[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S3272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Biden and Mr. 
        Robb):
  S. 592. A bill to grant the power to the President to reduce budget 
authority; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


                       LINE-ITEM VETO LEGISLATION

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have just submitted legislation at the 
desk to create a separate enrollment version of the line-item veto.
  Mr. President, this is the same bill word for word that passed the 
U.S. Senate on March 25, 1995, by a bipartisan vote of 69 Senators. It 
was introduced at the time by Senator Dole.
  It follows a long history of efforts on behalf of the separate 
enrollment approach and is different to the enhanced rescission which 
has been found unconstitutional by the district court.
  Back in 1985, I worked alongside Senator Mattingly, and we got 58 
votes for the separate enrollment version.
  We passed similar legislation in the Senate in 1995, but lost out in 
conference when the conferees endorsed the House approved enhanced 
rescission approach rather than the separate enrollment version.
  But the courts have now struck down that law. They have ruled that 
once a bill is signed into law, under the Constitution, the President 
does not have the authority to repeal laws. Such a repeal is a 
legislative power which article I of our Constitution reserves for the 
Congress.
  Mr. President, the line-item veto has a proven track record in 
bringing about financial responsibility at the State and local level. 
As a Governor, the distinguished Presiding Officer knows that you 
cannot print money like we do up here in Washington. And if you do all 
of this borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending, before long 
you lose your credit rating.
  The line-item veto is used at the present time in some 43 States. The 
separate enrollment mechanism that this legislation is based upon has 
been shown to meet constitutional muster by Prof. Laurence Tribe of 
Harvard in a letter to former Senator Bill Bradley back in January 
1993. I spoke with Professor Tribe yesterday morning on the telephone 
at which time he reaffirmed that legal opinion.
  Mr. President, this effort is not meant to fix the blame, but to fix 
the problem. We are not enhancing or diminishing Presidential powers. 
We are simply changing congressional procedures. We are using the 
congressional power under article I, section 5 of the Constitution 
which vests Congress with broad authority to set the rules for its own 
procedure. And that authority is exercised through changes in the rules 
which would require separate enrollment. That was found to be the one 
way that a statutory line-item veto could pass constitutional scrutiny.
  We are very, very hopeful that this bill can assist us in fixing 
responsibility on the one hand and reducing deficits on the other hand. 
We all know that we are not here, as lawyer Sullivan said, as ``potted 
plants.'' But we are sometimes embarrassed when we see things like 
appropriations for Lawrence Welk's home.
  In 1992, the Government Accounting Office, [GAO] did a study and 
found that over a 5-year period the line-item veto would save some $70 
billion.
  So we are very hopeful that we can get expedited procedure. It has 
been debated for the past 15 years. It has been used by all the 
Governors now in some 43 States. And there is no rhyme nor reason for 
us to play around and wait for the delay in the courts.
  We are in a very serious circumstance. Our debt has so risen that the 
interest costs to the Government now are $1 billion a day--$1 billion a 
day--increased spending for interest costs on the national debt.
  It is the largest spending item in the budget. And so I thank the 
distinguished Senator from Florida for yielding, but I wanted to make 
sure we introduced this legislation this morning before we got on to 
the unanimous consent with the particular measure at hand.
                                 ______