.'' Therefore, what constitutes a bill, or a matter to 
become law that is presented to the President, may be defined by the 
Congress in any way that it sees fit. The Constitution did make clear 
that any type of measure passed by both Houses must be presented to the 
President.
  For example, if a bill were named an ordinance, it would still have 
to be presented to the President. As reinforced in the Chadha versus 
INS case, anything with legal standing adopted by Congress must be 
presented to the President. The form of the presentment is up to the 
discretion of the Congress as a function of its internal rulemaking 
ability. Therefore, Mr. President, it is clear that division of a bill 
into separate parts is an internal rule change, and not a presentment 
issue.
  Some will claim incorrectly that this bill violates the delegation 
clause of the Constitution. The delegation clause is not applicable 
here since the Congress is not delegating any power. It is merely 
adopting rules to change the manner in which it sends certain 
legislation to the President.
  Others will claim that the Presentment Clause mandates that 
legislation be passed by both Houses in the same form before it is sent 
to the President, and that Separate Enrollment by a clerk after the 
passage of the legislation therefore changes the form of the 
legislation and violates the Presentment Clause.
  This charge is also untrue. Changes made to a bill strictly of a 
technical nature due to the mechanics of the process of enrolling a 
measure have never been considered a change to a bill. Further, such 
technical changes would never merit subsequent action by either House. 
Lastly, let me point out that the Senate on the first day of session 
traditionally, authorizes the Enrolling Clerk--as an employee of the 
body--to make technical corrections as necessary to bills sent to the 
Clerk.
  Additionally--and very importantly--the precedence for separate 
enrollment has already been established by the House of 
Representatives. The House has rules that ``deem'' a measure or matter 
as passed. The Gephardt rule states that when the House passes the 
concurrent budget resolution, the debt limit increase is deemed to have 
been passed by the entire body. The rule authorizes the Clerk to 
incorporate language into the concurrent resolution regarding the debt 
limit. Note that the budget concurrent resolution is not even a bill, 
yet the House enrolling clerk enrolls in it the entirety of another, 
never considered measure.
  Another argument against this bill is that we cannot delegate 
legislative powers to the Enrolling Clerk and separate enrollment would 
do precisely that.
  Once again the critics of this bill are incorrect. Separate 
enrollment gives no additional power or authority to the enrolling 
clerk. The Congress, within its ability to establish its own rules and 
instruct its employees on their duties, is prescribing certain limited 
activities to the clerk, not transferring any power to an unelected 
official.
  To summarize, Mr. President, this legislation is constitutional and 
should be allowed to move forward.


         presidential power used to implement budgetary reform

  Congress' infidelity to sound fiscal policy was aggravated in 1974 by 
the Budget Control and Impoundment Act. If opponents of the line-item 
veto are seeking an example of a dangerous transfer of political power, 
they can end their search with that power grab by Congress. 
Specifically, the Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974 weakened 
executive power by allowing the Congress the legal option of ignoring 
the spending cuts recommended by the President through simple inaction.
  Since 1974, the Congress' attitude toward presidential rescission has 
been one of increasing neglect.
  President Ford proposed 150 rescissions, and Congress ignored 97. 
President Carter proposed 132 rescissions, and Congress ignored 38. 
President Reagan proposed 601 rescissions, and Congress ignored 134. 
President Bush proposed 47 rescissions, and Congress ignored 45.
  If the Congress had accepted the 564 presidential rescissions that it 
has ignored since 1974, $40.4 billion would have been saved. This is 
not a trivial sum to the taxpayer, even if it is to Washington 
veterans.
  The practice of ignoring presidential rescissions is in contrast to 
the practice prior to the 1974 act. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, 
Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all impounded funds that Congress had 
appropriated for line item projects.
  These modern Presidents were not alone in their exercise of 
rescission power. In 1801, President Jefferson refused to spend $50,000 
on gunboats as appropriated by Congress. He, of course, had good 
reason. When the gunboats were appropriated, a war with Spain was 
considered imminent. The war never materialized, and the threat posed 
by Spain ended. As these circumstances changed, Jefferson thought it 
was within his power to eliminate 
[[Page S4079]] what had become unnecessary spending.
  The money for gunboats was not spent, and money was not appropriated 
in 1802 for the gunboats.
  Clearly, the Union did not fall because the President refused to 
waste the taxpayers' money.
  Until 1974, our Presidents had the power to decide whether 
appropriated moneys should be spent or not. It is indeed true that 
President Nixon abused the power of impoundment. But the abuses of one 
man do not require us to permanently deny all Presidents the authority 
to restrict spending.
  Again, let me quote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 73 on the 
role of executive veto power in our system of checks and balances:

       When men, engaged in unjustifiable pursuits, are aware that 
     obstruction may come from a quarter which they cannot 
     control, they will often be restrained by the apprehension of 
     opposition from doing what they would with eagerness rush 
     into if no such external impediments were to be feared.

  Those opposed to this legislation should consider that sound
   observation when contemplating the importance of some of the 
``unjustifiable pursuits'' that find their way--irresistibly--into 
every appropriations bill passed by Congress.

  Let me return to the broader picture of process reform. Many 
opponents claim that a President with line-item veto authority would 
not have any real ability to balance the budget or even significantly 
reduce the deficit. I will make no claims that this bill is the answer 
to all our budgetary problems.
  As I earlier stated, the line-item veto is only one of many needed 
tools in our efforts to restore the Nation's financial health. With 
roughly $1 trillion of entitlement spending in a budget of $1.5 
trillion, it is clear that a line-item veto will not solve all of our 
fiscal difficulties. Only a Congress with a political will not 
characteristic of recent Congress' will be able to balance the budget.
  A President dedicated to restraining Federal spending could use line-
item veto power as an effective tool to reduce Government spending and 
move closer to a balanced budget than we are today.
  The GAO study makes my point. A President with line-item veto 
authority could have saved the American taxpayer $70 billion since 
1974.
  A determined President may not be able to balance the budget--only 
the voters can ultimately control Congress--but a determined President 
could make substantial progress toward real spending reduction.
  As we continue to confront enormous budget deficits and annually 
search for ways to reduce spending, it is obvious that there our 
efforts will require the service of a President whose line-item veto 
authority has been restored. With our public debt expected to approach 
$3.9 trillion this year and a gross domestic product of roughly $5.7 
trillion, it seems quite probable that our debt may soon surpass our 
output. Unless we decide to simply wait for the moment when this 
growing crisis begets a movement for stronger measures that really will 
threaten constitutional principles, we ought not decry those reasonable 
and constitutionally sound measures that will help us control the 
greatest threat facing our Republic.
  With that in mind, I hope the Senate would consider the following 
quote by a figure in the Scottish Enlightenment, Alexander Tytler. He 
stated:

       A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. 
     It can exist only until a majority of voters discover that 
     they can vote themselves largesse
      out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the 
     majority always votes for the candidate who promises them 
     the most benefit from the public treasury, with the result 
     being that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal 
     policy.

  It is to prove Mr. Tytler wrong that I ask my colleagues to support 
this bill. If our debt surpasses our output, I fear Mr. Tytler will be 
proved correct, and the recognition of his powers of prophecy will mean 
that the noblest political experiment in human history will have ended 
in failure.
  This bill is only a small step toward preventing the arrival of such 
a dismal calamity for this country and mankind. But it is a necessary 
step. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. President, we are going to have a lot of detailed debate on this 
issue. Some may appear to observers to be esoteric and somewhat minute. 
There are significant questions about the constitutionality and the 
other aspects of this bill as far as its applicability ranging from how 
much money it would save to whether it directly violates the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. President, I do not claim to be a Constitutional expert. I do 
claim to have been involved in this issue now for 10 years. I do claim 
to have read and discussed with eminent Constitutional scholars this 
entire issue, and I am convinced that any argument on Constitutional 
grounds can be easily rebutted.
  The question, however, will be, is the Congress of the United States 
prepared to transfer significant power from the legislative branch of 
Government to the executive branch of Government for the sake of the 
future of our children? Is the Congress of the United States, 
especially those Members who are in more powerful positions than 
others, prepared to do what is necessary?
  We cannot live with that deficit. Our children and our children's 
children will be called upon someday to pay that bill. And if we do not 
start now to reduce that deficit, an exercise in fiscal sanity, we will 
not only threaten our children's futures but we will continue to 
increase the cynicism that exists in America today about the profligate 
way we spend the taxpayers' dollars. There is no confidence in America 
today that the Congress of the United States spends that money in a 
wise fashion.
  Mr. President, that is not my personal opinion. Poll after poll after 
poll concerning this issue confirms that statement. When people lose 
confidence in their government, then very bad things can happen because 
then, over time, they search for other means of governing or they 
search for other people or parties that they think can govern better.
  On this side of the aisle, as the Presiding Officer well knows since 
he is a newly arrived Member of this body, having come from the other 
body, I believe we made a promise to the American people. We made 
several promises. Those promises were embodied in the Contract With 
America. The crown jewels of the Contract With America in my opinion--
others may differ--were a balanced budget amendment and a line-item 
veto. Unfortunately, recently the Senate failed to enact a balanced 
budget amendment. The reasons for it have been well discussed and 
dissected in every periodical in America so I do not intend to go into 
the reasons why. But the fact remains the American people, in 
overwhelming majorities, are deeply disappointed that we did not have 
the courage, we could not muster 67 or two-thirds of the votes in this 
body to make that happen and send that measure to the States for their 
ratification.
  Now we are confronted with a second duel and that is the line-item 
veto. It is going to be a close call. It is going to be very, very 
close, as to whether we can obtain the 60 votes to get cloture or not. 
I do not know if we will be able to achieve that.
  I know I am willing, and those of us who are supporters are willing 
to negotiate with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and try 
to satisfy concerns they have. Obviously, we will not negotiate the 
principle of two-thirds majority override but we certainly would be 
willing to talk about ways in which we can protect Social Security, for 
example, and make sure we do not do damage to those who are least 
fortunate in our society.
  At the same time, when all this concern is voiced about those who are 
unfortunate in our society and cannot defend themselves--the elderly, 
the children, the poor, the homeless, those who are ill--the fact is if 
we do not do something about that, we cannot help any of them. If we do 
not stop this deficit spending there is no way we can help the people 
who need help in our society, because we will be spending all our money 
on paying off a debt or we will debase the currency through inflation, 
reduce the national debt but at the same time destroy middle-income 
America. We will be faced with those two choices.
  Again I want to say, the line-item veto will not balance the budget. 
But I hasten to add the budget will not be balanced without a line-item 
veto. That graph over there is a compelling 
[[Page S4080]] argument to validate my argument, my statement. Between 
the years of this Nation's birth, which are not on that chart, up until 
1974, roughly, our deficit was either a slight one or nonexistent. 
Beginning in 1974 and 1975 it skyrocketed off the charts.
  For 10 years, Senator Coats and I have been working on this issue. 
For 10 years we have brought up this issue before this body, unable to 
do anything but ventilate the argument, ventilate the issue, talk about 
it and debate it, knowing full well that the Senator from West Virginia 
or the Senator from Oregon were going to pose a budget point of order 
and we would not succeed in that effort and we would be doomed to try 
again another day or another year.
  I believe this is the defining moment for this issue. I believe we 
should engage in extended and in-depth debate in a manner and 
environment of respect for one another's views. At the same time, I 
believe if we lose this battle we are sending a message that we are 
willing to do away with our children's futures and any opportunity for 
fiscal sanity.
  Before I yield the floor I again would express my appreciation to my 
dear, dear friend, Senator Coats, who has been, many times, the one who 
has helped restore my spirits after we have suffered defeat after 
defeat and encouraged me and himself. I hope I have encouraged him from 
time to time to stay at this very critical battle even at the risk of 
bruising friendships and relationships we might have with others in 
this body, and even at risk of appearing somewhat foolish from time to 
time as we jousted with a windmill in the form of a majority on the 
other side in full recognition we could not succeed.
  But I say to my friend from Indiana, I do not know if we would be 
here today if we had not done all the things we did for the past 10 
years. Without his help and friendship I do not believe we would be 
here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, my understanding is that under the 
unanimous consent agreement time is managed by the Senator from 
Arizona. The Senator from Alaska has asked for 5 minutes of time in 
which--or more if he wishes--to introduce some legislation. I think if 
the Senator from Arizona will yield that time I think it would be 
appropriate at this time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska 
whatever time he needs to consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Indiana 
and the Senator from Arizona. I find myself in an a position this year 
of applauding the leadership they are giving to this subject of the 
line-item veto. I will be making a statement on that tomorrow.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 575 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                          ____________________