[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4295-S4301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, under the order, the freshmen have an hour 
reserved this morning to talk about the line-item veto. I am happy to 
join in that.
  The first to present views will be the president of the class, the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  I yield him as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding this time 
on this very significant subject.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I have been listening attentively to the discussion 
that has been taking place in the Chamber on the line-item veto. I 
think there may be some misconceptions floating around as to who really 
wants a line-item veto and how much they want it, and who perhaps does 
not want it.
  I have heard over and over again, as I was sitting in the chair where 
the President pro tempore is presiding, Senators standing up and 
saying, ``Our President, President Clinton, wants the line-item veto. 
We need to give it to him so he will have the ability to veto those 
items and spending bills that are out of line.''
  I suggest that, even though the President has made the statement, ``I 
want a strong line-item veto bill and I want it very soon,'' that that 
is the same thing he said about a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. And we were to find out later that he was the one who led 
the opposition to the balanced budget amendment on the telephone, 
lobbying those Democrats who had previously committed themselves to a 
balanced budget amendment. I suggest this may even be happening today.
  The reason I say that, Mr. President, is not to make an attack on 
President Clinton or to question anything that he has said. But the 
idea of the President having the ability to use this new device, a 
line-item veto, to take top spending things, pork items, out of a bill 
does not seem to make any sense to me.
  If you look back to 1993, when President Clinton came up with his 
budget and tax hike, it was characterized by many people, including 
Patrick Moynihan, as the largest tax increase in the history of public 
finance or anyplace in the world. It was a $267 billion tax increase, 
with all kinds of spending increases. The taxes went back retroactively 
to January of 1993, and that is the first time I can remember that 
happening. It increased the top rate to 36 percent. Then it went in and 
started taxing Social Security recipients.
  Now, this was kind of interesting because in arguing against the 
balanced budget amendment, they were trying to use Social Security as 
the argument against the balanced budget amendment when in fact this 
President in 1993 increased dramatically the taxes on Americans' Social 
Security. Of course, it was not a good argument anyway, because if we 
do not do something to get the budget under control, 
[[Page S4296]]  whether we use the balanced budget amendment or line-
item veto or anything else, there will not be anything left in Social 
Security anyway in another 15 years.
  In that same bill, he increased the taxes on gasoline by 4.3 percent. 
He increased the corporate rate up to 36 percent. And in spite of all 
the increases in taxes, 267 billion dollars' worth, it would increase 
the debt by $1.4 trillion over a 5-year period.
  My question would be: Would he have line-item vetoed any of those 
items? No, because this was his bill.
  Then he came out with the stimulus plan. This was a $16.3 billion 
increase in spending, with all kinds of pork. I was very happy that a 
filibuster, led by Senator Dole, was successful in giving him his first 
defeat.
  But if you look at what he tried to pass--a $1 billion summer jobs 
program; $1.1 billion for a variety of items, such as AIDS and food 
distribution; a $1.2 billion subsidy to Amtrak and to subways and light 
rail packages that are located in the districts of certain friendly 
people, I suspect; a $2.5 billion pork-barrel bunch of items--swimming 
pools, parking lots, ice rink warming huts, an Alpine ski lift, and 
other pork-barrel projects.
  Now, the question is, if this had passed and he had the ability to 
use a line-item veto, would he have done it? No. The answer is a 
resounding no, because this is what he was promoting.
  So, I think that we need to look at this in a little different 
context, and that is, we are going to have one of two different kinds 
of Presidents of the United States. Either we are going to have one 
like President Clinton, who is the biggest tax-and-spend President in 
contemporary history, or in a couple of years, when this agony is over, 
we are going to have a conservative President.
  Now, regardless of whether we have a Democrat or Republican, or a 
conservative or liberal, a line-item veto is very helpful to us. 
Because if it is a liberal President who is for taxing and spending, 
such as our current President, then this takes away his excuse for 
signing big spending bills.
  What have we seen historically in this country? We have seen bills 
coming in with 25, 30, or 50 items unrelated to each other, all this 
pork, such as that which was included in his stimulus bill, and he 
says--

       I have to sign it, because if I do not, we will not get the 
     veterans' cost-of-living adjustments or we will not get a 
     Social Security adjustment, or something that people want, 
     and that is good and is consistent with the philosophy and 
     the desires of a majority serving in both bodies.

  So this would take away the ability of someone who is trying to use 
that for an excuse to pass pork-barrel legislation so that he could not 
do it, and would make him accountable.
  Let us say we have a conservative President. It would work equally 
well there, because a conservative President could go through and he 
could line out this pork stuff and could send it back for an override.
  I will conclude by saying that we often overlook the real reason for 
a line-item veto. It is not that it is going to be the cure-all. It is 
not going to balance the budget. It is not going to do all these 
things.
  It is a vehicle to be helpful. However, what it does do is make the 
President and the House and the Senate accountable. If we have a 
liberal President or a conservative President, that President will have 
to be accountable for his acts, because with this ability to line out 
items and veto specific items, a President can no longer say that he 
has to do it.
  Then the glorious thing about it is it goes to the House or the 
Senate and there is a veto attempt to override, and that way we have to 
go on record--Members of the House, Members of the Senate, and the 
President.
  None of those now have to be accountable to the people back home. I 
have often said, none of this silliness, the foolishness that goes on 
in Washington would happen if people were held accountable for their 
acts. That is exactly what the line-item veto would do. So regardless 
of what kind of President we have, regardless of the philosophy of 
Congress, a line-item veto does make Congress accountable. And that 
serves the American people best.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me simply say I endorse this notion of 
accountability. If there is anything that is necessary in this 
Government and something that this bill will help to do, it is 
accountability.
  I yield now to the Senator from Pennsylvania for as much time as he 
may consume.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Wyoming, and I appreciate the 
indulgence of my friend, Senator Grams, from Minnesota, who has let me 
jump ahead to speak.
  I have just two major points to make here this morning. One of the 
reasons I wanted to come down here, one of the reasons the freshmen 
were so excited about talking about this line-item veto bill, because 
this is actually a bill where the Senate version of the Contract With 
America bill is actually stronger than the House version. The Senate 
bill is actually a tougher bill, is actually a bill that goes after 
more spending, that provides more power, in fact, to the President, to 
keep Congress in check here of providing pork or other kinds of 
preferential treatment to selected individuals or institutions in this 
country.
  That is an exciting thing to stand here on the Senate floor and argue 
for. I am very pleased with the work that was done by the folks here, 
Senator Domenici, Senator McCain, Senator Coats, and Senator Stevens, 
in putting this bill together. It is a stronger bill.
  It does not just go after appropriations or annual appropriations, 
which all the traditional line-item veto bills have done. But it goes 
after what are called tax expenditures, or tax provisions that are 
targeted at specific individuals or specific companies. It does not go 
after tax cuts. It allows tax cuts to go into place without threat of 
Presidential lining out, but it does go after sort of those favored 
treatment things, those little goodies that have slipped into tax bills 
that heretofore have never been included in any line-item veto 
proposal.
  It goes after entitlement spending. New entitlement spending is now 
separated out so we can have an opportunity to go after that which has 
never before been done. This is a much better bill, one that I think 
everyone can be supportive of, and I think we will get strong support.
  My final comment is I just hope that this institution does not 
disintegrate, as it did on the balanced budget amendment, into playing 
partisan politics on things that people in the past have agreed to. I 
have a list of Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who, in the 
last 4 or 5 years, have voted consistently in many cases for line-item 
veto bills, for bills similar to this one--like the Bradley bill a few 
years ago, which got, I think, 16 Democratic supporters.
  This is a bill that should and was drafted to attract bipartisan 
support. If this bill does not succeed on cloture today--if we have a 
cloture vote today, which I anticipate, I guess we will--if it does not 
succeed, it is not because the other side does not agree with what we 
are doing. It is because the other side does not agree to do anything 
and they want to play partisan politics and put partisanship above 
policy and the better future for our children and for this country.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would just like to say briefly, I think 
it is significant that the freshmen have joined together in the Senate 
to come to speak again on this issue. Most have indicated our support. 
I think this is a demonstration of those who are newly elected who are 
taking a look, first, at what the voters said in November; and second, 
are not encumbered by the debates that have gone on here before, but 
rather are interested in making some changes in process so that there 
can be changes in results.
  I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments during this 
very important debate over the line-item veto to remind my colleagues 
here in the Senate of the revolution that is taking place next door.
  In the House Chamber, our colleagues are making history. They are 
throwing out 40 years of bloated, irresponsible government and 
replacing it with new 
[[Page S4297]]  ideas, a new spirit, a new partnership with the 
American people.
  They have passed the balanced budget amendment in the House. They 
have passed regulatory relief and legal reform. They have voted to 
strengthen our national defense, to crack down on crime, and to rein in 
Government spending.
  In fact, so far, they have passed every piece of legislation they 
promised to pass in the Contract With America. At the breakneck pace 
the House is keeping, our colleagues there will meet their self-imposed 
100-day deadline and still have a week to spare.
  People back home ask me what it is like to be part of this 
revolution. I say, ``I don't know, because I am in the Senate.'' The 
House is passing history, and too often all we seem to be passing is 
time.
  We would like to tell ourselves we are the more deliberative body, 
that here in the Senate, passion is tempered by prudence. Nobody is 
going to ride roughshod over the Senate, we boast. But not meeting our 
responsibilities is not a new definition of being deliberative. Maybe 
what we are doing is exactly what our Founding Fathers intended 
Congress to do. But maybe, though, some just did not hear the message 
in November, when Americans took the promises of the Contract With 
America with them to the polls, and there they cast their ballots for 
change.
  ``But I did not sign any contracts. I haven't even read it,'' I heard 
some of my Senate colleagues protest. Maybe not. But he might just as 
well have, Mr. President, because when the American people think about 
the U.S. Congress, there is no thick, black curtain separating the 
House from the Senate. They just see Congress, and it is Congress as a 
whole--not just the House of Representatives, not just House 
Republicans--that will be held to the promises in the contract.
  Of course, if the American people seem a little suspicious when it 
comes to our promises, well, maybe they have a right to be. We have 
already let them down once this year. The first plank in the contract, 
the Fiscal Responsibility Act, calls for a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution. The House passed it, but the Senate voted it down. 
Even though 85 percent of the American people said they wanted it, and 
said our financial future may depend on it, we voted it down.
  The voters have a right to be furious. They thought we had promised a 
balanced budget amendment. Now, how can we possibly explain that it was 
really the House, not the Senate, without sounding a lot like political 
trickery?
  Try to explain that Congress as a whole does not have to balance its 
budget, that somehow Congress is special, or it can act irresponsibly 
and it does not affect the taxpayers of this country.
  The Fiscal Responsibility Act now also calls for a line-item veto. 
Again, a vast majority of Americans, 64 percent of them, consider the 
passage of a line-item veto as a high or a top priority. It is one of 
the bold print provisions of the Contract With America--a 
nonretractable promise--and it, too, has already passed in the House. 
But like the balanced budget amendment, it may also face trouble here 
in the Senate.
  Now, Mr. President, whether they like it or not, Senate Republicans 
are tied to the legislative coattails of the Contract With America 
right alongside our House colleagues, because it is what Americans want 
Congress to do.
  Senate Democrats will be held accountable as well, because for the 
most part, the American people do not care whether a certain piece of 
legislation is a Republican bill or whether it is a Democratic bill. 
They care about legislation that is going to help their families and 
protect the future for their children and their grandchildren.
  Now, the line-item veto is one of those bills, a bill that is not 
about politics, a bill that is simply about doing the right thing. If 
we do our job right, young people will someday hear stories about how 
the revolution of November 8, 1994, transformed the Nation. Old timers 
will look back to this Congress and wonder at the courage that it took 
to effect such a tremendous change. Or maybe the 104th Congress will go 
down in history as one-termers who promised change but failed to 
deliver.
  If the line-item veto and the $500 per child tax credit go the way of 
the balanced budget amendment, you can guess what the history books 
will be saying about us.
  Mr. President, this is your contract, this is my contract, this is 
America's contract, and whether my Senate colleagues signed it or not, 
this is their contract, too.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the tree of liberty is nourished by 
elections, which water and grow the process of good government. Last 
November, we got a real shower. The people of the United States of 
America said that they wanted us to change the way we do business in 
Washington, DC. They wanted us to live by the laws that we established 
for others, and so we provide for congressional accountability. They 
wanted us to stop telling State governments and city councils how to 
spend their money. Soon, S. 1 will be signed into law by the President. 
But there is another very important aspect of what the people told us. 
They said they wanted us to live within our means, like every household 
must live within its means.
  Last month, we failed to pass the balanced budget amendment. It was a 
tragedy, but that was the loss of a battle, not the war. Now, the 
American people are waiting--and the world community is waiting--to see 
whether or not we, as a government, will live within our means, as well 
as embrace the kind of tools which will allow us to get the job done.
  Every kitchen table in America has a line-item veto, Mr. President. 
We sit down with the resources we have and we look at the list of 
things we would like to buy, and we scratch off the things we can't 
afford. That is the line-item veto. It is that simple.
  It means nothing more than saying that we will not spend money we do 
not have, and we will mark through things which we cannot afford. 
Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has never seen it that way. We send 
the President a great big wish list and indicate that he has to either 
throw away the entire list or else sign it into law. Ridiculous. Few 
Americans would approach the kitchen table and say, ``If we can't have 
the frills, we don't want the food.'' We all know that there are 
things, both good and bad, that we can't always afford.
  So it is important for us to respond to the voters' desire to change 
the way Washington works. The American people have spoken. They have 
spoken clearly. It is time now for us to act.
  Now, there are a variety of voices being raised against the line-item 
veto. While these voices are loud, they are also misleading. They have 
been saying that if we have the line-item veto or the balanced budget 
amendment, we will hurt Social Security.
  Mr. President, the biggest threat to Social Security is a Nation 
which does not have the fiscal and financial integrity to address and 
deal with its national debt. When we force the President to have an 
all-or-nothing approach to the budgets we forward, we increase the 
likelihood of fiscal mismanagement.
  This has several negative effects. First, it increases the interest 
that we pay to service the debt. A 1-percent rise in interest rates on 
the national debt costs us $35 billion a year. Second, it decreases 
confidence in the dollar. We saw what happened when we failed to pass 
the balanced budget amendment. When people are insecure about America's 
economy and about our fiscal discipline, they are less likely to 
finance our debt. In the end, it is our inability to meet these fiscal 
obligations that is the single greatest threat to Social Security.
  Another argument against the line-item veto, Mr. President, is that 
it would impair the rights of children; that somehow, if we have fiscal 
integrity and financial management, we will hurt our children. The 
truth of the matter is that we are spending the yet unearned wages of 
the next generation today. We are destroying their future. 
[[Page S4298]]  We are eroding the financial foundation of the country 
that they will ultimately lead. We are mortgaging their future, and it 
is wrong. We need a strong country that will provide a foundation and 
framework in which those children can be prosperous. The line-item veto 
would help do just that.
  Mr. President, others have argued that we are eroding the 
Constitution. I, however, would argue that the Constitution came into 
existence as a protest against the improper taxation of Americans 
without representation. If we do not control spending, we are taxing 
the next generation. If we have a balanced budget and if we move toward 
it with a line-item veto, we are acting in a way that is entirely 
consistent with the actions and the intent of the Framers.
  This is the U.S. Senate. It is not a packing house. This debate is 
not about the Constitution, it is a debate about whether we are a 
packing house, or a place of public policy.
  So, we must recognize the voice of the people in their call for 
change. We must provide the President an opportunity to knock out 
inappropriate spending without vetoing an entire bill. We must protect 
Social Security with financial integrity. We must protect our children 
by not mortgaging their future. We must protect the idea of the 
Constitution by not taxing the next generation without representation. 
We must eliminate pork. We must, in the end, serve all the people.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Ohio for 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support 
for the legislative line-item veto. The line-item veto will be a very 
effective tool in helping this country achieve a balanced budget.
  Let us be clear, though, Mr. President. This is not some sort of 
magic potion that is going to solve all of our problems. We are going 
to be faced with very, very difficult choices that we as Members of the 
Senate and House will have to make in the upcoming months in regard to 
our budget. But while it is not a magic potion or magic wand, it is a 
reasonable, rational tool, a tool that will help us achieve this very 
important fiscal goal. This legislation will give the President the 
power most Governors already have, the power to cut wasteful spending 
items and special tax breaks out of the budget.
  I believe, though, that this power which most Governors have today 
and which I hope the President will have after we pass this bill is 
valuable not because of what the Chief Executive actually vetoes. 
Rather, the true importance of the line-item veto lies in its value as 
a deterrent. I believe the passage of this bill will change the climate 
in which Congress operates just as it has affected the climate in which 
most of our State legislators operate.
  Think of all the wasteful taxing and spending provisions that will 
never be included in legislation, never be included simply because 
Congress knows that the provision will not stand up to public scrutiny, 
will not stand up to scrutiny in the light of day.
  This I believe is the real value of the line-item veto at the State 
level, and it would be equally valuable at the Federal level.
  Talk to the Governors. My colleague from Missouri, who just sat down, 
was a Governor, and he outlined for us several days ago some of the 
provisions that he had to veto as a Governor and why he made those 
decisions and how he felt that was an effective tool. Governors I have 
talked to say the same thing.
  When you really pin the Governors down, what they will tell you 
usually--it is what Governor Voinovich has told me--is that the value 
of the line-item veto is not so much in what they do veto but, rather, 
in the fact that the legislature does not put certain items in the bill 
because they know the Governor has that veto, and so that is really the 
true value, it is the value of the deterrent.
  Frankly, I do not expect to see a huge number of vetoed items when we 
pass this legislation. We may, but I do not think so. The very 
existence of the line-item veto will prevent these items from ever 
being included in these bills in the first place.
  Mr. President, I know there are some of our colleagues who are 
concerned that any form of a line-item veto would effectively transfer 
power from this body and from the House to the executive branch, to the 
President. I understand those concerns. But I think if we look at this 
from a historical point of view, what we will really find is that the 
passage of this legislation is merely restoring the balance of power to 
where it was many, many years ago.
  As a practical matter, I believe passage of this bill will return us 
to the situation that originally existed in Congress when Presidents in 
the early days of this country were presented with simpler and shorter 
bills. I believe the Framers of the Constitution had that in mind when 
they wrote the Constitution, and when the original provision about the 
veto was put into law.
  Over the last several decades, the Federal legislative process has 
really gotten out of hand. For too long the process has been distorted 
and perverted by the practice of enacting huge omnibus bills which the 
President is forced to accept or reject in their entirety. This 
historic change I believe has been for the worse.
  Appropriations bills, tax bills, entitlement bills, the passage of 
these bills is followed, many times within a week or two, by a story in 
the paper outlining all the hidden projects, all the hidden provisions 
that somehow were put in a bill at the last moment, maybe in a 
conference committee. If these special projects or special tax breaks 
had to stand alone in the clear light of day, they simply would not 
withstand public scrutiny and, quite frankly, would never be included 
at all.
  The line-item veto will help take us back to the original legislative 
process, an original legislative process in which we can count on the 
President to represent the national interest in deciding on the value 
of legislation. Today the President is hindered in this important 
constitutional duty. He must either accept or reject outright these 
huge taxing and spending bills that contain literally thousands of 
separate line items. Some of the line items, Mr. President, are 
necessary. Some are desirable but not necessary. Some are questionable, 
and some are downright indefensible. Congress regularly says to the 
President take it or leave it. If you think the national interest 
requires the passage of some of what is in the bill, you have to sign 
all of the bill.
  By now we are all familiar with thousands of examples of Federal 
spending items, special tax breaks that would never have been approved 
if those responsible for them were truly held accountable to the 
American people. The line-item veto is tailor-made to solve this 
problem. Eleven former Presidents have endorsed it. Forty-three of our 
Nation's Governors have it, and it works. In 1992, the Cato Institute 
surveyed current and former Governors, and 92 percent of them believed 
that the line-item veto would help restrain Federal spending.
  I think they are right. That is why I will be voting for the 
legislative line-item veto.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I think it is interesting and important that the newer Members of the 
Senate have come here today to talk about the line-item veto. They have 
talked about accountability, accountability in Government. Nothing can 
be more important than that.
  They have talked about change, change based on issues, not change 
based on partisan political things.
  They talked as well about responsibility of the President to take a 
look at these items as they are returned from Congress. They talked 
about the fact that families do this every day. Families have to set 
priorities. Families have to go through their budget and say here are 
some things that are less important than others, we cannot afford them 
all, and we have to line-item veto.
  They have talked about business as usual, which I guess is a 
reasonable thing and predictable thing for new Members of the Senate to 
talk about because they have not been a part of business as usual. 
Indeed, they came here--having talked about these issues at home, 
having talked about them 
[[Page S4299]]  with the voters--with a dedication to change. They 
talked about items that appear in large budgets that are passed because 
they are in large budgets, that would not pass on their own merits, 
that would not even be considered if they were to stand alone.
  So I think it is important that this point of view be stressed. I 
think it is important this group of Senators who come with a little 
different view of the world, perhaps, in terms of not having been here, 
express their views in these particular areas.
  We have the Senator from Michigan, who will be here shortly.
  This is one of the items that does speak to change, one of the items 
that we have been considering and we are hopeful there will be passage 
of this week. We are hopeful that some accommodation will be made.
  Let me talk a little bit, however, about the broader context, it 
seems to me, that line-item veto fits into. We have talked about it for 
a week. I suspect we will talk about it for much of this week. It has 
been talked about last year. It has been talked about in previous 
years. It is not a new item, not a new issue. We have talked about the 
details. Maybe it is useful to talk a little bit about how it fits into 
a broader context, and to understand that it does have something to do 
with the overall role of Government, the overall size of Government, 
the overall impact of Government on people's lives.
  There is a legitimate difference. There is a legitimate reason to 
have debates about the things that go on here. There are those who 
believe more Government is better; that the Government should be 
expanded; that there should be more spending; that the Government 
should have more programs. There is another point of view, the one that 
I share, the one that I think was the message of this November's 
election. That is the Federal Government is too big and that it costs 
too much and that it is overly intrusive into all aspects of our lives.
  That is a legitimate debate. In fact, that is the core of much of the 
debate that goes on here, what you perceive to be the role of 
Government and what, indeed, then, goes with that. If you see more 
Government, then there are going to be more regulations. If you see 
more Government there are going to be more taxes, or more debt, or 
both. But, in fact, if you see the role of Government as one of a 
referee, one whose primary responsibility is defense, and ensuring 
fairness, ensuring opportunity, then you see the Government as somewhat 
smaller, as something less intrusive. And that is really the underlying 
debate in much of what we talk about, the role of Government--and, of 
course, who pays for it.
  That has been true in the procedural issues that we have talked 
about, the issues that have to do with changing the process, with 
changing the structure of the way decisions are made. Frankly, if you 
expect to have a different result you are going to have to do something 
different. If you want to continue to do everything in the same way as 
you have in the past, then the expectation is the results are going to 
be the same. If we continue to use the same process there is no reason 
to expect that the debt or the deficit is going to be smaller.
  We will be voting this summer on a new debt limit. That new debt 
limit will be $5 trillion or more--$5 trillion debt. Each of us as 
citizens shares in that debt. The interest payment on that debt will 
soon be the second largest item, line item in the Federal budget. This 
year I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of $260 to $265 
billion interest on the debt. So the procedural things we have talked 
about have to do with changing the results.
  The balanced budget amendment is a procedural change, one that in my 
view needs to be made. Line-item veto, another of those--not to balance 
the budget, it will not balance the budget--but it changes the 
character of budget considerations; it changes how you look; it changes 
some of the responsibilities.
  We have to change budgeting, change it so we start from a base that 
is the same as last year's spending, not a baseline that goes up. That 
is what has caused much of the discussion around the country, that 
everything is being cut. The fact is it is not being cut. There was a 
group in my office yesterday talking about an educational program, 
about the cuts. The fact is the cut is 25 percent of the increase. It 
is not a cut. But based on budgeting it seems to be a cut. So we 
continue to spend more with the sort of notion that we have had a cut, 
and indeed we have not had a cut at all, we have had an increase.
  These are the kinds of changes that do need to be made. Line-item 
veto needs to be there because things are done differently. Someone the 
other day on the floor showed an early--150 years ago--bill on 
appropriations: On one page. On the other hand, we looked at one that 
is 2\1/2\ pounds now.
  My favorite story, of course, is always the Lawrence Welk Museum that 
is in the highway bill. In the House we had no opportunity to talk 
about the Lawrence Welk Museum. We did not want to vote against the 
highway bill. The Lawrence Welk Museum would have never gotten any 
attention at all had it had to stand on its own merit, but it was there 
and line-item veto is what that is all about.
  So we do have big bills. We have big deficits. And the fact of the 
matter is it is difficult. All of us have a certain parochial interest. 
That is the way it is. I represent Wyoming. The President represents 
Vermont. We all have a parochial interest, and should. So we are for 
things that are for our State. It is very difficult to be against 
somebody else's proposal, because you want their help. That is a fact 
of life. It is a fact of life. So we do need a line-item veto. And 
there are pork-barrel activities.
  So, Mr. President, it begins to be increasingly important that we do 
take a look at these structural changes. The argument that we do not 
need to change things, we can just change them because they should be 
changed--the evidence does not support that. How many years has it been 
since we balanced the budget--25? Maybe five times in 50 years? So that 
does not work.
  Now is the time to make that tough decision. And we have an 
opportunity here to do that. We have an opportunity to pass a bill that 
has had support in this Chamber, more than enough to pass it, and now 
is the time.
  Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Arizona for as much 
time as he may consume.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding 
this time to me. I appreciate his work on trying to finally get this 
line-item veto passed.
  Mr. President, I think most people agree that the top priority of the 
Federal Government today is to reduce the size of the budget deficit. 
Not to do so is to relegate all of us--especially our children--to a 
lower standard of living.
  Balancing the Federal budget will not be easy. Some popular programs 
will have to be cut. Others will have to be eliminated as Congress 
finally begins to set priorities--to distinguish between needs and 
wants--just like families across America must do every day.
  When a family runs short of money, it does not sacrifice food from 
the table or the roof overhead to go to the movies every weekend, to 
buy new furniture, or put a new stereo in the car. The choices that a 
family has to make are often far more difficult--whether to buy new 
clothes for the kids or supplies for school; whether to buy food or 
medicine; whether to fix the roof or repair the car. When resources are 
limited, the family eliminates the extras and then tries its best to 
meet its basic needs. Even that can be trying. The head of the 
household has to make tough choices that will not necessarily be very 
popular with the rest of the family, but that is what it takes to try 
to make sure the family can survive and prosper.
  Like the family, the Federal Government cannot satisfy every want; it 
cannot even answer every need. With interest payments on the national 
debt eating up a substantial part of the Federal budget--about $300 
billion this year alone--we are finding ourselves with less and less 
every year for many basic Government programs. Hurt most are those who 
are dependent upon Government services--the poor and the elderly--and 
our children and grandchildren whose future will be marked by a lower 
standard of living as they struggle to pay off the debts we are 
accumulating today.
  [[Page S4300]] The line-item veto is no panacea, but it is an 
important first step in gaining control over the budget.
  Mr. President, this is the ``1995 Congressional Pig Book Summary,'' a 
list of 88 projects that will cost taxpayers more than $1 billion. 
Compiled by the nonpartisan organization, Citizens Against Government 
Waste, it represents just a fraction of more than $10 billion in pork-
barrel spending that the group identified in last year's appropriations 
bills. These are the kinds of projects that are likely to be the target 
of a line-item veto: Russian wheat aphid and swine research; highway 
demonstration projects; civilian sporting events funded out of the 
defense budget; and a program that has used funds in the past for a 
golf video and pony trekking centers in Ireland.
  These are the kinds of projects that are typically hidden away in 
annual spending bills. They are enough to demonstrate legislators' 
ability to bring home the bacon and curry favor with special interest 
groups back home. But, they usually don't amount to enough to prompt 
the President to veto an entire bill bringing large parts of the 
Government to a standstill in the process. The result, as Citizens 
Against Government Waste put it, is that it all adds up to a raw deal 
for taxpayers.
  The line-item veto is designed to bring accountability to the budget 
process. Instead of forcing the President to accept wasteful and 
unnecessary spending in order to protect important programs, it puts 
the onus on special interests and their congressional patrons. It 
subjects projects with narrow special interests to a more stringent 
standard than programs of national interest. After a Presidential veto, 
the special interests would have to win a two-thirds majority in each 
House.
  That is the shift in the balance of power which the line-item veto 
represents. It is a shift in favor of taxpayers, and it is long 
overdue. If the government were running a surplus, the taxpayers might 
be willing to tolerate some extra projects. But the Government is 
running annual deficits in the range of $200 billion for as far as the 
eye can see. There is no extra money to go around. There is not even 
enough to fund more basic needs.
  Mr. President, when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule of 
thumb is to stop digging. Our Presidents have indicated a willingness 
to use the line-item veto--begin climbing out of the hole we have dug 
for ourselves and future generations. Let us pass the line-item veto.
  Mr. President, I want to conclude by complimenting my colleague from 
the State of Arizona, Senator John McCain. He has worked for about 10 
years in opposition to pork-barrel spending on the floor of the Senate. 
He accumulated what he calls an enviable record of defeat. Frequently, 
his efforts to cut out pork are defeated by almost 2 to 1. But he keeps 
at it, and over the years he figures that, while he may not have won 
every vote, his efforts to bring to light some of these projects may at 
least have prevented some Members from inserting this pork in the 
appropriations bill in the first instance because of the fear that they 
might be embarrassed if their special-interest projects are brought to 
light.
  That is what the line-item veto would do. It not only gives the 
President the ability to line out projects that have been inserted, but 
it provides a disincentive for Members to put those projects in the 
bill in the first instance because now, with the President being 
capable of lining them out and bringing them to public attention, 
Members know that they had better be able to defend everything that 
they ask to be inserted into these bills.
  So it has a good effect on Members and their constituents, who come 
to them asking for special interest projects to say, ``Maybe in the 
past, I would have been able to do this, and I would like to do it to 
be of help to you, but you know that if we do it, all of the world will 
know that the President could line it out, and then I would have to get 
two-thirds of my colleagues to override the veto. Do you really want 
that much public attention paid to this special project?''
  So there is a deterrent effect, if you will, in the line-item veto. 
That is one of the things that John McCain has talked about when he has 
stumped for this proposal in the last 10 years. I think a great deal of 
credit goes to Senator Coats, Senator McCain, and most recently, 
Senators Stevens and Domenici, who had different points of view but got 
together with the supporters of this basic version of the line-item 
veto proposal to work out a compromise that is acceptable to virtually 
all.
  The President is supportive of the line-item veto. All of the 
Republicans are ready to call an end to the debate at the appropriate 
time, and have a vote on the line-item veto. We certainly call on our 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle who support frugality in 
Government and understand we need to balance the budget and want to end 
pork-barrel spending to support us in this effort to vote for the line-
item veto.
  Mr. President, I see that my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist, 
is here. I am sure he has some comments on the subject, as well. If the 
Senator from Wyoming is agreeable, I will yield at this time to the 
Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from 
Arizona and say that I have observed him in his work in the House. He 
has been a real supporter of change with the line-item veto and with 
the balanced budget amendment, and has been a leader in the House, and 
continues to be that.
  I now yield for 4 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to commend Senator 
Thomas and Senator Santorum for leading the charge of the 11 freshmen 
Senators in support of the line-item veto. It is important that the 
newest Members of this body continue to voice the message from 
Americans on November 8.
  Mr. President, no single measure would do more to restore fiscal 
sanity to our budget process than the line-item veto. We, like our 
Republican colleagues in the House, must continue to push for reforms 
that will bring real change to the way business is done in Washington. 
There is no doubt in my mind that the press and defenders of the status 
quo will think of all kinds of reasons why the line-item veto is not a 
good idea. But the truth of the matter is, the President must be 
provided with precise tools to control Congress' insatiable appetite 
for spending the taxpayer's money.
  Mr. President, I understand that in years past, Democrat opponents of 
the line-item veto charged that the Republican support of the concept 
was a partisan power grab. The thought was that the Republicans in 
Congress, then in the minority, wanted to transfer power to their 
Republican President. And now, a Democrat President supports the 
measure, but there is still staunch opposition.
  Now the opponents claim that enactment of the line-item veto would be 
an unprecedented power shift. In fact, the President had the power to 
stop unnecessary spending, through a process called impoundment, until 
the Congress stripped the Presidency of this power in 1974. Granting a 
line-item veto is not unprecedented. Rather, supporters of the line-
item veto want to restore the rightful budgetary powers of the 
President.
  Opponents also claim that the line-item veto will not work. Well, Mr. 
President, that is just not true. Forty-three of our Nation's Governors 
have this power, and they have shown over and over again that they can 
and do save money with this tool.
  Mr. President, again, I strongly support this measure, and I urge the 
Members of this body to join the 11 freshmen in our strong support for 
the Dole substitute.
  Thank you, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, thank you very much for the time for this 
group to express its support of this issue.
  It seems to me that we have an opportunity to make some decisions 
here. We are here as trustees for the American people, as trustees who 
have a responsibility to be financially responsible, fiscally 
responsible, and morally responsible for spending. The easier thing to 
do is to continue as we have. Now is the chance, however, to change.
  To borrow from Robert Frost who said, ``Two roads diverged in the 
woods 
[[Page S4301]]  and I chose the one less traveled by, and that has made 
all the difference.''
  This may be the road less traveled by, but it will indeed make all 
the difference.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________