[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4522-S4523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FURTHER THOUGHTS ON LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not want to take the remaining 
moments prior to the time people had the opportunity to vote on the 
line-item veto, but I did want to speak before the end of the day for a 
couple of reasons.
  First of all, to commend the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, on our side, for their 
admirable leadership in the effort over the last many days. Their 
leadership, their expertise, the remarkable contribution that they made 
to this debate I think lent service to the entire body. I am very 
grateful to them.
  Let me also commend the distinguished Senators from Arizona and 
Indiana for their work. Certainly as a result of their leadership and 
commitment they made to this issue for many years, we have now reached 
the point where this legislation passed tonight on a vote of 69-29.
  Mr. President, I voted in favor of this legislation, very, very 
reluctantly. It is no secret that I have had some very significant 
concerns about this particular version of line-item veto.
  A week ago tomorrow I went to the floor to express my grave concern 
about the practicality of separate enrollment, about its 
constitutionality, and about the shift in the balance of power away 
from Congress and to the White House. I addressed some of those 
concerns again on several occasions, the latest of which was last 
evening. I have said all along it was my view that a legislative line-
item veto, if done properly, was a very important tool, budgetarily and 
legislatively.
  I have consistently supported the line-item veto on a number of 
occasions over the past 16 years. So my vote tonight was consistent 
with that record. But I cast it, as I said, with some reservation.
  I did so with the satisfaction that we also achieved some compromise 
over the course of the last several days. We achieved a better 
understanding of what would be included in the bill's tax expenditure 
provisions. In our view, the Republicans have come some distance in 
accommodating our concern with regard to ensuring that tax expenditures 
be included in this bill, that special-interest tax breaks be exposed 
to the same critical review by the President as other spending.
  We were also able to ensure that the savings generated here would be 
locked in, locked in to deficit reduction and nothing else. I was 
disappointed with the vote tonight on the Byrd amendment, because I 
thought that would go even further toward ensuring that our purpose in 
this regard would be clearly understood from the very beginning. I 
thought the leadership provided by the Senator from West Virginia was 
very important in articulating clearly our desire to have all savings 
designated for purposes of deficit reduction and nothing else.
  I was pleased, as well, that we were able to accommodate the concern 
that many had about separate enrollment. While this was not a perfect 
solution, at least we may have a little more practical understanding of 
how this bill, with its many pieces, would be packaged and sent to the 
President in a form that may allow us constitutionally to deal with the 
issue of separate enrollment, if not practically.
   [[Page S4523]] I still have some fundamental concerns about the 
practicality of requiring separate enrollment and separate signatures, 
about the practicality of, line by line, taking a simple bill and 
making it as complex as the separate enrollment process will make it.
  Clearly, it is a start. It is an effort at compromise. Indeed, I 
believe that we have accommodated that concern to the extent that it 
was possible at the end of this debate.
  In terms of the constitutionality of this proposal, I think it is 
important that we approved an amendment ensuring judicial review of the 
proposal. The courts will now have the ability to assess the 
constitutionality of this legislation.
  The constitutionality of this particular version of line-item veto 
may be in doubt. But we have a provision in place now that will allow 
Members to review and to come to some conclusion about the 
constitutional viability of this legislation at an early date. That, 
too, in my view, was an improvement in this piece of legislation.
  Third, let me say that I think it is very important that everyone 
understand this bill has a life--a life and a death, frankly. When the 
year 2000 approaches, we will have a much better understanding of 
whether or not this worked, whether or not it was practical, certainly 
whether or not it was constitutional, whether or not we have succeeded 
in preserving the balance of legislative responsibility between the 
President and the Congress. So, in the year 2000, knowing all of that, 
we will be in a much better position to determine whether or not this 
ought to be extended, whether or not it ought to be given a new life.
  So that sunset provision, in my view, was critical to coming to the 
conclusion I did about this particular piece of legislation. This is 
not permanent. It is an experiment. It is an opportunity for us to see 
whether it will work.
  Senator Byrd and others have raised some very legitimate concerns, 
both constitutionally and in many other ways. We will learn, over the 
course of the next 5 years, whether they need to be addressed, to what 
degree they should be addressed, and ultimately what if any changes may 
be necessary prior to the time this legislation is extended for any 
length of time after the year 2000.
  Finally, let me say I am very concerned about the budgetary 
implications of what we do here. We have had a very vigorous debate on 
a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, on proposals to lay 
out a plan by which we achieve a balanced Federal budget by a date 
certain. We all recognize we have to make some tough decisions about 
what will be spent, how it will be spent, what if any tax changes we 
make--ultimately, what conclusions we can make with regard to the 
difficult, vexing problem we face with regard to the deficit in the 
oncoming years. If we do not have the tools available to us to make 
those decisions in a meaningful way, then I fear we will never achieve 
what we all say we want.
  This is a tool. It may be a blunt instrument. It may be a precision 
tool. We do not know yet. But we do know it ought to give us yet one 
more opportunity to say with some confidence that, indeed, we are going 
to get our hands on the budget, our grip on the deficit, in a way that 
will allow us a greater degree of confidence that indeed we can succeed 
in these coming years.
  It may not be the tool I would have chosen first. It may not be the 
tool I believe ought to ultimately be preserved in law in perpetuity. 
But it is a tool that will allow us for the next 5 years to make some 
effort to do what we desperately need to do, and that is find a way to 
reduce the deficit, find a meaningful way to assess our expenditures, 
find a way to ensure that we pass the best possible piece of 
legislation each and every time it involves spending. That is what this 
allows us to do, and I am very hopeful that we have made the right 
decision tonight.
  This has been another in an ongoing series of debates about how best 
to accomplish deficit reduction and a meaningful plan for balancing the 
budget. I hope that our colleagues can now come together on other 
issues, as well, especially on that which we have felt all along is 
needed, if indeed this or anything else is going to work, and that is a 
budget plan that will accomplish the deficit reduction we need.
  There are now 8 days left before the legal deadline, before the 
Budget Committee must report a budget resolution. There are 23 days 
prior to the time this body must act on a budget resolution. We tell 
the American people they need to pay their taxes by April 15. The law 
also requires that we pass a budget resolution by April 15. That, too, 
is a tool. That, too, ought to be something that has the priority that 
the line-item veto had this week.
  I am hopeful we still can meet that goal. I am not optimistic. But 
whether it is April 15 or some time shortly thereafter, let us use that 
tool as well to achieve what we know we must. We know we must make the 
tough decisions and it is time we get on with it.
  We have made a tough decision tonight. I think, all things 
considered, it was the right decision.
  Again, let me commend those who had a role to play in the debate. It 
was a good debate, a debate that educated the American people and 
certainly our colleagues with regard to the implications of this 
legislation.
  I think the Congress has served its role very well. I commend those 
involved and I now yield the floor.

                          ____________________