Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 51 (Monday, March 20, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 51 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4187-S4196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE LINE-ITEM VETO ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5 p.m.
having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S.
4, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the President to reduce
budget authority.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported
from the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, with amendments, as follows:
(The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface
brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown in
italic.)
S. 4

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Line Item Veto
Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCEMENT OF SPENDING CONTROL BY THE PRESIDENT.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new title:
``TITLE XI--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO RESCISSION AUTHORITY

``PART A--LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO RESCISSION AUTHORITY

``GRANT OF AUTHORITY AND CONDITIONS

``Sec. 1101. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the
provisions of part B of title X and subject to the provisions
of part B of this title, the President may rescind all or
part of any budget authority, if the President--
``(1) determines that--
``(A) such rescission would help balance the Federal
budget, reduce the Federal budget deficit, or reduce the
public debt;
``(B) such rescission will not impair any essential
Government functions; and
``(C) such rescission will not harm the national interest;
and
``(2)(A) notifies the Congress of such rescission by a
special message not later than twenty calendar days (not
including Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays) after the date of
enactment of a regular or supplemental appropriations Act or
a joint resolution making continuing appropriations providing
such budget authority; or
``(B) notifies the Congress of such rescission by special
message accompanying the submission of the President's budget
to Congress and such rescissions have not been proposed
previously for that fiscal year.

The President shall submit a separate rescission message for
each appropriations bill under paragraph (2)(A).
``(b) Rescission Effective Unless Disapproved.--(1)(A) Any
amount of budget authority rescinded under this title as set
forth in a special message by the President shall be deemed
canceled unless during the period described in subparagraph
(B), a rescission disapproval bill making available all of
the amount rescinded is enacted into law.
``(B) The period referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
``(i) a congressional review period of twenty calendar days
of session under part B, during which Congress must complete
action on the rescission disapproval bill and present such
bill to the President for approval or disapproval;
``(ii) after the period provided in clause (i), an
additional ten days (not including Sundays) during which the
President may exercise his authority to sign or veto the
rescission disapproval bill; and
``(iii) if the President vetoes the rescission disapproval
bill during the period provided in clause (ii), an additional
five calendar days of session after the date of the veto.
``(2) If a special message is transmitted by the President
under this section during any Congress and the last session
of such Congress adjourns sine die before the expiration of
the period described in paragraph (1)(B), the rescission
shall not take effect. The message shall be deemed to have
been retransmitted on the first day of the succeeding
Congress and the review period referred to in
paragraph (1)(B) (with respect to such message) shall run
beginning after such first day.

``DEFINITIONS

``Sec. 1102. For purposes of this title the term
`rescission disapproval bill' means a bill or joint
resolution which only disapproves a rescission of budget
authority, in whole, rescinded in a special message
transmitted by the President under section 1101.
``deficit reduction

``Sec. 1103. (a) If Congress fails to disapprove a
rescission of discretionary spending under this part within
the period of review provided under this part, the President
shall, on the day after the period has expired, reduce the
discretionary spending limits under section 601 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for the budget year and any
outyear affected by the rescissions to reflect the amount of
the rescission.
``(b) If Congress fails to disapprove a rescission of
discretionary spending under this part within the period of
review provided under this part, the chairs of the Committees
on the Budget of the Senate and the House of Representatives
shall, on the day after the period has expired, revise levels
under section 311(a) and adjust the committee allocations
under section 602(a) to reflect the amount of the rescission.
``(c) If Congress fails to disapprove a rescission of
direct spending under this part within the period of review
provided under this part, the President shall, on the day
after the period
[[Page S4188]] has expired, adjust the balances for the
budget year and each outyear under section 252(b) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to
reflect the amount of the rescission.
``PART B--CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO
RESCISSIONS

``Presidential special message

``Sec. 1111. Whenever the President rescinds any budget
authority as provided in section 1101, the President shall
transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message
specifying--
``(1) the amount of budget authority rescinded;
``(2) any account, department, or establishment of the
Government to which such budget authority is available for
obligation, and the specific project or governmental
functions involved;
``(3) the reasons and justifications for the determination
to rescind budget authority pursuant to section 1101(a)(1);
``(4) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated
fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the rescission; and
``(5) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating
to or bearing upon the rescission and the decision to effect
the rescission, and to the maximum extent practicable, the
estimated effect of the rescission upon the objects,
purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is
provided.

``transmission of messages; publication

``Sec. 1112. (a) Delivery to House and Senate.--Each
special message transmitted under sections 1101 and 1111
shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives and the
Senate on the same day, and shall be delivered to the Clerk
of the House of Representatives if the House is not in
session, and to the Secretary of the Senate if the Senate is
not in session. Each special message so transmitted shall be
referred to the appropriate committees of the House of
Representatives and the Senate. Each such message shall be
printed as a document of each House.
``(b) Printing in Federal Register.--Any special message
transmitted under sections 1101 and 1111 shall be printed in
the first issue of the Federal Register published after such
transmittal.

``procedure in senate

``Sec. 1113. (a) Referral.--(1) Any rescission disapproval
bill introduced with respect to a special message shall be
referred to the appropriate committees of the House of
Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be.
``(2) Any rescission disapproval bill received in the
Senate from the House shall be considered in the Senate
pursuant to the provisions of this section.
``(b) Floor Consideration in the Senate.--
``(1) Debate in the Senate on any rescission disapproval
bill and debatable motions and appeals in connection
therewith, shall be limited to not more than ten hours. The
time shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees.
``(2) Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion or
appeal in connection with such a bill shall be limited to one
hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
mover and the manager of the bill, except that in the event
the manager of the bill is in favor of any such motion or
appeal, the time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by
the minority leader or his designee. Such leaders, or either
of them, may, from the time under their control on the
passage of the bill, allot additional time to any Senator
during the consideration of any debatable motion or appeal.
``(3) A motion to further limit debate is not debatable. A
motion to recommit (except a motion to recommit with
instructions to report back within a specified number of
days, not to exceed one, not counting any day on which the
Senate is not in session) is not in order.
``(c) Point of Order.--(1) It shall not be in order in the
Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any
rescission disapproval bill that relates to any matter other
than the rescission of budget authority transmitted by the
President under section 1101.
``(2) It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House
of Representatives to consider any amendment to a rescission
disapproval bill.
``(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by a vote of three-fifths of the members duly
chosen and [sworn.''.] sworn.
``Sec. 1114. This title shall cease to be effective on
September 30, 2002.''.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Budget
Committee reported out two perfecting amendments when it reported S. 4.
As chairman of the Budget Committee, I have been authorized by a
majority of the committee members to withdraw those committee
amendments. Therefore, I do withdraw the two Budget Committee-reported
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
So the amendments were withdrawn.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Amendment No. 347

(Purpose: To provide for the separate enrollment for presentation to
the President of each item of any appropriation bill and each item in
any authorization bill or resolution providing direct spending or
targeted tax benefits, and for other purposes)

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr.
McCain, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Coats, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Thompson,
Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brown,
Mr. Burns, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Coverdell,
Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Frist,
Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr.
Kyl, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Packwood, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Roth,
Mr. Santorum, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Specter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. Warner,
proposes an amendment numbered 347.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``The Separate Enrollment and
Line Item Veto Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. STRUCTURE OF LEGISLATION.

(a) Appropriations Legislation.--
(1) The Committee on Appropriations of either the House or
the Senate shall not report an appropriation measure that
fails to contain such level of detail on the allocation of an
item of appropriation proposed by the House as is set forth
in the committee report accompanying such bill.
(2) If an appropriation measure is reported to the House or
Senate that fails to contain the level of detail on the
allocation of an item of Appropriation as required in
paragraph (1), it shall not be in order in that House to
consider such measure. If a point of order under this
paragraph is sustained, the measure shall be recommitted to
the Committee on Appropriations of that House.
(b) Authorization Legislation.--
(1) A committee of either the House or the Senate shall not
report an authorization measure that contains new direct
spending or new targeted tax benefits unless such measure
presents each new direct spending or new targeted tax benefit
as a separate item and the accompanying committee report for
that measure shall contain such level of detail as is
necessary to clearly identify the allocation of new direct
spending or new targeted tax benefits.
(2) If an authorization measure is reported to the House or
Senate that fails to comply with paragraph (1), it shall not
be in order in that House to consider such measure. If a
point of order under this paragraph is sustained, the measure
shall be recommitted to the committee of jurisdiction of that
House.
(c) Conference Reports.--
(1) A committee of conference to which is committed an
appropriations measure shall not file a conference report in
either House that fails to contain the level of detail on the
allocation of an item of appropriation as is set forth in the
statement of managers accompanying that report.
(2) A committee of conference to which is committed an
authorization measure shall not file a conference report in
either House unless such measure presents each direct
spending or targeted tax benefit as a separate item and the
statement of managers accompanying that report clearly
identifies each such item.
(3) If a conference report is presented to the House or
Senate that fails to company with either paragraph (1), or
(2), it shall not be in order in that House to consider such
conference report. If a point of order under this paragraph
is sustained in the House to first consider the conference
report, the measure shall be deemed recommitted to the
committee of conference.

SEC. 3. WAIVERS AND APPEALS.

Any provision of section 2 may be waived or suspended in
the House or Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members of that House duly chosen and
[[Page S4189]] sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members duly chosen and sworn shall be required to
sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of
order raised under that section.

SEC. 4. SEPARATE ENROLLMENT.

(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when any
appropriation or authorization measure passes both Houses of
Congress in the same form, the Secretary of the Senate (in
the case of a measure originating in the Senate) or the Clerk
of the House of Representatives (in the case of a measure
originating in the House of Representatives) shall cause the
enrolling clerk of such House to enroll each item of such
appropriation or authorization measure separately.
(2) A measure that is required to be enrolled pursuant to
subsection (a)--
(A) shall be enrolled without substantive revision,
(B) shall conform in style and form to the applicable
provisions of chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code (as
such provisions are in effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act), and
(C) shall bear the designation of the measure of which it
was an item prior to such enrollment, together with such
other designation as may be necessary to distinguish such
measure from other measures enrolled pursuant to paragraph
(1) with respect to the same measure.
(b) A measure enrolled pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subsection (a) with respect to an item shall be deemed to be
a bill under Clauses 2 and 3 of Section 7 of Article 1 of the
Constitution of the United States and shall be signed by the
Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, or
their designees, and presented to the President for approval
or disapproval (and otherwise treated for all purposes) in
the manner provided for bills and joint resolutions
generally.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ``appropriation measure'' means any general or
special appropriation bill or any bill or joint resolution
making supplemental, deficiency, or continuing
appropriations.
(2) The term ``authorization measure'' means any measure
other than an appropriations measure that contains a
provision providing direct spending or targeted tax benefits.
(3) The term ``direct spending'' shall have the same
meaning given to such term in section 250(c)(8) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(4) The term ``item'' means--
(A) with respect to an appropriations measure--
(i) any numbered section,
(ii) any unnumbered paragraph, or
(iii) any allocation or suballocation of an appropriation,
made in compliance with section 2(a), contained in a numbered
section or an unnumbered paragraph; and
(B) with respect to an authorization measure--
(i) any numbered section, or,
(ii) any unnumbered paragraph,

that contains new direct spending or a new targeted tax
benefit presented and identified in conformance with section
2(b).
(5) The term ``targeted tax benefit'' means any provision:
(A) estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation as losing
revenue within the periods specified in the most recently
adopted concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to
section 301 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974; and
(B) having the practical effect of providing more favorable
tax treatment to a particular taxpayer or limited group of
taxpayers when compared with other similarly situated
taxpayers.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall apply to measures passed
by the Congress beginning with the date of the enactment of
this Act and ending on September 30, 2000.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the side-by-
side comparison of this amendment and the Hollings-Mattingly amendment,
which was brought up, I think, in 1986, and the Bradley proposal be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the comparison was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollings/
Dole Mattingly Bradley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope............ Any general, Any general, Any general or
special special special
appropriations appropriations appropriation
bill or joint bill or joint bill or any
resolution resolution bill or joint
making making resolution
supplemental, supplemental, making
deficiency or deficiency or supplemental,
continuing continuing deficiency, or
appropriations; approps. continuing
new direct approps or any
spending; new revenue bill
target tax containing a
benefits. tax
expenditure.
Presentation of Requires that No similar No similar
bills. appropriations provision. provision
bills reported
to the House and
Senate contain
the same level
of detail on the
allocation of
funds as the
accompanying
report.
Requires ................ ................
authorizing and
Finance
Committees to
present new
direct spending
and new target
tax benefits as
a separate item;
reports must
detail those
items.
A point of order ................ ................
lies against a
bill or
conference
report failing
to detail items.
A point of order ................ ................
may be waived by
a 3/5 vote.
Instructions on Bills shall be Same............ Same.
enrollment. enrolled without
substantive
revision,
conform to
provisions of 2,
title 1, USC,
bear a
distinguishing
designation and
be deemed a bill
under Article I,
sec. 7, clause 2
and 3.
Definitions...... ``Items'' means ``Items'' means ``Items'' means
any numbered any numbered any numbered
section or any section or any section or any
unnumbered unnumbered unnumbered
paragraph, or paragraph. paragraph.
any allocation
or suballocation
of funds
contained in a
numbered or
unnumbered
paragraph.
With respect to ................ ................
authorizations,
item means
numbered section
or unnumbered
paragraph that
contains new
direct spending
or a new
targeted tax
benefit.
``Targeted tax No similar ``Tax
benefit'' means provision. expenditure''
any provision means a
estimated by JCT division of a
as losing bill that is
revenue within scored by JCT
period specified as losing
by budget con. revenue over 5
res. and having years.
the practical
effect of
providing more
tolerable tax
treatment to a
particular or
limited group of
taxpayers when
compared to
other similarly
situated
taxpayers.
``Direct No similar No similar
spending'' as provision. provision.
defined in
section 250(c) 8
of Balanced
Budget and
Emergency
Deficit Control
Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we ought to start with some facts.
The line-item veto is not about partisan politics, as the minority
leader said on Friday, as I said on Friday, and as the President said
today in a release. He said he wanted as strong as possible a bill and
make it effective immediately.
So it is not about politics. It is about our economic future. And it
is not about pitting appropriations versus entitlements. It is about
subjecting all expenditures to the same scrutiny.
According to the Congressional Research Service, at least 10
Presidents since the Civil War have stated support for the line-item
veto. President Clinton will be the 11th. Governors of 43 States have
some form of line-item veto authority. It has the overwhelming support
of the American people. It is time we came to closure on this issue
here in Washington, DC.
And make no mistake about it, there have been differences of opinion
about how to best design this authority. Some have backed a
constitutional amendment, some enhanced rescission authority, and some
separate enrollment legislation. And the substitute that I have offered
today tries to build on the efforts of those on both sides of the aisle
to reach a consensus after all these years of arguing.
I understand it has been suggested--I hope not--we are surprising
everyone. I do not think there are many surprises left in this debate.
I was reminded by the Senator from Arizona in a Republican conference
just a few moments ago we have considered different forms of the line-
item veto seven times in the past 8 years. And so it is a matter that
most of us have a lot of familiarity with, some more than others who
have worked on it, such as the Senator from Arizona and the Senator
from Indiana, the Senator from New Mexico, and others on the other side
of the aisle.
I hope that we could respond quickly here and get this done this
week. There is no reason not to do it this week. It is only five pages
long. There is one sentence on the sixth page.
We do not have every vote on this side, I do not believe, for the
amendment itself, although I must say we have improved it a lot and we
have picked up a lot of support on this side.
[[Page S4190]] I do think we have every vote for cloture on this side
of the aisle. So it seems to me that with bipartisan support, which I
expect will come, particularly with the President's strong statement
today, there is no reason why we cannot complete action on this, go to
conference with the House and get a really good bill.
As I have indicated, since 1985 there have been no fewer than seven
efforts to enact measures to provide for the separate enrollment of
bills. That is separate enrollment of bills. And in the past there have
been legitimate issues raised as to whether or not appropriations
measures should be the only bills subject to this new procedure.
In the view of Senators Stevens, Bradley, and others, all spending
should be subject to review, whether it be the expansion of an
entitlement or creation of a new entitlement or creation of a new tax
break. This substitute covers all three. It is going to cover
everything.
Some have suggested we could never define the term ``item'' when you
talk about line item. Our substitute tries to ensure that sufficient
detail is provided in each bill so these determinations can be fairly
and clearly made.
Is this substitute perfect? Probably not. There may be some good
ideas on change, maybe here, maybe in the conference. But it moves us
in the right direction. And in my view it does not change the balance
between the legislative branch and the executive branch. Both sides
have the opportunity to lay out their priorities and subject them to
the review of the other branch. The President retains his authority to
veto, and we retain our authority to override such a veto.
Will it put additional pressure on us to review and defend those
special projects and new programs? You bet it will. That is what this
debate is all about. That is what the American people expect. And,
again, the American people are not Democrats and Republicans or
Independents. The American people support this measure. That is what it
should do, and that is what it should be about.
There has been strong bipartisan support for the line-item veto. It
passed the House 294 to 134. It has been voted on in various forms in
the Senate in the past and received the support of many of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including my colleague from
Delaware, Senator Biden, Senator Exon from Nebraska, Senator Heflin
from Alabama, Senator Hollings from South Carolina, Senator Kennedy
from Massachusetts, Senator Leahy from Vermont, Senator Nunn from
Georgia, Senator Pell from Rhode Island, and others. In fact, I have
noted--I think the Senator from New Mexico will touch on it--a vote in
the Budget Committee where they had separate enrollments where I think
at least five or six Democrats on the Budget Committee supported that
approach.
So I just hope that we are not going to get into any political
debate, that this will be a debate on the line-item veto. Certainly
there are probably questions that should be raised. We have gone
through one political debate in the balanced budget amendment. In my
view, we do not need another one right now. There should be a vote on
this measure, and it should be soon.
I think whatever way the vote comes out, the people are going to know
where we stand. We know where they stand. They think they know where we
stand. They believe that on this measure there will be strong
bipartisan support. I happen to believe they are right, unless there is
something I have not factored into this entire equation.
It is an issue we are familiar with. We have debated it. We have
discussed it. We have had hearings and hearings and hearings. It seems
to me now it is time to act.
I would just speak for my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I
think it is safe to say 10 days ago we were sort of all over the lot.
Different people had different views, and they were strongly held
views. But again, by sitting down and working together--and we give
credit to our staff for their help and their ideas--we have been able
to come together. As I said, I think every Republican is now prepared
to vote for cloture if cloture is necessary. And nearly every
Republican, I think, is prepared to vote for the bill--not every
Republican but nearly every one. So we have made a great deal of
progress, and we believe that, as I said, now is the time to act.
I would just conclude by again specially thanking the following
Senators. Certainly Senator McCain has been out on this floor year
after year after year after year, and when you see him coming you know
it is probably about the line-item veto because he feels that strongly
about it, and he is going to keep on coming. We hope this is his last
trip so he can go on to something else like Social Security. This time
he is going to succeed, in my view.
Senator Coats has been right there with him. They have stuck
together, and they have worked and they have worked. They have had a
little different view than some other of my colleagues like Senator
Domenici from New Mexico and Senator Stevens from Alaska, but as I have
indicated, because of their dedication, because of all their efforts
and the outstanding assistance we have had from the chairman of the
Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and Senator Stevens, who had a lot
of reservations about this, worried about having it apply to a certain
amount of the appropriations --about what, 16 percent of the budget? He
did not think that was going to be very effective, and he convinced a
number of our colleagues--in fact, all of our colleagues--it was not
very effective so we have made appropriate changes.
We believe it is a good proposal, and I hope that we would have as
strong a vote on this as we had on congressional coverage. It was 98 to
1. Or if not that strong, maybe as strong as the unfunded mandates bill
that passed the Senate 86 to 10. This should be another one of those
measures where we come together and we vote and the American people are
the beneficiaries.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have listened to the words of our
majority leader. The first thought that comes to mind is what a
difference a year makes. I do not recall how many times over the course
of the last couple of years our Republican colleagues would come to the
floor and criticize, sometimes bitterly, the majority leader at the
time for laying a bill down that nobody on the other side had seen, a
bill that in their view did not have hearings, or a bill that was not
the subject of any negotiations between Republicans and Democrats.
I can recall on health care being held for weeks and months, simply
because there was a very complicated piece of legislation that they
said ought to be examined, needed to be looked through, and needed to
be thoughtfully considered.
The times have changed and the situation is different than it was a
year ago. This is a different piece of legislation, but the issue is
the same. There ought to be overwhelming bipartisan support for a line-
item veto. I do not think there is any serious debate about that.
Democrats and Republicans want a line-item veto. I think there is
broad, bipartisan support for the concept of a line-item veto.
The majority leader says that he hopes we can get bipartisan support
for this proposal. But I guess I have to ask how badly they want
bipartisan support when we have not been involved in these
negotiations; we have not had any opportunity to see this provision
until it has now been laid down. There have been no discussions with
Democrats with regard to this particular proposal. So if, indeed, there
is a true desire for bipartisan cooperation, that is an unfortunate way
to make that fact known.
The majority leader also made the comment that this proposal will
submit all expenditures to line-item veto--all expenditures. I hope
that is accurate. As I understand it, there is a question about ``all''
expenditures. That is one reason I think it will be very helpful for us
to have the opportunity to talk through, think through, and work
through this legislation pertaining to an ``item.'' As I understand it,
some of the tax provisions that may be on the list of priorities for
our colleagues on the Republican side include capital gains, but I am
told capital gains and a number of other tax provisions that will
clearly be defined as expenditures--in this case, tax expenditures--
would not be included in this particular provision of the bill. So we
will have to take a good look at whether everything is on the table or
not.
[[Page S4191]] What we do know is this: Two pieces of legislation
passed through the Budget Committee and the Governmental Affairs
Committee. They were the subject of hearings. They were the subject of
a markup. We had a good debate, and they were presented to the floor in
a way that is the accepted practice here in the Senate. And we now know
those bills and all the work the committees have done apparently is for
naught. That is not going to be considered here. What is going to be
considered is some compromise--that has generated a good deal of
support on the other side--that we have not seen. There have been no
hearings. There was no markup. There was no opportunity for committees
to even consider this particular piece of legislation, at least this
year.
The majority leader indicates that this has been a proposal that has
been around since 1985. Nearly half of the current membership of the
Senate was not here in 1985 and have not had the opportunity to
consider a proposal which would involve the individual enrollment of
every single line item before it is sent to the President.
That, too, reminds me of the comments made last year about the
paperwork involved with the 1,300-page health bill. They felt we ought
to be able to reduce all that paperwork and send something simple to
the President. Now we have some colleagues who are saying we do not
want to send something simple, we want to send something complicated.
We do not want to send something short, we want to send something that
may involve 2,000 or 3,000 pages.
We will have a good debate about all of this, but I do urge all of my
colleagues to take great care before they make any decisions about
whether this legislation is what the Senate wants to sign into law;
before we make any conclusions as to whether everything is on the
table; whether this is the most practical; whether, indeed, there is
opportunity for bipartisan support for this particular version.
What I hope will not happen is that we will be told to accept this
version or no version at all; that we either take this or we are not
going to have a line-item veto. I hope that does not happen because, as
I said, I think there is very strong support for the concept of a line-
item veto. Simply to say it is this one or nothing certainly does not
reflect what I hope will be the opportunities we have to work together
on a whole range of issues. We should not be told that it is this or
nothing, that there is no other version that is acceptable when so many
Members on both sides of the aisle have supported other versions, have
supported other approaches, and might have ways in which to improve
even this particular piece of legislation.
So I know that all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle will
look with great interest at the provisions of this bill and will have
more to say as the days this week unfold. Certainly it will be my hope
as well that we could finish this week. There is no reason why, given
the broad amount of support, that we could not finish. But part of
whether or not we finish depends on the degree to which there is
genuine cooperation, genuine interest in bipartisanship, and whether we
have an ability to better understand what some of these concepts
actually include.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say the distribution of time and the
management of the bill on this side will be by the Senator from
Arizona, Senator McCain, or his designee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before the majority leader leaves the
floor I want to thank him for his leadership on this bill, without
which we could not have come together with the differing views that
were strongly held by very respected members of the Republican
conference. I would like to thank him, in his leadership, for making
the 54 Members on this side committed to voting for cloture, and I
think making what was a very difficult situation just a few days ago,
the enactment of line-item veto, very possible.
Also, I might add that the chief of staff of the majority leader,
Sheila Burke, did an enormous amount of work, many hours of meetings
and writing specific language. I would like to thank her for all she
did in this effort. I would also like to thank Senator Domenici. I
would also like to thank Senator Stevens. I would also like to thank my
partner, Senator Coats, who has labored with me for so long on this
issue.
Mr. President, I will not talk a long time because I know Senator
Coats would like to make some remarks and also Senator Domenici, who
really knows the details of many of these issues. I know Senator
Domenici will spend a little bit of time talking about the specific tax
provisions, since he has many years of experience on that aspect of the
bill.
I would just like to say in response to the minority leader--and I
appreciate his remarks, and I appreciate his willingness to look at
this legislation. I hope he and other Members on the other side of the
aisle will heed the President's message that he wants and he wants soon
a very strong line-item veto bill; the strongest, in the words of the
President of the United States.
There will be a question about constitutionality. We will have
opinions of respected constitutional scholars about the
constitutionality of an enrolled item and an enrolled bill. We will be
able to, I think, satisfy the concerns of the Members of this body
about that.
I think there will be questions raised about the degree that the
targeted tax benefits--how much that encompasses. I think we will be
able to respond to that.
I look forward to a debate on the merits of this issue. I look
forward to a debate that clearly will clear the way for expressing the
will of the people. Some 83 percent of the American people, in the last
poll that I saw, support giving the President the line-item veto.
I want to return to one fundamental fact before I turn to the Senator
from Indiana for a few remarks. Mr. President, in 1974, the deficit was
minuscule, the debt was very small. In 1974, the Budget Impoundment Act
was passed, which deprived the President of the United States of the
authority to impound funds. At that time, from that time on, the
deficit and the debt, the annual deficit and the debt, exploded.
In 1974, our deficit was $6.135 billion. In 1994, it was $203
billion. In 1974, the accumulated debt of nearly 200 years of American
history was $483 billion. It is now projected in 1996 to be $5.2
trillion. That did not happen by accident. It is because we shifted the
balance of power away from the executive branch to the legislative
branch. Mr. President, none of us can in good conscience lay a $5.2
trillion debt on our children and grandchildren. We cannot do it. It is
time we brought it to a halt.
I want to finally say that we cannot balance the budget with a line-
item veto alone. I have no doubt or question about that. But we also
cannot balance the budget without a line-item veto authority in the
hands of the President of the United States.
We will have a lot more to say in the next few days. I want to thank
again the majority leader. My friend from New Mexico, who has a great
deal of expertise, perhaps more than anyone in this body on these
issues, I appreciate his assistance in bringing about this final
conclusion.
Mr. President, I yield whatever time he may consume to the Senator
from Indiana and then yield whatever time he may consume to the Senator
from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is probably a little premature to be
offering congratulations since we are just taking up the bill. But let
me say that there has been an extraordinary amount of hard work,
effort, and negotiation that has gone into this product that the
majority leader, Senator Dole, just proposed.
Individuals have held strong feelings and strong convictions about
what line-item veto means and how it ought to be defined. It is the
product of many, many years of involvement of the various individuals
in attempting to find ways to deal with a budget that almost seems
intractable, to deal with a structural change in the way that the
Congress does business, and in attempting to come up with a piece of
legislation which is bringing divergent interests--by the way all of
those interests trying to reach the same goal but just by different
means. To bring
[[Page S4192]] them together on one piece of legislation has not been
easy. But because the individuals involved are committed to the final
goal, because they are committed to the principle that we have to be
stewards of the taxpayer dollars, wise stewards, and that we have to
make every possible effort on behalf of the constituents we represent
and the taxpayers who get up every Monday morning, who haul off to work
and put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, because we
have a commitment to make sure that they do not have to send $1 more
than is necessary to Washington to perform the functions of the Federal
Government as defined by the Constitution, as defined by what we
determine are our vital national interests, we set aside some of our
reservations and some of our concerns, and said, despite our ideas
about which path we should take, let us make sure we get to the goal
line on this.
There are a lot of people that deserve a lot of credit, starting with
the majority leader, who has pulled us together on a number of
occasions, keeps us in the same room around the same table, refuses to
give up, and keeps providing leadership that we need to function as a
party to bring legislation forward that has the support of our party.
Credit goes to Senator McCain who has been tireless. Anybody who
knows Senator McCain knows that word ``tireless'' as defined in the
dictionary has a new meaning. He has a dogged persistence, has had a
dogged persistence and has one now, to pursue this effort, who will not
take no for an answer. He has been a great support and great help and
inspiration to me as I have engaged in this process as I have been in
the Senate. It has been a pleasure to be a partner with him.
As I said, I believe, on Friday, sometimes you define character, and
I use the foxhole test. If I am surrounded by the enemy and need
somebody with me in the foxhole, Senator McCain is someone I would like
to go shoulder to shoulder with. So I appreciate his efforts.
Senator Domenici has been tireless in his efforts to work with us and
to try to achieve a final solution to this question of whether or not
we can put a bill together that can enjoy broad Republican support. He
has done that. He has made available his expert staff, Bill Hoagland,
and others. I hate to start giving staff too much credit because their
work is just starting and there is a long road to go. But Senator
McCain's staff and my staff, Senator Stevens', Senator Domenici's, and
Senator Dole's staffs, and others who have worked on this have just put
an extraordinary amount of time and effort into it.
Senator Domenici has worked with us in defining some of the ways in
which this would impact the way we spend money, the way we apply taxes,
new programs, how new direct spending and entitlement spending takes
place. He has provided an expertise to us. It has been invaluable.
Senator Stevens was a catalyst for expanding this legislation to make
sure that the line-item veto did not just apply to the narrow little
slice of the budget, but applied to a broader part of the budget. It is
fairer to do it that way, but it also accomplishes more of our purpose
and our goal. We are able to apply the principle of the line-item veto
to how we make decisions about spending the taxpayer dollars and what
the checks and balances will be as we move through the process. We will
apply that principle to a much broader range of spending, whether they
be tax expenditures or whether they be appropriations.
The Dole substitute adopts a structure for line-item veto which has
bipartisan support. It requires that each item of spending and each
targeted tax be separately enrolled. The President may approve or veto
these items. But it utilizes two important principles:
First, the key principle, for which Senator McCain and I have fought
so long, that is a real veto requiring two-thirds of the Congress to
override, to make it tough to pork-barrel spend, whether it is tax pork
or spending pork, appropriations pork;
Second, it embodies principles which have been advocated by key
leaders on the Democrat side of the aisle, individuals like Senator
Hollings, Senator Bradley, and Senator Biden, who have championed the
very idea and principle embodied in the concept and content of the bill
we are offering.
So we are not dropping something new, as the minority leader
intimated. We are taking something that has been debated and discussed
for a considerable amount of time by key Democrat leaders, and we are
embodying in that the principle of the bill we introduced. I think that
is important because it provides for key bipartisanship and, hopefully,
support.
This Dole substitute has the enthusiastic support of Republicans.
There are already 50 cosponsors of the bill, and we had a chance to
talk to the other four Republicans to have them look at the bill. But
already 50 of the 54 Republicans have signed up as cosponsors of this
legislation. We hope we will get even more support from the
Republicans, and we trust that we will get solid support from our
friends and colleagues across the aisle.
I am enthusiastic about the opportunity that we have to bring real
fiscal discipline to the budget process. We are going to be able to go
after tax pork. We are going to be able to go after spending pork. We
will be able to go after and define those programs.
We are bringing accountability to the work that we do. We are going
to have to come down here and do what the taxpayer expects us to do,
state right up front what we are doing, what it is going to cost, where
the money is going to be so we can make a judgment in terms of where we
stand and in terms of spending dollars.
This will be the case until this is adopted. But previous to this, it
has been easy to hide items in the massive bills. I am not pointing
fingers at anybody. We are all guilty. We all know we need to change
the way we do business.
So, Mr. President, I am pleased to join in this effort, to be a part
of this effort. I look forward to debating this effort. Hopefully,
before too long, we will be able to send a piece of legislation to the
President after more than 130-some years which the Presidents have been
calling for, Members have been striving for, and something that I think
whose time has come. It is only five pages and one line long. As the
majority leader indicated, it is not going to take a whole lot of time
to read and understand this bill. It is not like a 1,500-page health
bill that the President dropped and then changed on a number of
occasions. It is only five pages and one line long. It embodies the
principles and ideas that have been debated on this floor over and over
and over. They have been offered by Republicans and by Democrats.
Truly, it is now supported by the President of the United States, who
is calling for the toughest possible measure. I think, on that basis,
we can go forward and adopt something truly meaningful and make a real
structural change that will make a difference in the way this Congress
does business.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Republican
compromise on the line-item veto. The distinguished majority leader,
Senator Dole, has put together an amendment that finds a middle ground
on this issue. I anticipate that we will need cloture to get this
measure passed and I hope there is sufficient support from the other
side of the aisle to bring this bill to a vote.
There are many variants of the so-called line-item veto. I think it
is unfortunate that many have focused on the differences between the
two approaches that Senator McCain and I have offered. Both the
distinguished Senator from Arizona and I want to find a procedure to
expand the President's ability to extract low-priority spending from
legislation.
I want to spend just a moment and talk about Senator McCain's bill. I
have consistently voted in favor of procedural motions to give Senator
McCain a vote on his enhanced rescission proposal. I made line-item
veto legislation a priority for my committee and moved quickly to hold
hearings and report Senator McCain's bill, S. 4. Had the Budget
Committee not reported this bill, it would be subject to a point of
order under the Budget Act. It would have taken 60 votes to waive this
point of order. By the Budget Committee's action, this point of order
does not lie against this legislation. That has not been the case in
the past when
[[Page S4193]] Senator McCain brought this legislation to the floor in
the form of an amendment to another piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I support the objectives of Senator McCain's bill, but
I felt the McCain bill shifted too much power over the budget to the
President and focused too much attention on just the appropriated
accounts, which--excluding defense--represents less than 20 percent of
total spending.
There will be a lot of discussion about the Dole amendment on this
bill, but I want to focus on just three major advantages of this
amendment over the McCain enhanced rescission bill.

The Dole Amendment provides a less cumbersome process to overturn
Presidential rescissions

The Dole amendment requires each spending item in legislation to be
enrolled as a separate bill. If the President chose to veto one of
these items, each of these vetoes would be returned to Congress
separately for an override.
The McCain bill provided a much more cumbersome process for Congress
to override a Presidential rescission. In order to overturn
Presidential rescissions under the McCain bill, the Congress would have
had to overcome two hurdles.
First, each House of Congress would have had to pass a bill
disapproving all of the President's rescissions for an Appropriations
Act within 20 days. Since the McCain bill prohibits amendments, the
Congress would be stuck with an all-or-nothing proposition. Either vote
to overturn all the President's rescissions for an Appropriations Act
or let every one of the President's rescissions stand. More
importantly, the McCain bill's procedure did not guarantee a vote on
the disapproved bill.
Even if the Congress managed to pass the disapproval bill within the
narrow timeframe established by the bill, the President would veto this
disapproval resolution and Congress would have to overcome the second
hurdle. Each House of Congress would have to override his veto with a
two-thirds vote.
Under the McCain bill, this entire process, the passage of the
disapproval bill and the override of the President's veto, had to be
completed in 30 days. I doubt Congress could complete all of this
action within these timeframes. The result would be that Congress would
never even get a chance to vote on an override of a Presidential
rescission. I believe this approach implicitly and in practical terms
delegated too much power to the President.
The distinguished minority leader has raised some legitimate concerns
about the enrolling process envisioned in the Dole amendment. Let me
say there need not be more trees cut down than are already cut down for
existing appropriations bills. The Dole amendment creates the same
amount of paper as now. It just is handed to the President in smaller
stacks.
the dole amendment applies to all spending

The Dole amendment applies to all new spending in legislation, not
just appropriations legislation. In addition, it applies to any new,
very narrow, targeted tax benefits in legislation.
A line-item veto on its own cannot balance the budget. None of the
line-item veto bills apply to existing entitlement law, which is the
clear culprit behind the deficit. Over the next 5 years, discretionary
spending, that spending which is subject to the annual appropriations
process, remains essentially unchanged. Entitlement spending explodes,
growing by $334 billion, or 44 percent, over the next 5 years.
From a spending control perspective, the only portion of the budget
that is under control is discretionary spending--spending that is
subject to the annual appropriations process. A discretionary dollar
cannot be spent unless it is approved by Congress. The Appropriations
Committee must comply with caps that are enforced by 60 vote Budget Act
points of order and MOB sequesters. Senator McCain's bill only applied
to appropriations bills and did not apply to new entitlement spending.
Entitlement spending under existing law, on the other hand, is on
automatic pilot. There is no annual review required, no caps, and no
enforcement mechanism to require a reduction in existing entitlement
programs. We do have a pay-as-you-go enforcement scheme that requires
any new entitlement legislation to be paid for. The Dole amendment
builds on that scheme by giving the President the opportunity to veto
new entitlement spending in legislation.
Congress has enacted major expansions in entitlement spending in
recent years. For example, President Clinton's 1993 reconciliation bill
included $25.4 billion in new entitlement spending on everything from
food stamps to foreign language proficiency programs for customs
officers. Under the Dole bill, this type of new entitlement spending
would be enrolled separately and could be vetoed.
Mr. President, I have had trouble with the application of line-item
vetoes to tax benefits. This concern stems primarily from how one
defines the term ``targeted tax benefits.'' On the other hand, I am
very much aware that sometimes these items referred to as pork-barrel
spending in an appropriations bill can similarly be found as pork-
barrel tax benefits in a large tax bill.
The Dole amendment applies the separate enrollment discipline to
those cases in which special interest provisions are tucked away in a
tax bill. Under the Dole amendment, only very narrow targeted tax
benefits, those provisions that benefit a defined group of taxpayers,
would be subject to the separate enrollment procedures.
If a Senator does not believe that new entitlement spending or
targeted tax benefits have been fully identified in a reported tax
bill, the Dole amendment provides a means by which a Senator can
challenge the bill. If the Senator's point of order is sustained, the
relevant committee would have to fully flush out these provisions for
separate enrollment before the bill would be in order.

the dole amendment provides for congressional review

The Dole amendment sunsets this authority in 2000. We do not know how
these procedures will operate in practice. With this sunset date, after
4 years of experience, Congress will have the opportunity to review
this new authority and its extension. If the President abuses the new
powers we give him in this bill, Congress can address these abuses when
the bill comes up for reauthorization in 2000.
Mr. President, I think we should strengthen the President's ability
to extract low-priority funding from legislation, but I think we need
to be careful not to unduly disrupt the balance of powers among the
branches.
There is no greater power of a legislative body than the power over
the purse. We should be careful how much authority over the budget we
delegate to the President. James Madison said it best when he wrote in
Federalist Paper No. 58:

This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the
most complete and effectual weapon with which any
constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the
people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for
carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

I congratulate Senator Dole. He has found an approach that
significantly expands the President's authority over spending without
unduly disrupting this delicate balance of power.
Mr. President, I believe when the Members of the U.S. Senate from the
Democratic side of the aisle have thoroughly examined this amendment,
they will be very hard pressed to oppose it. The minority leader
suggests this evening that this is some kind of a surprise because it
is a full substitute for the previously reported bill or bills. That
may be the case technically, Mr. President and fellow Democrats. But
the truth of the matter is that every provision in this has either been
voted on by the U.S. Senate or discussed thoroughly in committee.
Let me just, as I tell you what is in the bill, make sure that
everybody understands what happened with reference to those provisions
heretofore.
First, this bill is built around conventional, ordinary vetoes that
Presidents have had the authority to do forever. It is in the
Constitution. They have authority to veto bills. All we are going to do
herewith reference to appropriated accounts is say that we are going to
offer appropriation bills in far more detail, with far more line items,
so that the President can look at a very large bill, hundreds of pages,
and find all of the items listed in the enrollment process and decide
if he wants
[[Page S4194]] to veto some, none, or many. Just like he would veto
any bill that comes before him that he does not like.
Those vetoes would come to us and in an expedited manner, we would
vote ``yes'' or ``no.''
From that side of the aisle, Senators Hollings, Exon, Simon, Conrad
and Robb--that I am certain of--have voted for this approach to line-
item veto as members of the Budget Committee. When this approach came
to the floor in the 1985 cycle, 58 Senators voted for it, which means
at that point in the history of this Senate, there were more Democrats
than Republicans, so I am certain to get to 58, a number of Democrats
voted for it--the so-called Mattingly line-item veto.
Mr. President, there have been discussions from some Members on the
other side who did not like the original versions of either the McCain
bill or the Domenici bill, because essentially the President would
package his entire rescission list and send the whole thing up here and
say take it all or leave it all. Some Members on the other side of the
aisle, and some on our side, had said that is unfair. We should be
given an up-or-down vote on our item. Is it not interesting that that
is precisely what we have come up with.
For those who believe that an item that they were for, that gets
vetoed by the President in this ordinary veto manner, deserved the
attention of the Senate on that item alone, because some Senators
figured they might win it one item at a time, we have compromised and
said, let us do it that way.
So for those Senators who think they may have some rather significant
power for their project or their line item, they are going to get that
presented freestanding. On the other hand, I might say, as a matter of
process, that it is entirely possible that as we begin to work with
this, we might ourselves, in a voluntary manner, package some of these
so we would eliminate a lot of votes. But that would be strictly up to
the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House.
Mr. President, that is one provision. I believe it is not new. I
believe it has been thoroughly debated and voted on here, that it
should come as no surprise and should not cause Members on the other
side of the aisle who have regularly said they are for line-item or
item veto; I do not think it should cause them too much difficulty in
terms of comprehending it and making a decision rather quickly whether
they are for or against it.
Second, the idea that we were limiting the scope of what could be
vetoed to just the appropriated accounts, which is less than 20
percent, perhaps as low as 16 percent of the expenditures of our
Government, that idea and what follows naturally from it, that you
should try to expand it beyond that, is not new either. As a matter of
fact, in the Budget Committee this year, the bill which I presented
there had both new entitlements or mandatory expenditures and expanded
ones, subject to a line-item veto. It did not pass there, but it was
thoroughly debated and because there was not bipartisan support, it got
left out of the bill. But it was discussed and it is clearly
understood. Any Senator that wants to broaden the scope of how we might
control unneeded expenditures will have no difficulty understanding it.
It has nothing to do with existing entitlements. Nobody should fear
that. It will do nothing to existing programs that are mandatory in
nature. But it says during the existence of this new line-item veto
legislation, if you are going to put in new entitlements or expand
existing ones, the committee of jurisdiction must do it separately and
put it in a separate part of the bill, enumerate it as such, and then
we are making it subject to a Presidential veto as a separate piece of
legislation.
I do not believe anybody ought to be worried about that. It is not
easy today under the rules of the Senate and budget rules to pass new
entitlements anyway. But if you choose to, they will get caught up in a
thorough debate of being isolated from the rest of a big bill and
looked at separately and subject to veto separately. I might add, Mr.
President, the way this bill is drafted, when a major piece of
legislation comes to the floor on entitlements, if the committee of
jurisdiction does not separate out into separate paragraphs new ones or
expanded ones, it is subject to a point of order here. A Senator can
raise the issue and say let us send it back to the committee until they
isolate it so it may be looked at under the fine microscope of a
potential line-item veto. I do not see anything wrong with that.
I believe if we are really worried about deficits and unnecessary
spending, we ought to do that. Mr. President, there will be some on the
other side of the aisle and perhaps some on this side who would say we
are not for including entitlements unless you include tax breaks that
are targeted and of special interest. I am not now speaking about tax
law changes of general application. I am not speaking of capital gains,
of a rate decrease for everyone. I am not speaking of those that apply
to a large group of people.
What we are talking about is tax breaks for a small group of people
where they are being treated differently than the rest of the class
that they belong to. So that if you separated out a business, but did
not cover all businesses, or you separated out a company, but not
companies, those kind of tax breaks are going to be subject to the
exact same rules that I just defined for entitlements.
A tax bill will have to separate them out, put them in separate
paragraphs, so they can also be looked at with a microscope, with the
prospect of, are they really needed in the national interest or, if
they are special interests, are they of such significant special
interest that the President should not veto them? I believe that offers
the right kind of balance.
And I might suggest for those on the other side wondering what kind
of bill have we wrought here tonight, we have voted on the floor of the
Senate for tax expenditure inclusion within a line-item veto. In fact,
Senator Bradley offered it. I do not know its scope, but it is not new.
I do not remember precisely its scope, but my recollection is it
passed. We voted on it.
And, yes, Mr. President, the Budget Committee deliberated and
discussed it. Why do I know that? Because it, too, was in the
alternative approach to the line-item veto that I had. So it is not new
either.
If there are some who want to discuss the language and how we
interpret it and can we make it more precise, obviously that is what
the Senate floor and the amendment process is all about. And that
provision is subject to some discussion. But I might say, for everyone
that wants to broaden the scope of that, there are some who want to
make it more narrow. For there are some on this side of the aisle and
some on the other who do not think raising taxes is really the solution
to fiscal responsibility and budget soundness.
So, this, too, is a compromise, trying to make it targeted, special
interest tax breaks. And when you add that together, you have a much
more powerful, much more powerful, approach to the effectiveness of a
President's pen in vetoing, in an item manner, all of the things that
affect the budget and the budget deficit that are of special interest
or expansive in terms of increasing our deficit.
And then, last but not least, there have been some who question
whether this will all work out. Are we giving Presidents, whether it is
this version or other versions, too much power? We have something that
ought to be taken into consideration by that kind of Senator with that
kind of concern also. Because there are many of us who are not sure
precisely how an item veto is going to work, even the one we have
offered here on the floor. So what we have done is we have provided
that this law will sunset in the year 2000. That means we will try it.
We will look at it. We will observe it. And come the year 2000--that is
not too many years away--we will see whether it has worked. Has it been
abused? Are there loopholes in it? Is it too inclusive?
And we can pass a new one or deny Presidents in the future this
authority based upon the fact that it has not worked, it has taken away
too much, or it has given the President too much bargaining power,
whatever the case may be.
Now some may say, ``Why do you need to do that?'' Remember, if we do
not have that in here, then if we want to change it in the future, we
have to change it in accordance with the President's desire, because,
obviously, he would veto changes that he did not
[[Page S4195]] want and we would be stuck with two-thirds to pass
changes because we would have to override a veto.
So we have solved that problem. We will try it for a long enough
period of time to make sure that it has really been given an
opportunity to work and then we will trust the legislators and
Presidents to decide precisely what they want to do about it after that
period from now until the year 2000.
So, essentially, I say to those on the other side of the aisle, and I
say this with all sincerity, I hope they will look carefully at this
before they decide to try to defeat it by filibuster. Obviously, it is
subject to amendment. And nobody on our side that has worked diligently
to get this bill to this stage thinks that there is nothing that ought
to be changed and there is nothing to talk about.
But I believe this is as close as we will ever get to a fair line-
item veto that has a chance of working and that is broader than we
originally conceived but fair in that respect. It is fair and will be
used fairly, we hope.
So the ball is in the Democrats' court and in the President's court.
Clearly, I do not think the President's support today was as specific
as I hoped. But maybe by tomorrow he will support this bill.
But I will suggest that if there are some who think that the old bill
which I had introduced should be revisited and perhaps the President
supports it, let me set that one aside. At the National League of
Cities, the President answered very different than his staff did in our
Budget Committee where he said he would take either one. The President
answered before the mayors and councilmen of America that he wanted the
McCain amendment. So it seems to me that he wants a real veto. And that
is what we have here.
While not the McCain amendment in its original form, all the changes
I have described to bring many Senators on board and make it fairer and
the 2000 sunset which makes it more palatable to others, but the basic
philosophy seems to me to be what the President said he wanted.
So I only hope that within the next 48 hours or 72 hours, we will get
a real answer. Are they for it or not? Do they want the line-item veto
or not? Does the President want it or not? And I do not think it is
going to take a long time for everybody to find out whether they do or
do not.
I wish to thank the Republicans on our side who helped put this
together. I think it is a very good piece of legislative work and it
deserves to be passed. Let us hope in a few days we will give the
American people the benefit of this, go to the House and give the
President a line-item veto as prescribed here. I think we will all be
the better for it, and the people will get what the overwhelming
majority think we really ought to do as far as fiscal responsibility
and not passing things that are truly not needed by the people of this
country.
I thank the Senator for yielding and I yield the floor
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank again the Senator from New Mexico
whose invaluable assistance made this possible. I look forward as he
fights the battle of the budget, as he brings forth within a month or
two a budget that will really implement many of the savings that are
absolutely necessary if we are able to achieve fiscal responsibility.
Mr. President, I intend to be relatively brief. I appreciate the
remarks of the distinguished Democratic leader. I would say that this
is not a new issue. This bill was introduced in the 99th Congress.
Hearings were held in the committee and, as we know, the motion to
proceed was filibustered. Fifty-three Members of the Senate who are
here today, a majority of them were here then. This same legislation,
as far as enrolled items is concerned, has been reintroduced every
Congress since then. In 1990, on July 25, when the Senate was
controlled by the other side, the Budget Committee favorably reported
this bill. And, finally, during the 103d Congress, the Senate voted on
a sense-of-the-Senate regarding this issue. So, it is not exactly a new
issue.
On the subject of not being able to be consulted on bills that come
up, I might remind my colleagues that this legislation--health care
legislation--was introduced without hearing and without consultation
with this side of the aisle just last year during the health care
debate. It was known as Mitchell 3, not to be confused with Mitchell 1
and Mitchell 2, which was somewhat smaller.
Mr. President, I would suggest that an argument could be made--this
being Mitchell 3 and this being the bill considered before us, five
pages and one additional line--that there is a significant difference
between Members trying to understand Mitchell 3, which I believe was
1,400-some pages, versus this legislation, which is five pages and one
sentence in its entirety.
So I hope that my colleagues will have plenty of time to read and
digest this particular five-page legislation.
I hope we will be able to have a spirited but relatively brief debate
so we can move on to other issues.

Finally, Mr. President, I would like to point out one fact that is
true, that is absolutely true: This is a shift in power. This is a
fundamental change in the way that our Government does business.
Have no doubt as to the seriousness of this issue. This will allow
the President of the United States, fundamentally, to veto not only an
appropriations bill but also a tax bill, increase entitlement or new
entitlement. It does shift that power.
I believe that there is every opportunity for this power to be
misused from time to time. I also believe, Mr. President, that a $5.2
trillion deficit debt which is projected for next year is something
that is unacceptable. We need to give back to the executive branch
enough power so that we can exercise fiscal discipline, which we have
been unable to do in the last 21 years since the Budget Impoundment Act
was passed in 1974.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just want to speak in favor of this
bill. I am very pleased that all of the parties have come together. I
want to compliment the Senator from Arizona who is on the floor now,
along with the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, and Senator Dole,
the majority leader, for bringing everyone together and talking about
this very important issue.
We failed to pass the balanced budget amendment a few weeks ago. It
was a great disappointment to many of us because we felt that the
balanced budget amendment would force Congress not only now but future
Congresses that will meet to make sure they never spend our children's
money and our grandchildren's money.
We did not pass that, but I do think there is a firm resolve among a
majority of Members that we should balance the budget. One of the key
tools to balancing a budget, to bringing spending under control is the
line-item veto. This is a bill that will affect Democrats and
Republicans alike. It is something that we ought to all come together
to do, and that is to say that the President should have the right to
look in a bill and determine what the priorities might be. I think the
President should have a right to veto a bill without shutting down
three agencies of Government, which is what the President would have to
do now.
If Congress disagrees with the President's judgment, we have the
ability to overturn the President, as we would overturn any veto. I
think that is the right approach. I think the Senators have done a
superior job to give us the tools we need to balance this budget. Even
though we do not have a balanced budget amendment, we can balance the
budget if we have resolve. The way to do that is to pass the line-item
veto.
So I hope that all of us will put our party aside and say, ``If we
are going to be serious about balancing the budget of our country and
doing what is right, we have to have all the tools available in the
parliamentary process to do that.'' One of the most important is the
line-item veto.
[[Page S4196]] So I commend my colleagues who have worked on this.
Senator McCain has worked on this for years, years and years. He has
been very patient. He is not necessarily known for his patience but, in
fact, his patience in this is going to prevail, I think, and we are
going to back him up. We are going to back up the majority leader. We
are going to make sure that nothing keeps the Senate from doing what is
right.
They have come up with a bill that is the right approach, and I
commend them for it. I will be here supporting them in every way that I
can.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Texas, an
old and dear friend who I had the privilege of campaigning with across
the State of Texas on several occasions.
The Senator from Texas promised the people of Texas that she would do
everything in her power to get our financial house in order in
Washington. She has been dedicated to that proposition. Her entire
career in public service has been dedicated to that proposition. I am
very appreciative that she should lend her support or advice and
counsel on this very important issue.
So I want to extend my appreciation to the Senator from Texas, and
also I know she will be very active in the next few days as we debate
this issue. I thank the Senator.

____________________