[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8201-S8203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page S8201]]

                           THE LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I noted with interest an article in the June 
7th issue of the Washington Times entitled ``GOP Puts Line-Item Veto on 
Slow Track.''
  The first paragraph of the article reads as follows:

       Republicans are waiting until fall to enact a line-item 
     veto out of concern that President Clinton might try to use 
     it as leverage to reshape the GOP's tax-cut and balanced 
     budget legislation.

  As Senators might expect, I was amazed to learn that apparently some 
Republicans, who have so often in the past urged the Senate to enact a 
line-item veto, have now decided to withhold its enactment until after 
Congress completes work on a tax cut and balanced-budget legislation. 
In other words, the Republican plan is apparently to hold off on final 
passage of the line-item veto until after completion of congressional 
action on this year's massive reconciliation bill, which will contain 
changes in entitlement spending, and on the 13 annual appropriation 
bills for fiscal year 1996, which will total around $540 billion; and, 
if the Republicans have their way, on a major tax cut for the Nation's 
wealthiest individuals and corporations.
  The article then quotes two of the Senate's leading proponents of 
line-item veto as to why it is that Republicans want to deny this 
deficit-reducing tool to President Clinton.
  ``There is a great concern in the Senate. We see this as a once-in-a-
generation opportunity to put forward a balanced budget. We would hate 
to have it threatened for political reasons,'' said one Republican 
Senator.
  Lo, and behold, we have here a direct quote from a Republican Senator 
which tells us, in effect, that if President Clinton is given the 
authority to line out items in appropriation and tax bills, he might 
use that authority to threaten these Republican bills ``for political 
reasons.'' Can you imagine that?
  The quote goes on to tell us that,
       There is a concern that the veto might be used not for its 
     intended purpose, which is to delete extraneous pork-barrel 
     spending from appropriations bills, but used instead to 
     redefine the meaning of tax cuts.
  The Senator who has been quoted has put his finger on a problem which 
I have pointed out to the Senate on a number of occasions in the past; 
namely, that Presidents will invariably use the line-item veto to 
affect policy. They will line out items and language in bills which do 
not comport with their policies and, in so doing, will be able to 
delete such items from tax, appropriation, and other measures. Under 
both the House-passed enhanced rescissions bill and the Senate-passed 
separate enrollment bill, Congress will then have the burden of 
reenacting items which a President rejects, by a two-thirds vote of 
both Houses.
  The fact that the quoted Senator believes that this authority should 
only be used for its intended purpose, which, in his words, ``is to 
delete extraneous pork-barrel spending from appropriations bills'' is 
of no consequence. Once we give any President--not just this President 
but including this President--such authority, it will be used by that 
President to its fullest extent in ways that will thwart the will of 
Congress and will enhance that President's agenda. This is precisely 
the reason why I have so strenuously opposed both enhanced rescissions 
and item veto bills, such as the Senate-passed separate enrollment 
bill.
  The Washington Times article gives further support to my concerns by 
quoting another Senator as follows:

       Many don't want the line-item veto because it represents 
     the biggest shift of power in this century.

  Indeed it does, Mr. President. Precisely. And to give to any 
President--any President--such a massive increase in authority over 
spending bills would be a grave mistake. The system of checks and 
balances and the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution 
have proved over and over again the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. 
There is no compelling case to overturn their judgment by handing over 
to the Executive the power to excise items from appropriations bills, 
and, in so doing, require a two-thirds override vote of both Houses in 
order to secure spending decisions approved by Congress.
  This is not to say that there are not improvements that could be made 
in the existing rescissions process. We could, for example, enact 
legislation that will ensure that Presidents get a vote on their 
proposed rescissions. We should also broaden the rescission process to 
include not only appropriations spending, but all spending, whether it 
is contained in tax bills, or in entitlement legislation. Surely all 
Senators know by now that the major cause of the deficits is not the 
appropriations bills. It is the growth in tax expenditures and in 
entitlement spending. That is what has to be cut if we are to have any 
real chance of balancing the Federal budget. And yet, nothing in any 
line-item veto or enhanced rescissions or expedited rescissions or 
separate enrollment bills would contain the growth in entitlements. 
Furthermore, and just as importantly, nothing in any of these quick 
fixes would cut one thin dime from the more than $450 billion in tax 
breaks that are already in the Tax Code--many of them have been there 
for decades--and which will continue to exist and to grow until we have 
the courage to reexamine each of them, and to cut back and eliminate 
those which no longer can be justified.
  I can certainly understand why any President would want line-item 
veto authority. It gives a President a club which he can wield to beat 
Members of Congress into submission in support of administration 
policies. Therein lies the danger in the power shift that is talked 
about in the Washington Times article.
  Be that as it may, developments in the line-item veto saga have 
certainly taken a strange turn in recent days. On May 8, 1995, 
President Clinton wrote to the Speaker of the House urging that 
Congress quickly complete work on the line-item veto legislation, and 
especially citing the need for the ``* * * authority to eliminate 
special interest provisions, such as the tax benefits that were 
targeted to individual businesses earlier this year in H.R. 831.'' The 
President was apparently referring to a provision of that bill which 
enabled a very wealthy individual, Rupert Murdoch, to sell a television 
station to a minority-owned firm and to defer paying any capital gains 
taxes on that sale.
  More recently in the debate on the budget resolution, we heard a lot 
of sound and fury from the White House about the unfairness of savaging 
Medicare and Medicaid while building in tax breaks for the rich in the 
name of deficit reduction.
  Lo, and behold, just last week, I was provided with a copy of a 
letter dated June 7, 1995, wherein the President pledges to the Senate 
majority leader that he will not use the line-item veto authority on 
tax expenditures in this year's budget.
  Apparently, suddenly those tax breaks for the wealthy, that we have 
heard so much about, are really not so unfair after all--at least not 
this year.
  Mr. President, I am extremely dismayed with this sudden reversal by 
the White House.
  A 180-degree turn of this sort by the White House on matters which 
are purported to be of utmost importance to the Democratic Party and to 
the American people in terms of fairness, good policy, and deficit 
reduction should leave all thinking Members of Congress and the public 
wondering just why this administration is willing to make such an 
outrageous pledge in order to get this new item veto authority in its 
House-passed form.
  What is suddenly so sacrosanct about tax expenditures? Why in the 
world would this President make such an unwise and damaging
 pledge to the majority leader of the Senate?

  This President campaigned on the need to beef up infrastructure. What 
is infrastructure? It comes from that portion of the budget which is 
called non-defense discretionary spending and it is contained in annual 
appropriations acts. It is that portion of the budget which funds not 
only roads, bridges, airports, sewer projects, water projects, and all 
the things that keep American commerce flowing, and promotes the well-
being of communities and individuals.
  It is also education. It is all the investments we make in our own 
people. Let us remember that this President just vetoed a rescissions 
bill because education funding, he said, was cut too much. Now we have 
this preposterous [[Page S8202]] pledge by the White House, by the 
President, to use the line-item veto only to cut spending and not to 
eliminate tax giveaways to the rich. And one can only assume that the 
President is referring to domestic discretionary spending, since he has 
ruled Pentagon spending completely out of bounds, off limits and to be 
sacred from the budget knife. I see that the President has even 
referred to all congressional spending as ``pork'' in his unfortunate 
letter to the majority leader. Apparently there is not one single 
morsel of ``pork'' in the military budget, even though a Washington 
Post story of a few weeks ago reported gross waste, mismanagement, and 
extreme sloppiness at the Pentagon in handling the people's tax 
dollars.
  Mr. President, over the past 15 years, with the exception of 3 years 
following the 1990 budget summit, the discretionary portion of the 
Federal budget has suffered drastic cuts. Yet, under the budget 
resolution which recently passed the Senate, non-defense discretionary 
spending will be further decimated. In fact, under the Senate-passed 
budget resolution, non-defense discretionary spending over the next 7 
years will be cut $190 billion below a 1995 freeze; that is the 
equivalent of a $300 billion cut below the levels in the President's 
budget. By the year 2002, nondefense discretionary spending will have 
been cut by nearly one-third, declining to 2.5 percent of GDP, a record 
low. Surely the President understands that this will mean that we will 
have no option but to cut infrastructure spending in all areas and cut 
it to the bone. Whether it is education, child care, veterans benefits, 
environmental cleanup, transportation infrastructure, or any other 
infrastructure investments--they will all--all--suffer wholesale cuts. 
Certainly these vital investments in our own people cannot all be 
simply labeled as ``pork'' and put on the chopping block to protect tax 
goodies for the rich.
  Tax expenditures can certainly be branded with the ``pork'' label as 
well. In many cases, tax loopholes are nothing more than ``pork'' for 
the rich. And to make matters worse, each tax break for the well-to-do 
means that other Americans must pay a little more in taxes to make up 
the lost revenue. Furthermore, every time we give the wealthy 
individuals or the big corporations a tax break, infrastructure 
investments that benefit us all have to be cut in order to meet deficit 
reduction targets.
  How can the President capitulate on the matter of tax expenditures 
after a debate like the one we just had on the budget resolution which 
highlighted the unfairness of granting tax breaks at the expense of 
Medicare as a national policy? What could possibly be the motive behind 
such a direct flip-flop by this administration? I submit that it could 
only be a burning desire to get the line item veto authority, and 
especially the authority to cut, to use as a weapon to gain political 
advantage.
  To all Members of Congress regardless of party, I say, read the tea 
leaves and know that we are about to make a fundamental, monumental 
mistake by giving this President, or any President, line-item veto in 
the form in which the House has passed it. It would be an evisceration 
of the people's power through their elected representatives. It would 
be a violation of our oath of office to support and defend this 
Constitution. It would be a world-class blunder and a colossal mistake.
  Mr. President, it is not too late for the Senate to come to its 
senses and to realize the vastness of the mistake it will make should 
it agree to the enactment of any legislation to give a President the 
ability to veto spending items and, thereby, to require a two-thirds 
supermajority of both Houses to ensure that Congress' spending 
decisions are carried out. If we do so, I fear that we will have 
started down an inexorable path that will ultimately lead to the 
destruction of our Republican system of government which our 
forefathers so wisely and carefully crafted for this great Nation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post 
article be printed in the Record, and such other material as I will 
supply.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, June 7, 1995]

                 GOP Puts Line-Item Veto on Slow Track

                           (By Patrice Hill)

       Republicans are waiting until fall to enact a line-item 
     veto out of concern that President Clinton might try to use 
     it as leverage to reshape the GOP's tax-cut and balanced-
     budget legislation.
       ``There is a great concern in the Senate. We see this as a 
     once-in-a-generation opportunity to put forward a balanced 
     budget. We would hate to have it threatened for political 
     reasons,'' said Sen. Daniel R. Coats, Indiana Republican and 
     co-author of the Senate version of the line-item veto bill.
       ``This year is unique,'' Mr. Coats said, because of the 
     extraordinary number of major tax and spending overhaul bills 
     going through Congress, including the House's $354 billion 
     tax-cut bill, $540 billion in appropriation bills and about 
     $650 billion in bills reforming Medicare, Medicaid, welfare 
     and other entitlement programs.
       ``There is a concern that the veto might be used not for 
     its intended purpose, which is to delete extraneous pork-
     barrel spending from appropriations bills, but used instead 
     to redefine the meaning of tax cuts,'' he said.
       Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and co-author of the 
     line-item veto proposal, confirmed that Congress will put off 
     the legislation until it completes work on this year's 
     massive balanced-budget legislation.
       ``Many don't want the line-item veto because it represents 
     the biggest shift of power in this century,'' he said.
       Their comments were greeted with surprise and dismay at the 
     White House and by some House Republicans, who in January 
     listed the line-item veto as one of three top items in their 
     ``Contract With America'' that they hoped to place on Mr. 
     Clinton's desk by his State of the Union address.
       The House passed its version of the line-item veto on Feb. 
     6, but it got stalled in the Senate, where it was 
     substantially rewritten and did not pass until March 23. 
     House and Senate leaders still have not appointed conferees 
     to iron out the differences between the two versions.
       Since then, Mr. Clinton has adopted a ``veto strategy'' 
     against key GOP legislation, including Congress' $16.4 
     billion spending-cut bill, with veiled or explicit veto 
     threats hanging over the House's tax-cut and welfare-reform 
     bills as well.
       ``I don't agree'' that line-item veto power should be 
     withheld from President Clinton, said Rep. Gerald B.H. 
     Solomon, New York Republican and a House sponsor of the 
     legislation. ``I think whoever the president is, we ought to 
     give him this power.''
       But he agreed that the legislation should be delayed until 
     fall, contending that time will not permit the House and 
     Senate to resolve their differences now.
       ``Perhaps the best thing is to wait until fall when the 
     budget is finished. There is no sense in going through it 
     now,'' he said. ``They don't have the votes in the Senate for 
     the House bill, and we won't accept their watered-down 
     version.''
       One White House official said Republican leaders are 
     reneging on their promise to pass the bill.
       ``We have taken it on good faith that the congressional 
     leadership wanted to pass line-item veto legislation so it 
     could be used as soon as possible,'' the official said. 
     ``It's hard to believe that supporters of the line-item veto 
     are saying it makes sense for every president but a 
     Democratic president.. . . [The Republicans are] delaying the 
     bill for partisan reasons.''
       ``They must be planning a lot of tax loopholes,'' said Sen. 
     Bill Bradley, New Jersey Democrat. He says he supports the 
     line-item veto because ``the one thing it does is allow the 
     President to shine the light on something that's 
     indefensible.''
       In a letter last month urging House and Senate leaders to 
     move quickly on the legislation, Mr. Clinton cited tax breaks 
     for minority-owned broadcasters as the kind of special-
     interest tax item he would target for a veto. ``The job is 
     not complete until a bill is sent to my desk,'' he wrote.
       Mr. Clinton's emphasis on using the veto authority to 
     eliminate tax preferences, and his enforcement of the House 
     bill as ``stronger and more workable'' than the Senate bill, 
     many have swayed some in favor of delaying the legislation.
       Republicans on Capital Hill have been reeling from 
     Democratic charges that they are cutting spending on welfare, 
     Medicaid and other programs benefiting the poor and the 
     middle class to pay for tax cuts that largely help the 
     wealthy.
       Tony Blankley, spokesman for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 
     Georgia Republican, denied that Republicans are thinking of 
     delaying the line-item veto because of the differences 
     between the parties on tax and spending priorities.
       ``We have been moving along on front-burner items. The 
     budget has naturally had precedence,'' Mr. Blankley said, 
     ``My suspicion is we haven't focused on going to closure 
     because we've been focusing on the balanced budget.''
       He wasn't surprised that some Senators were talking abut 
     delay. ``The natural instinct for the Senate is to delay,'' 
     he said.
                                                                    ____

                                              The White House,

                                          Washington, May 8, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to urge that Congress 
     quickly complete work on line-item veto legislation so I can 
     use it-- [[Page S8203]] this year--to curb wasteful tax and 
     spending provisions.
       We must not let another year go by without the President 
     having authority to eliminate special interest provisions, 
     such as the tax benefits that were targeted to individual 
     businesses earlier this year in H.R. 831.
       I am disappointed that six weeks after the Senate passed 
     its version of line-item veto legislation, neither body has 
     appointed conferees. As you may recall, I commended the House 
     and the Senate last month for passing line-item veto 
     legislation. However, the job is not complete until a bill is 
     sent to my desk that provides strong line-item veto authority 
     that can be used this year.
       I have consistently urged the Congress to pass the 
     strongest possible line-item veto. While both the House and 
     Senate versions would provide authority to eliminate wasteful 
     spending and tax provisions, the House-passed bill is much 
     stronger--and more workable.
       I appreciate your making passage of line-item veto 
     legislation a priority. I look forward to working with the 
     Congress to enact the line-item veto quickly.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Clinton.
                                                                    ____

                                              The White House,

                                         Washington, June 7, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: I am deeply alarmed by today's press 
     report that some Republicans in the House and Senate want to 
     continue to hold back the line-item veto so that I don't have 
     it during this year's budget process. The line-item veto is a 
     vital tool to cut pork from the budget. If this Congress is 
     serious about deficit reduction, it must pass the strongest 
     possible line-item veto immediately, and send it to my desk 
     so I can sign it right away.
       This is not a partisan issue. Presidents Reagans and Bush 
     asked Congress for it time and again, and so have I. It was 
     part of the Republican Contract with America. It has strong 
     support from members of Congress in both parties and both 
     houses. No matter what party the President belongs to or what 
     party has a majority in Congress, the line-item veto would be 
     good for America.
       If Congress will send me the line-item veto immediately, I 
     am willing to pledge that this year, I will use it only to 
     cut spending, not on tax expenditures in this year's budget. 
     I have already put you on notice that I will veto any budget 
     that is loaded with excessive tax breaks for the wealthy. But 
     I need the line-item veto now to hold the line against pork 
     in every bill the Congress sends me.
       The American people have waited long enough. Congress 
     should give them and the Presidency the line-item veto 
     without further delay.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Washington be given 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In addition to the Senator from California's 7 
minutes?
  Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
7 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

                          ____________________