[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S8719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. FORD. As the majority leader indicated as it relates to the 
line--item veto, I voted for the line-item veto when it left here 
because I think it is important that we put that into the structure.
  When I spoke earlier, just before passage of the line-item veto 
legislation, I tried to tell my colleagues that the proposal that left 
here, in my opinion, was too cumbersome; that if we had the Interior 
appropriations bill that we had last session, there would be 2,040 
pieces of legislation under that one bill. Then the President would 
have to sign 2,040 pieces of legislation in order to either sign them 
or veto them or line item it, however it might be. So it really is not 
a line-item veto; it becomes a multiple choice.
  It reminds me when I was Governor that we would have a commission 
authorized, the Governor, to go to New York to sign bonds for highway 
projects, or whatever it might be. They give you one pen and there 
would be 49 other pens up there and you sign your name down here and 
the other 49 pens would work and all those bonds would move aside and 
then you sign them again.
  That is basically what we are trying to do, I think, or cause the 
President to have to do once these pieces of legislation come up for 
line-item veto.
  When I was Governor I had three options. I had line-item veto. The 
three options: one, I could line item it and send a message to the 
legislature why I had vetoed or line itemed that particular piece of 
legislation or that item in that legislation. The legislature could 
consider it. They could either sustain the Governor's veto or override 
it.
  The second option I had was to reduce an amount. If we did not need 
to spend all of it--we had a 2-year budget, we did not need to spend 
all that money in the first year. We could reduce it, and you draw a 
line through it, initial it, send a message to the legislature, and 
they could either sustain or override the veto.
  The third option I had was to line item a phrase. That may be a 
direction--``You cannot use any money for so and so,'' or ``If you are 
going to use money, you have to do it this way.'' The Governor had the 
right to eliminate a phrase.
  Those are the only three things. It was simple, direct, and the 
legislature had an opportunity to sustain or override the veto.
  What I am asking tonight, as the conferees were appointed for the 
line-item veto legislation in conference, is that they look very 
seriously at what the Senate has done in sending their piece of 
legislation to conference.
  I think simpler is better. It is easy, it is direct. A message must 
come. And that message, then, can either be accepted or declined. 
Either sustain the veto or override the veto. I think that is what we 
ought to do.
  Mr. President, I voted in support of the line-item veto when it left 
here in the hopes that it would be reduced and made somewhat simple so 
we could line-item veto, we could partially veto --or a phrase; it does 
not have to be all.
  A line-item veto, when you try to explain it to your constituents 
back home, they think that gives the President the right to take some 
pork out of the budget.
  Right now he has to sign 2,040 pieces of legislation for one 
appropriations bill. Just one. We are getting into thousands and 
thousands of pieces of legislation. I think that is wrong.
  I hope the conferees will take into consideration my remarks tonight. 
I would be glad to work with them in any way. And several in this 
Chamber have had experience as Governors using the line-item veto. In 
my 4 years as Governor, it was seldom even considered.
  It can be done and I think it can be done in the right sort of way. I 
thank the Chair for its courtesy. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________