[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 55 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4544-S4545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on occasion after occasion, you and I 
have heard it said that under the dark of night, in the late hours of 
evening or the early hours of the morning, this body does things that 
are a discredit to a democratic society--pay raises, pork-barrel 
projects, and profligate spending. The kind of things that we would not 
want to have brought to the light of day.
  But late last night, something very befiting of this body took place. 
And, Mr. President, it did so at your hand and at the hand of your 
colleague, Senator McCain of Arizona. Because under your leadership, 
late last night, the U.S. Senate passed the line-item veto. And in so 
doing, we placed a tool in the hands of Presidents which will allow us 
to move toward the aspiration of a balanced budget. In the cover of 
darkness, we uncovered the darkest parts of our behavior, and said no 
more. We put the national interest ahead of the special interests. We 
said that in the future, if you want to put projects in an 
appropriations bill, you will have to contend with the possibility of a 
veto by the President of the United States.
  So I rise today, Mr. President, to draw attention to the importance 
of the action taken late last night to change the culture and structure 
of spending here in Washington.
  Forty-three of the 50 States have some variant of the line-item veto. 
During the debate, however, we heard people talk hypothetically about 
potential abuses. It is important to note that, of the 43 States, there 
has not 
[[Page S4545]] been a single effort by any of the legislatures to 
repeal the line-item veto authority. In fact, it works so well that 
there is a consensus in the States that it should be left in place so 
that they might continue to provide a foundation for the financial 
integrity of the Nation.
  Someone came to me recently and said, ``John, there is a State that 
has changed their line-item veto. In 1990, the State of Wisconsin 
amended their provision.'' Well, it was interesting when I looked at 
what the amendment really said. It reads, and I quote: ``in approving 
an appropriations bill in part, the Governor may not create a new word 
by rejecting individual letters in a word of the enrolled bill.''
  Mr. President, what the legislature said was that the Governor could 
not change the word ``cannot'' into ``can'' by striking out the last 
three letters of the word. That is not a real change in the philosophy 
behind the veto authority. It is simply a housekeeping detail about 
making the measure what it ought to be, namely, the capacity of the 
executive to knock those things out of spending bills which are not in 
the best interest of the State. So, it is important as we go to 
conference to understand the success that the line-item veto has 
enjoyed in the States.
  In the end, I was encouraged by the vote last night. Sixty-nine votes 
in favor of the line-item veto reflected a strong understanding that we 
must adopt measures to restrain spending, and reduce the deficit. So we 
have made a significant step forward. For if the people sent us here 
for any purpose at all, it was to enact changes, such as this, that 
will fundamentally alter the way we do business.
  I look forward to the time when the conference report comes back and 
we again have an opportunity to address this issue. It is critically 
important. The vote last night was encouraging. However, while the 
battle has been won, the war is not over. And as we work out the 
differences between the two bills, I hope that the end product gives us 
as great a promise for financial integrity as the measure we passed 
last night.
  Mr. President, as the Senator from Indiana, you are to be commended 
for your role, along with Senator McCain. It was your hard work that 
ensured we arrived at a product which could be subscribed to by such a 
broad majority of the Senate. I hope that this body acts on the 
conference report as it did last night. It was nighttime behavior, 
maybe somewhat reminiscent of times when we have done the wrong thing 
under the cover of darkness. Last night's behavior, however, was 
commendable in that it was in the national interest. We should seek to 
replicate it in the future.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend his request. The 
Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont would like 10 
minutes to discuss and discourse on what was the once and possibly 
future national pastime. I yield those 10 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.

                          ____________________