[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 55 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S4601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             LINE-ITEM VETO

 Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to speak 
briefly about yesterday's approval by the Senate of line-item veto 
legislation, which I supported. By giving the President and the 
Congress separate enrollment of appropriated items, new tax 
expenditures and new entitlements, we are better able to maximize our 
limited resources, make the wisest investments in our people and our 
Nation, and move more responsibly toward a balanced Federal budget.
  Will a line-item veto solve all our fiscal problems? No, of course 
not. But I reject the notion that we should not use all available means 
to force the President and the Congress to prioritize Federal spending. 
Our inability, or unwillingness, to make these difficult choices has 
led to a nearly $5 trillion national debt.
  Was the measure perfect? No, and I understand the legitimate concerns 
many Members of this body had about a line-item veto. I think most 
would agree, however, that changes need to be made in our budget 
process. Our $5 trillion debt is a testament to that fact. The 
differences lie in identifying the most desirable means to achieve 
responsible reform.
  As I see it, the current problem lies in the fact that the Congress 
can ignore the rescissions proposed by the President. While the 
President can veto an entire appropriations bill, doing so forces the 
President to disapprove items which he supports as well. Thus, unless 
appropriations bills contain a particularly egregious item or items, 
Presidents now generally sign them, thereby permitting spending he 
considers unnecessary to continue in order to avoid striking down other 
items which he does approve.
  The separate enrollment of each item will allow the President to 
reach only those items he disapproves, and Congress will have to accept 
those rescissions unless they are reinstated by a two-thirds vote in 
both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  Does this cede power to the President? Certainly. But, I am willing 
to give the Chief Executive a strong check on spending.
  I am willing to give our President the tools to make some tough 
fiscal decisions because a chief executive has, in my judgment, a 
singular ability to envision national priorities and reconcile intense 
competition between disparate interests. It is infinitely easier for 
one individual to prioritize spending than it is for 535 individuals 
with varied and specific interests.
  Not only will the measure passed last night allow the President to 
strike items in appropriations bills, but it will also allow the 
President to strike authorizations of new tax expenditures and new 
direct spending. These other types of spending contribute to our 
deficit even more than appropriated items, and should be included. To 
responsibly control spending, we have to put all options on the table.
  I would, however, have preferred that the language covering tax 
expenditures been made more clear in the legislation. While I believe 
that the language included meets the same objectives as the Bradley 
amendment, of which I was a cosponsor, I believe we should have made it 
clear and free of all ambiguity that tax breaks are on the table. 
Nonetheless, I believe the language of similarly situated taxpayers 
will be interpreted broadly which will subject a wide range of tax 
breaks to a Presidential veto.
  Mr. President, this body acted responsibly yesterday in approving 
line-item veto legislation. As a former Governor who had line-item veto 
authority, I understand its importance in imposing a measure of fiscal 
discipline on the budget process. We urgently need this discipline at 
the Federal level.


                          ____________________