[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S10331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this has been a very interesting year in 
Congress with the change in control in both the House and the Senate; 
in some ways refreshing, in some ways very disappointing. This is the 
year of reform and change. Many of the changes and reforms are useful 
and interesting. Many others are just downright nutty. I will give you 
an example of some.
  The notion that when the Soviet Union is now gone we should start to 
build star wars with money we do not have at a time when this project 
clearly is not necessary. In my judgment, that's a nutty idea.
  We stick $9 billion into defense that the Department of Defense says 
it does not want or does not need. That makes no sense to me. That is 
not reform or change.
  Maybe, as one had suggested, charge admission to tour the U.S. 
Capitol. In other words, charge the American citizens admission to take 
tours in the U.S. Capitol in order to raise money to reduce the 
deficit? It seems to me that qualifies as a nutty idea.
  Provide laptop computers for poor kids at a time when you are cutting 
school lunches? Another nutty idea.
  I have said there are a lot of goofy ideas. There are some good 
ideas, some of which I have supported, one of which is the line-item 
veto. I want to ask some questions about that this morning.
  On February 6 of this year, this Senate passed a bipartisan proposal 
on the line-item veto. I happen to think, and have thought for a long 
while, it makes sense for a President to have a line-item veto. Most 
Governors have it. The President ought to have it.
  We passed a line-item veto here in the Senate on March 23. The House 
passed it on February 6. It is now over 120 days, and the question is, 
where is the line-item veto?
  Today we are going to start on our first appropriations bill. Soon 
those appropriations bills will go to the White House. My guess is that 
those who wrote the Contract With America and included the line-item 
veto in the contract, those who were so urgent about the need for a 
line-item veto as they spoke on the floor of the Senate and the House, 
are now less interested in really having a line-item veto if it means 
that a Democratic President in the White House has a line-item veto to 
get rid of Republican pork in appropriations bills.
  I noticed yesterday, in a newspaper, ``Gingrich Gets $200 Million in 
New Pork,'' it says in the headline. I do not know what this is about. 
It is just ``pork'' in an appropriations bill-- ``Gingrich Gets $200 
Million in New Pork,'' in an appropriations bill.
  I am going to go to a markup in 10 minutes, in which I know there are 
about five or six provisions in this authorization bill that represent 
special little projects in someone's State.
  So what happens to the line-item veto? Why do we not have a line-item 
veto moving so that the President might sign the bill and have the 
authority to remove this pork with a line-item veto in appropriations 
bills this Congress is going to pass?
  I think I know what has happened to it. The House of Representatives 
120 days later has not even appointed conferees to go to a conference 
with the Senate on the line-item veto. Why have they not appointed 
conferees? Because I do not think they really want a line-item veto. I 
do. I voted for it. I voted for it many times in Congress. And I felt 
in March of this year when the Senate passed it, and the month before 
when the House passed it, that maybe those who said it was an urgent 
priority on the other side of the aisle were serious. It now appears 
they were not serious at all. It now appears to me they were much more 
interested in producing pork than producing a line-item veto bill.
  If there is a lost and found department in the Congress, I hope 
someone will call and ask, where is the line-item veto bill?
  One of our colleagues has treated us to a big yellow sign every day 
which says, ``Where is Bill?''--which is not in my judgment a very 
respectful reference to the President. But ``Where is Bill?''--asking, 
``Where is the President's budget?''
  I guess, if I were inclined with that sort of approach, I could bring 
a chart here that says, ``Where is the bill?''-- and hang up ``120 
days'' on the chart to ask the question, ``Where is the line-item veto 
bill?''
  We passed it. The House passed it. And there is no conference because 
the House has not even appointed conferees. Is the reason they have not 
appointed conferees because they want to lard up the appropriations 
bills with pork, $200 million in pork by the Speaker of the House and 
they do not want a Democratic President to veto the pork out of these 
bills? If that is the reason, they are wallflowers when it comes to 
fighting the deficit.
  Let us decide to cast this line-item veto bill, get it through 
conference, and get the President to sign it. Let us have a bite at 
these appropriation bills right now with this deficit. If you care 
about public policy and about the line-item veto, if you voted for it 
in the Senate, as I did, if you voted for it in the House, as the 
majority did, I hope they would start asking the question, ``Where is 
the line-item veto?'' Why do we not expect the Speaker to appoint 
conferees? Why do we not have a conference report, bring it from the 
House, have the Senate pass it, and get it back to the President so 
that he can exercise the line-item veto on these bills?

                          ____________________