[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 119 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S10474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           THE LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me turn to another subject. I talked 
about the fiscal policy, the budget deficit, when I began. It is a 
serious problem. I have voted for many ways to try to address the 
budget deficit.
  I headed a task force in the House on Government waste. I have worked 
on a waste task force here in the Senate. I have cast dozens of votes 
to cut spending. I just voted for a rescissions bill to try to cut 
Federal spending.
  I did not cast a vote for the proposal that eventually went down by 
one vote here in the U.S. Senate on a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. I did vote for a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. We had two of them. One was the right one and one 
of them was the wrong one. The one that was the main proposal would 
have taken $1.3 trillion in Social Security trust funds over many, many 
years and used it to balance the budget. I happen to think that is 
thievery. I happen to think that is taking things under dishonest 
pretenses, because it is taking money that comes from a paycheck and is 
promised to go into a Social Security trust fund to be saved for the 
future. Then they say, ``I know we say that, but we want to use that 
money instead to balance the budget.'' That is dishonest budgeting, and 
I would not vote for that.
  But one element of dealing with the Federal budget deficit is an 
issue called the line-item veto. It, by itself, will not solve the 
deficit problem, but it will help with respect to those spending 
proposals that have never been the subject of hearings are stuck in 
bills that come through here. So I support a line-item veto and I have, 
for a dozen or 15 votes over the years, voted for a line-item veto.
  One of the things I think is interesting about the line-item veto 
issue is this. The House of Representatives passed a line-item veto in 
February. We in the Senate passed a line-item veto in March. It is now 
the end of July and we have no line-item veto. Why? Because there has 
been no conference committee appointed to resolve the differences 
between the House and the Senate versions.
  Why has there not been a conference appointed? The Contract With 
America included the line-item veto as one of their major elements. I 
supported it. I have always supported it. I think it makes sense.
  But it is interesting to me that the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives has recently said that he does not think they are going 
to get around to the line-item veto this year. He wanted to talk about 
a line-item veto, he wanted to push a line-item veto, so he had a vote 
on a line-item veto in February. But he did not want a line-item veto 
to pass because he did not want a Democratic President to have a line-
item veto.
  I supported line-item vetoes when a Republican was in the White House 
because I do not think it matters who is President. A Republican 
President should have had a line-item veto when the Congress was 
Democratic and a Democratic President ought to have a line-item veto 
when the Congress is controlled by Republicans.
  The other day I held up a little report from a newspaper that said, 
``Gingrich Gets $200 Million in New Pork,'' just as an example. The 
question is, are the people who talked about a line-item veto more 
interested in producing pork or are they more interested in producing a 
line-item veto? I think the evidence is starting to suggest the former.
  It is very simple for us to move on the line-item veto. If the 
Speaker of the House is unable, at this point, to understand how one 
gets to a conference, I have some step-by-step instructions.
  First, think of the names of some U.S. House Members. Probably some 
of your friends.
  Second, pick a few. That is not rocket science. Think of some names 
of your friends; pick a few.
  Third, send the list to the House floor for action.
  Let us have a conference and bring a line-item veto back to the floor 
of the House and the Senate and get it voted on, get it to the 
President, so before these appropriations bills come down to the 
President this year and before the reconciliation bill is sent to the 
President this year, this President has a line-item veto. If we are 
serious about the Federal deficit, let us deal with the issue called 
the line-item veto.
  It is one thing to talk about it. It is another thing to do something 
about it. I see that the Speaker has indicated that maybe he will not 
be able to get to the line-item veto this year. The chairman of the 
House Appropriations Committee said yesterday it looks like they are 
not real anxious to move on that. It seems to me it is now time for us 
to ask the question: If you are serious about a line-item veto, this is 
the time to bring a line-item veto to conference, to the Senate and the 
House, and make it law, give it to this President, and let us use that 
to seriously reduce the Federal deficit.
  Both Republicans and Democrats have a stake in fiscal policy that 
advances the economic interests of this country. That means reducing 
the Federal deficit and no longer including projects that have not 
previously been authorized in appropriations bills.
  I support a line-item veto because it is the tool that is best 
equipped to stop that sort of practice, to save money, and reduce the 
Federal budget deficit.
  I do hope in the coming days that we will discover that those who 
were so interested in the line-item veto early in this year continue to 
retain an interest in giving this President the line-item veto this 
year, the sooner the better.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 4 minutes remains.

                          ____________________