Bill Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the bill that I have sent to the desk makes a very simply point. We can spend money just as easily through the Tax Code as we can through the appropriations process or through the creation of mandatory spending programs. I think we should be honest about the hundreds of billions of dollars that we spend each year through tax expenditures. Spending is spending, whether it comes in the form of a Government check or in the form of a special exception from the tax rates that apply to everyone else. Tax expenditures or tax loopholes allow some taxpayers to lower their taxes and leave the rest of us paying higher taxes than we otherwise would pay. By requiring that Congress establish specific targets for tax expenditures as part of the budget reconciliation process, this bill simply places tax expenditures under the same budgetary scrutiny as all other spending programs. Tax spending does not, as some would say, simply allow people to keep more of what they earned. Rather, it gives them a special exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the responsibility of the national defense and protecting the young, the aged, and the infirmed. Mr. President, we all have been heartened by the recent drops in projected budget deficits. Recent CBO figures show the deficit dropping to $166 billion in 1996, largely due to the success we had in passing the largest deficit reduction package during the 103d Congress. However, we cannot rest on that success. Although it was a good downpayment on deficit reduction, it is not enough. Even if we succeed in reducing the deficit further by cutting discretionary spending, we will not even begin to touch the national debt. We cannot afford to be timid, Mr. President. Our children's way of life is dependent upon our acting on the Federal deficit today and tomorrow and every year thereafter until we restore fiscal sanity to our budget. We cannot wait until we grow our way out of the debt. And we should not and cannot wait until deficits start drifting up in the latter half of this decade before we do something. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the national debt held by the public will rise from approximately $3.5 trillion to roughly $6 trillion in 2004. At that time, the national debt will equal almost 55 percent of our gross domestic product. By 2004, interest payments on that debt will be approximately $334 billion, or over 3 percent of our gross domestic product. One recent report stated that these interest payments will cost each of today's children over $130,000 in extra taxes over the course of their lifetime. Our national debt is nothing less than a mortgage on our Nation's, and our children's future. Mr. President, let us not kid ourselves. Addressing our burgeoning debt will not be easy. If it was, we would have done it years ago. Balancing the budget is going to require sacrifice from every American. It also means that we are going to have to take a hard look at what we spend the taxpayers' money on. And that means all of our spending programs, tax expenditures included. Today, I am introducing legislation that requires Congress, in our budget resolution process, to simply establish targets for reducing tax expenditures, just as we do for other spending items. Those targets would be enforced through a separate line in our budget reconciliation instructions for reductions in tax expenditures. We already do this for other entitlement programs. There is no reason not to do so for tax expenditures. The Senate would pass a budget resolution asking the Finance Committee to reduce tax expenditures, for example, by $10 billion a year or $20 billion or whatever the Senate decides is prudent. It would be up to the Finance Committee to meet those targets through the reconciliation process. This separate tax expenditure target would not replace our current revenue targets. Instead, it would simply ensure that the committee would take at least that specified amount from tax expenditures. Or, in other words, we would ensure that the committee would not raise the targeted amount from rate increases or excise tax increases. I expect to hear from those who will say that I am trying to increase taxes. I strongly disagree. I am simply trying to draw the Senate's attention to the very targeted spending we do through [[Page S682]] the Tax Code, spending that is not subject to the annual appropriations process; spending that is not subject to the Executive order capping the growth of mandatory spending; spending that is rarely ever debated on the floor of the Senate once it becomes part of the Tax Code. The preferential deductions or credits or depreciation schedules or timing rules that we provide through the Tax Code are simply entitlement programs under another guise. Many of them make sense, Mr. President. And I would be the first to admit that. Many, however, probably could not stand the light of day if we had to vote on them as direct spending programs. Given our critical need for deficit reduction, tax spending should not be treated any better or worse than other programs. It should not be protected any more than Social Security payments or crop price support payments or Medicare payments or welfare payments. What am I really talking about? I am talking about letting wealthy taxpayers rent their homes for 2 weeks a year without having to report any income. That is already in the Tax Code. I am talking about providing production subsidies in excess of the dollars invested for the production of lead, uranium and asbestos--three poisons on which we spend millions of dollars each year just trying to clean up. That is already in the code. I am talking about tax credits for clean-fuel vehicles, cancelation of indebtedness income for farmers or real estate developers, special amortization periods for timber companies' reforestation efforts, industrial development bonds for airports or docks, special treatment of capital construction funds for shipping companies, et cetera. Mr. President, before we see a long line of people coming down to defend these programs that I just mentioned, let me be clear that this bill does not pinpoint any specific expenditures. It simply requires that these programs be treated in a manner similar to other entitlement programs. The Joint Tax Committee estimates the revenue lost from these tax expenditures each year. While interaction effects make it difficult to pinpoint exact costs--how one tax expenditure interacts with another-- the Joint Tax Committee list will add up to over $425 billion in 1995. Unchecked, this list will grow by $60 billion to over $485 billion by 1999. Perhaps more interesting, however, are the administration's estimates of what the ``outlay equivalents'' for these tax expenditures are each year, in other words what they would cost us if they were transformed into direct spending programs, as opposed to hidden spending programs in the Tax Code. The administration's estimate for outlay equivalents in 1994 added up to $550 billion; by 1998, this amount is expected to grow to over $660 billion. At a time when we are properly talking about other spending cuts, I do not believe that tax expenditures should be out of bounds. I am not suggesting that we eliminate all these programs. In fact, many of them I support. All I am suggesting is we put them under the same scrutiny that we put on other entitlement programs. If we are serious about deficit reduction--and for our Nation's future I sincerely hope that we are--then every segment of spending will have to be examined. We will not do it through discretionary spending cuts alone. Indeed, what is an area of the budget that is shrinking in terms of gross national product. We will not be able to do it through entitlement cuts alone. In order to achieve equitable, lasting deficit reduction, we will meet to consider tax expenditures as well. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. I list Mr. Daschle and Mr. Kerry as original sponsors. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the debate of the Senate on a Friday always has a certain unique quality to it. I rise today simply to say to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska that I do not know how this issue will be resolved. I assume it will be resolved today. But I applaud him for raising the issue and the amendment that he has offered. This is really a precursor to a debate we will have here in the next week on the balanced budget amendment. It is really a truth-in- advertising amendment. It makes explicit what anyone who supports a balanced budget amendment should know--which is if you vote for it you have to deliver on it. And it makes explicit what delivering on it, voting for the balanced budget amendment, will cost. I really do not think that there has been adequate public focus on what the cost of a balanced budget amendment will be for average people in this country, for regions of the country which get a disproportionate share of the Federal dollar or elements of the economy that have heavy subsidies. I think that the public needs to see what will be cut if we have to meet a balanced budget by the year 2002. And I am all for that. In the last Congress I was on this floor offering spending cut after spending cut on virtually every appropriations bill. I am pleased that within the Democrats I was No. 4 in voting for spending cuts. I am making the point amendment, you then have to vote to cut spending. The balanced budget amendment is just a process. What the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska, as I understand it, does is say that after a balanced budget amendment passes, if it should pass, that any budget resolution has a point of order against it if the budget resolution did not submit a budget that reached a balanced budget by the year 2002, which by the way it is projected will be the year in which the deficit is $322 billion. So anyone who supports the balanced budget amendment would have to support this Exon proposal, because that would make explicit how we cut $322 billion by the year 2002. I applaud the Senator very much for his amendment. I know that we will yet have a chance to debate the balanced budget amendment. One of the puzzling things for me with regard to understanding the support for the balanced budget amendment--and maybe the Senator from Nebraska is aware of this--is that there are certain States in the Union that get a higher return on their tax dollar than other States. Certain States pay taxes, and get back a lot more in Federal spending than they have sent to Washington in taxes. Unfortunately, my State is not in that group because we have a high income. We pay a high tax, and we send a lot of tax dollars to Washington. We do not get back that many tax dollars relative to what we sent. Once we get a balanced budget amendment, all those States which get back much more than they kick in--and these States are disproportionately in the West--those are the States that will be disproportionately hit by the need to dramatically cut spending $322 billion by the year 2002. And in the coming debate, I hope that we will be able to focus on these facts. I think the Senator's amendment is an enormously positive step in getting us to face up to what actually balancing the budget will mean. It will not be easy. There will be no substitute for cutting spending, and there will be no substitute for Senators coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate and voting to cut spending, not voting for a process in that 7 or 10 years from now if it goes into effect, and if there are no exclusions or if there are loopholes, will lead to a balanced budget. We need to have Senators actually coming over here and voting to cut spending. So I applaud the Senator from Nebraska for his amendment. I know that perhaps he and I have a different view on the balanced budget amendment, but his amendment makes explicit what steps must be taken if we are to balance the budget and requires the Congress to belly up to the wire and say in 7 years we are going to balance the budget, and here is how we are going to do it--not that in 7 years we will create some budget glidepath down to a balanced budget in 10 years or 15 years from now, but in 2002. So I am anxiously awaiting such a congressional resolution, because I think once that congressional resolution is out there and you see how much is going to have to be cut in virtually every subsidy, virtually every Federal program, virtually every entitlement there for the last 14 years in the Federal Government, there will be a moment of truth for the Congress and a moment of truth for those who have voted for the balanced budget amendment. I salute the Senator for his amendment.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I introduce the Spending Reduction and Budget Control Act of 1995. This legislation fundamentally and powerfully reforms an appropriations and budget process that is too stacked in favor of continued public spending and a status quo of wasteful or outdated government programs. I have been trying, along with a number of Senators, to reduce taxpayer funding wasted on unnecessary programs and to reduce the deficit. During the 103d Congress, over 20 separate, specific cut proposals were voted on in the Senate. Only three were adopted. Three. Clearly, any attempt to cut programs on the Senate floor is a long shot. The prospects are discouraging and, unfortunately, the Senate's own rules work against any attempt to cut spending. My legislation targets these rules and the substantial procedural obstacles faced by any legislator who dares to cut appropriations, and to cut Federal spending. Every time one of us offers a amendment to cut a program, we face the charge that these amendments do not lead necessarily to any deficit reduction. This happened again and again during the last Congress as a way to discourage Senators from supporting an amendment. Instead of criticizing a proposed budget cut on substance, opponents simply remind Senators that these budget cutters are just tilting at windmills. The problem is that this argument is valid. The rules governing the budget and appropriations process in fact make it nearly impossible to cut a program and reduce spending. In reality, any attempt to do so would almost certainly require a three-fifths supermajority to succeed. And the cuts, even if agreed to by the Senate, can be easily reversed in Conference. My bill creates three key spending reforms, which I will describe in detail. This legislation--first--creates real opportunities to establish or redirect spending priorities, second--guarantees members an ability to cut spending with a majority vote, and--third--constrains the appropriations conferences to retain spending cuts agreed to in both Houses of Congress. Consider how we allocate spending around here: after Congress approves the budget, the Appropriations Committees are allowed to determine discretionary spending within the budget resolution targets. While we debate functional categories during consideration of the budget, the fact is that these categories (with the possible exception of the defense category) are almost entirely irrelevant to the appropriations process. Constrained only by an overall discretionary spending cap, the Appropriations Committee distributes spending authority to its 13 subcommittees. Based on virtually no guidelines, tens of billions of dollars are allocated to the subcommittees. The rest of Congress never knows how this was done or how their constituents' money can be spent until they've been handed the results. We need to return this power to the voters by allowing all of their representatives to determine how to distribute the money within the budget targets and subcommittee jurisdictions. That means nothing more than requiring a vote by each House on how much money each subcommittee should get. This is the first element of may bill. Unfortunately, this step alone doesn't solve the problem. When the appropriations bills come to the floor, there are different complex rules but the same problem: the ability to cut spending is greatly limited. Here's how it works on the House and Senate floors: if you offer an amendment to cut a specific spending item, such as the purchase of Lawrence Welk's childhood home, and it passes, the category that money came from remains intact, and the money you saved can be spent somewhere else in that category. If you want to avoid the trap I just described, you also have to get approval to cut the overall allocation, and lock in that cut. These allocations and caps are very important in Congress--we have rules that say you need 60, not 50, votes to reduce these privileged entities. You can raise taxes with 50 votes but to cut spending you need 60 votes. The second part of my bill would straighten this out--if you have the support of a majority, you can cut spending. But there's one last problem. Even if the House and Senate agree on similar program and allocation cuts, the Conference Committee that creates the final bill is virtually free to reinsert whatever funding might have been cut. This couldn't happen under the terms of the third part of my proposal. These problems are real. I know firsthand. This really happens. It happened last Congress to a spending cut amendment I offered. After the Senate agreed to cut $22 million from the High Temperature Gas Reactor, the Conference Committee scaled the reduction down to $10 million. Half a loaf, but still $10 million in deficit reduction, right? Wrong. The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill--which cut funding for the HTGR by $10 million--actually increased in size during the conference, gaining an extra $20 million out of thin air. Let me make an analogy between cutting spending under the present system and basketball. Imagine you make a free throw--cut a specific program--but it doesn't count unless you go back to the three-point line and make the shot again--cut the allocation or cap. But it doesn't count again unless you go back to the half-court line and sink a shot from there--keep the cuts in a conference report. All of that in order to get credit for a single free throw--or a single deficit reduction amendment. We've created this maze. We can straighten it out. We have to turn the process around so that it's as easy to cut spending in the future as it is to protect spending now. We need a new system, which would be created by the adoption of my reforms. Again, there are three key elements to my proposal: First, we need to give to Congress the right to debate and set priorities for discretionary spending. These are the most fundamental decisions, and they are out of the reach of most of the Congress. I propose we put these decisions before Congress, for approval or modification by majority vote. My bill would require a separate resolution to allocate spending among the appropriations subcommittees. Both houses would have to agree beforehand on how much could be spent by each house's subcommittees. Second, we need to change the rules that prevent cuts in appropriations spending from being actual budget cuts. These obstacles--which were put in place to hinder an increase in spending-- represent bad policy when the goal is deficit reduction. My legislation would allow cuts in programs and cuts in spending. There would be several options: one, follow the status quo, and let money saved from an appropriations cut amendment be spent elsewhere; two, cut a program and cut the current year's allocation (thereby reducing the deficit); or three, cut a program, cut the current budget, and force a reduction in future budgets. All of these approaches would require only a majority vote--not the current supermajority of 60 votes--to be adopted. committees, where expensive deals are often cut. Even when the House and Senate each cut programs, the compromise may turn out to be that no program is cut. My bill would change Senate rules to prohibit an Appropriations Conference Committee from reporting a bill that cuts spending less than either the House or Senate language. Even if the House and Senate cuts are in different programs, the conference will have to reduce spending by at a minimum the smaller of the two amounts. In other words, if the House agrees to $100 million in cuts on a particular appropriations bill, and the Senate agrees to $200 million on same bill, the Conferees would be constrained to produce a Conference Report with at least $100 million in cuts included. Are these budget reforms the answer to the deficit crisis? No. Entitlement and tax expenditure outlays are both growing rapidly, and neither can be addressed by changing congressional procedures. Even as we tighten controls on discretionary spending, we must move forward to confront the huge growth in the other two-thirds of the budget. Americans are right when they think that we are truly inspired when it comes to spending; we need to bring the same zeal to cutting spending. We need basic reforms that assure that spending cuts are spending cuts, not just reasons for another press release. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation seriously. This bill would go a long way towards creating a rational, balanced approach to the budget and spending. In my view, these changes are needed and overdue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I introduce the Comprehensive One- call Notification Act. I am very pleased to have as cosponsors of this bill Senator Specter, Senator Lautenburg, and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Exon. The bill we are introducing today will create new assurance that accidents involving pipelines and underground utilities won't occur. Every year, multiple fatalities and tens of millions of dollars worth of damage occur simply because people dig where they shouldn't. These third-party incidents are the single leading cause of accidents involving pipelines. According to the Department of Transportation, these accidents result in over half of the fatalities and half of the property damage caused by all pipeline failures. The Comprehensive One- Call Notification Act will create a mechanism to prevent the inadvertent injury and the potential tragedy. Last March 23, just before midnight, an explosion ripped through the community of Durham Woods in Edison, NJ. Within minutes, eight apartment buildings were ablaze. Soon they were gone, wiped out by a fireball that lit up the sky over hundreds of square miles. One life was lost. Hundreds lost their homes. Many more were evacuated. The injuries were miraculously low. But who knows how many others still lie awake at night, wondering whether it could happen again and fearing the future. Reflecting on the accident today, it seems hard to fault anyone for their response to the tragedy. The community pulled together to help out those in need. Food, emergency shelter, general support and financial assistance were offered amply and unconditionally in the hours and days following the accident. However, great as this response was, this is not what is most striking about this accident. What is most striking about the accident is how lucky we were. Who would ever think that, given the timing and the magnitude of the explosion, so many people--many fleeing with just the clothes they had on--would escape without serious injury? Few who have walked around that crater, seen the charged cars and the empty building foundations would disagree with the conclusion that many there were saved only by a miracle. Unfortunately, miracles are a poor basis for public policy. You can't count on them. I am not about to count on them. The fact is that there is no margin for error in today's pipeline industry. The natural gas industry does have an excellent safety record, especially when you consider that 25 percent of the energy we consume moves by these pipelines. For example, there are seven major pipelines that cross my home State, and hundreds of smaller ones. But the Edison accident never should have happened. We need to acknowledge Edison for what it is: a breakdown in the regulatory and safety program. When the National Transportation Safety Board testified before the Energy Committee in April, their analysis pointed nearly conclusively to multiple gouges on the pipeline as the probable cause of the disaster. These marks appeared to be due to some powerful machinery, such as a backhoe, that struck the pipeline repeatedly. At this point, we don't know whether the damage was unintentional or on purpose. We don't know who struck the pipeline or whether they might have been aware of the possibility. We do know, however, that there was no requirement of utility notification prior to the excavation. And we know that there is no penalty for digging in the vicinity of the pipeline without notifying the utility operator. This is simply wrong, and represents a failure of public policy. At the hearing before the Senate Energy Committee, every witness agreed that we need a new national program of utility notification. If someone is excavating or grading a site, there has to be proper notification and it has to be mandatory--not voluntary--with penalties for negligence or noncompliance. This national program will be created by the comprehensive legislation we are considering today. Right now, the gas industry is making plans for a rapid expansion into new markets, particularly in the areas of natural gas vehicles and electric power production. The Department of Energy has predicted that the gas market will expand by a third over the next 15 years. If accidents occur--regardless of who is at fault or how the industry follows up--this growth will not. It is that simple. The telecommunications industry is likewise spending billions to expand its infrastructure and capabilities. If this investment, however, is held hostage by every backhoe operator in every State, without serious controls and oversight, we won't see a lot of traffic on this information superhighway. In one sense, this bill is unnecessary. Sooner or later, I predict, every State will adopt one-call provisions like those identified in this legislation. The reason is simple: sooner or later, every State will experience a major accident involving third-party damage to underground utilities. Then, just as has happened in New Jersey, one- call provisions will be introduced or strengthened. This is not an issue of cost. Most States have these programs already. The problem is that, absent sufficient political motivation, these programs are just not as effective as they need to be. We shouldn't have to wait for another disaster to understand the importance of this modest bill. This comprehensive one-call legislation represents a necessary step if we are to do everything reasonable and appropriate to protect the public from the kind of tragedy that struck Edison. This bill, obviously, won't guarantee that another Edison will never occur. But mandatory, truly comprehensive one-call programs, based on a national model, are a good place to start. Passage of this legislation will send a message to the public that our concern is serious and the risks are real. A national program will create a new level of awareness and this awareness would Mr. President, last Congress, this legislation was passed twice by the House of Representatives and was passed unanimously by the Senate Commerce Committee. This bill was on the verge of final approval when the Senate adjourned last October. It is clearly time to pass this legislation. I believe that there is no substantive reason why we cannot and should not act. It is endorsed very broadly by industry. It is needed by the general public. I urge all my colleagues to consider this bill carefully and approve it without delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bradley pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as if in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today, on the first day the Senate is convened, I have introduced the Tax Expenditure and Legislative Appropriations Line-Item Veto Act of 1995. The short explanation of what I am proposing is that the Congress this year enact a line-item veto. Last Congress, I introduced the same bill. We got 53 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate at that time. It was the highest number of votes ever for a line-item veto. We were in a parliamentary situation where we needed 60 votes, so it did not pass. Today, I am reintroducing the same piece of legislation in hopes that the Congress will pass the line-item veto this year. Mr. President, we begin this Congress with two obligations: first, to change the way we do business, and, second, to cut government spending. Reforms that have been bottled up for years in partisan finger-pointing need to be released and must become our first priorities. Both the Congress and White House must learn to say no: no to unnecessary programs, no to those Members who would build monuments to themselves, and a firm no to those lobbyists who would work every angle to slip special provisions into the tax code that benefit the fortunate few and cost every other American millions. For decades, Presidents of both parties have insisted that the deficit would be lower if they had the power to say no, in the form of the line-item veto. This legislation, if enacted, would grant the President the power to say no. In sponsoring this legislation, I urge our colleagues in both the Senate and House of Representatives to pass a line-item veto that covers spending in both appropriations and tax bills. Any line-item veto that fails to give the President the ability to prevent additional loopholes from entering the tax code only does half the job. Although I did not support the line-item veto when I initially joined the Senate, I watched for 12 years as the deficit quintupled, shameless pork-barrel projects persisted in appropriations and tax bills, and our Presidents again and again denied responsibility for the decisions that led to these devastating trends. Therefore, in 1992, I decided that it was time to change the rules. Rather than simply joining one of the appropriations line-item veto bills then in existence, I felt that we needed to be honest about the fact that for each example of unnecessary, special-interest pork-barrel spending through an appropriations bill, there are similar examples of such spending buried in tax bills. The tax code provides special exceptions from taxes that total over $400 billion a year, more than the entire federal deficit. For every $2.48 million, earmarked in an appropriations bill, to teach civilian marksmanship skills, there is a $300 million special provision allowing taxpayers to rent their homes for two weeks without having to report any income. For every $150,000 appropriated for acoustical pest control studies in Oxford, MS, there is a $2.9 billion special tax exemption for ethanol fuel production. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have seen an almost endless stream of requests for preferential treatment through the tax code, including special depreciation schedules for rental tuxedos, an exemption from fuel excise taxes for crop dusters, and tax credits for clean-fuel vehicles. In singling out these pork-barrel projects, I do not mean to pass judgment on their merits. Because many of these tax code provisions single out narrow subclasses for benefit, the rest of us must pay more in taxes. Therefore, I have developed an alternative that would authorize the President to veto wasteful spending not just in appropriations bills but also in the tax code. If the President had the power to excise special interest spending, but only in appropriations, we would simply find the special interest lobbyists who work appropriations turning themselves into tax lobbyists, pushing for the same spending in the Tax Code. Spending is spending whether it comes in the form of a government check, or in the form of a special exception from the tax rates that apply to everyone else. Tax spending does not, as some pretend, simply allow people to keep more of what they have earned. It gives them a special exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the responsibility of our national defense and protecting the young, the aged, and the infirm. The only way to let everyone keep more of what they have earned is to minimize these tax expenditures along with appropriated spending and the burden of the national debt so that we can bring down tax rates fairly, for everyone. Therefore, Mr. President, I urge all of our colleagues, particularly those in leadership positions in the Senate and House of Representatives, to pass a line-item veto bill that includes both appropriations and tax provisions. Although it is true that the line-item veto would give the President more power than our founders probably envisioned, there is also truth in the conclusion of the National Economic Commission in 1989 that ``the balance of power on budget issues has swung too far from the Executive toward the Legislative branch.'' There is no tool to precisely calibrate this balance of power, but if we have to swing a little too far in one direction or another, at this critical moment, we should lean toward giving the President the power that he, and other Presidents, have said they need to control wasteful spending. We have a right to expect that the President will use this power for the good of all. I also agree with the more recent economic commission chaired by my colleagues Senators Domenici and Nunn that a line-item veto is not in itself deficit reduction. But if the President is willing to use it, it is the appropriate tool to cut a certain kind of wasteful spending--the pork-barrel projects that tend to crop up in appropriations and tax bills. Presidential leadership can eliminate these projects when Congress, for institutional reasons, usually cannot. Individual Senators and Representatives, who must represent their own local interests, find it difficult to challenge their colleagues on behalf of the general interest. The line-item veto will allow the President to juxtapose the narrow special interests with the broad public interest. Pork-barrel spending on appropriations and taxes is only one of the types of spending that drive up the deficit, and is certainly not as large as the entitlements for broad categories of the population that we are starting to tackle. But until we control these expenditures for the few, we cannot ask for shared sacrifice from the many who benefit from entitlements, or the many who pay taxes. The particular legislation that I am introducing today is identical to a bill I introduced in the 103d Congress and is modeled on a bill my colleague Senator Hollings has introduced in several Congresses. I want to thank and commend Senator Hollings for working so hard to develop a workable line-item demagoguery to the real question of how to limit spending. This bill will require that each line item in any appropriations bill and any bill affecting revenues be enrolled as a separate bill after it is passed by Congress, so that the President can sign the full bill or single out individual items to sign and veto. It differs from other bills in that it avoids obvious constitutional obstacles and in that it applies to spending through the tax code as well as appropriated spending. Although I acknowledge that separate enrollment, especially separate enrollment of appropriations provisions, may prove difficult at times, in the face of a debt rapidly approaching $5 trillion, I do not believe that we have the luxury of shying away from making difficult decisions. If, because of our appropriations process, we are unable to easily disaggregate appropriations into individual spending items for the President's consideration, then, rather than throw out this line-item veto proposal, I believe that we should reconsider how we appropriate the funds that are entrusted to us. As I noted previously, the legislation that I am proposing would remain in effect for just 2 years. That period should constitute a real test of the idea. First, it will provide enough time for the Federal courts to address any questions about whether this approach is constitutionally sound, or if a constitutional amendment is necessary. Only courts can answer this question, which is in dispute among legal scholars. Second, we should have a formal process to determine whether the line-item veto works as intended: did it contribute to significant deficit reduction? Did the President use it judiciously to cut special- interest spending, or, as some worry, did he use it to blackmail Members of Congress into supporting his own special interest expenditures? Did it alter the balance of power over spending, either restoring the balance or shifting it too far in the other direction? As the recent elections amply demonstrated, the American people have no more patience for finger-pointing or excuses. We can no longer tolerate a deficit that saps our economic strength while politicians in Washington insist that it's someone else who really has the power to spend or cut spending. This President or any other must have no excuses for failing to lead. I list Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coats, and Mr. Robb as original sponsors of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, we begin this Congress with two obligations: first, to change the way we do business, and, second, to cut government spending. Reforms that have been bottled up for years in partisan finger-pointing need to be released and must become our first priorities. Both the Congress and White House must learn to say no: no to unnecessary programs, no to those Members who would build monuments to themselves, and a firm no to those lobbyists who would work every angle to slip special provisions into the tax code that benefit a wealthy few and cost every other American millions. For decades, Presidents of both parties have insisted that the deficit would be lower if they had the power to say no, in the form of the line item veto. I rise to introduce the Tax Expenditure and Legislative Appropriations Line Item Veto Act of 1995, legislation that, if enacted, would grant the President the power to say no. In sponsoring this legislation, I urge our colleagues in both the Senate and House of Representatives to pass a line item veto that covers spending in both appropriations and tax bills. Any line item veto that fails to give the President the ability to prevent additional loopholes from entering the tax code only does half the job. Although I did not support the line item veto when I initially joined the Senate, I watched for twelve years as the deficit quintupled, shameless porkbarrel projects persisted in appropriations and tax bills, and our Presidents again and again denied responsibility for the decisions that led to these devastating trends. Therefore, in 1992, I decided that it was time to change the rules. Rather than simply joining one of the appropriations line item veto bills then in existence, I felt that we needed to be honest about the fact that for each example of unnecessary, special-interest pork-barrel spending through an appropriations bill, there are similar examples of such spending buried in tax bills. The tax code provides special exceptions from taxes that total over $400 billion a year, more than the entire federal deficit. For every $2.48 million, earmarked in an appropriations bill, to teach civilian marksmanship skills, there is a $300 million special provision allowing wealthy taxpayers to rent their homes for two weeks without having to report any income. For every $150,000 appropriated for acoustical pest control studies in Oxford, Mississippi, there is a $2.9 billion special tax exemption for ethanol fuel production. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have seen an almost endless stream of requests for preferential treatment through the tax code, including special depreciation schedules for rental tuxedos, an exemption from fuel excise taxes for crop-dusters, and tax credits for clean-fuel vehicles. In singling out these pork-barrel projects, I do not mean to pass judgment on their merits. However, because these provisions single out narrow subclasses for benefit, the rest of us must pay more in taxes. Therefore, I have developed an alternative that would authorize the President to veto wasteful spending not just in appropriations bills but also in the tax code. If the President had the power to excise special interest spending, but only in appropriations we would simply find the special interest lobbyists who work appropriations turning themselves into tax lobbyists, pushing for the same spending in the tax code. Spending is spending whether it comes in the form of a government check, or in the form of a special exception from the tax rates that apply to everyone else. Tax spending does not, as some pretend, simply allow people to keep more of what they have earned. It gives them a special exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the responsibility of our national defense and protecting the young, the aged, and the infirm. The only way to let everyone keep more of what they have earned is to minimize these tax expenditures along with appropriated spending and the burden of the national debt so that we can bring down tax rates fairly, for everyone. Therefore, Mr. President, I urge all of our colleagues, particularly those in leadership positions in the Senate and House of Representatives, to pass a line item veto bill that includes both appropriations and tax provisions. Although it is true that the line-item veto would give the President more power than our founders probably envisioned, there is also truth in the conclusion of the National Economic Commission in 1989 that the balance of power on budget issues has swung too far from the Executive toward the Legislative branch. There is no tool to precisely calibrate this balance of power, but if we have to swing a little too far in one direction or another, at this critical moment, we should lean toward giving the President the power that he, and other Presidents, have said they need to control wasteful spending. We have a right to expect that the President will use this power for the good of all. I also agree with the more recent economic commission chaired by my colleagues, Senators Domenici and Nunn, that a line-item veto is not in itself deficit reduction. But if the President is willing to use it, it is the appropriate tool to cut a certain kind of wasteful spending--the pork-barrel projects that tend to crop up in appropriations and tax bills. Presidential leadership can eliminate these projects when Congress, for institutional reasons, usually cannot. Individual Senators and Representatives, who must represent their own local interests, find it difficult to challenge their colleagues on behalf of the general interest. Pork-barrel spending on appropriations and taxes is only one of the types of spending that drive up the deficit, and is certainly not as large as the entitlements for broad categories of the population that we are starting to tackle. But until we control these expenditures for the few, we cannot ask for shared sacrifice from the many who benefit from entitlements, or the many who pay taxes. The particular legislation that I am introducing today is identical to a bill I introduced in the 103d Congress and is modeled on a bill my colleague Senator Hollings has introduced in several Congresses. I want to thank and commend Senator Hollings for working so hard to develop a workable line item veto strategy, one that goes beyond political demagoguery to the real question of how to limit spending. This bill will require that each line item in any appropriations bill and any bill affecting revenues be enrolled as a separate bill after it is passed by Congress, so that the President can sign the full bill or single out individual items to sign and veto. It differs from other bills in that it avoids obvious constitutional obstacles and in that it applies to spending through the tax code as well as appropriated spending. Although I acknowledge that separate enrollment, especially separate difficult at times, in the face of a debt rapidly approaching $5 trillion, I do not believe that we have the luxury of shying away from making difficult decisions. If, because of our appropriations process, we are unable to easily disaggregate appropriations into individual spending items for the President's consideration, then, rather than throw out this line item veto proposal, I believe that we should reconsider how we appropriate the funds that are entrusted to us. The legislation that I am proposing would remain in effect for just 2 years. That period should constitute a real test of the idea. First, it will provide enough time for the Federal courts to address any questions about whether this approach is constitutionally sound, or if a constitutional amendment is necessary. Only courts can answer this question, which is in dispute among legal scholars. Second, we should have formal process to determine whether the line item veto works as intended: Did it contribute to significant deficit reduction? Did the President use it judiciously to cut special-interest spending, or, as some worry, did he use it to blackmail members of Congress into supporting his own special interest expenditures? Did it alter the balance of power over spending, either restoring the balance or shifting it too far in the other direction? As the recent elections amply demonstrated, the American people have no more patience for finger-pointing or excuses. We can no longer tolerate a deficit that saps our economic strength while politicians in Washington insist that it's someone else who really has the power to spend or cut spending. This President or any other must have no excuses for failing to lead. I list Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coats, and Mr. Robb as original sponsors of this legislation.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, on November 9, 1994, a very special man, Ramon Rivera, retired as executive director of the community based organization, La Casa de Don Pedro. After 25 years of public service, he was honored for his lifetime commitment to improving the lives of individuals and families in some of New Jersey's poorest neighborhoods. La Casa de Don Pedro was founded by Ramon Rivera as Familias Unidas in 1971. It functioned as a resource for Hispanic families to find adequate child care and employment opportunities in Newark. Through the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's La Casa blossomed into one of the largest community based organizations in New Jersey. Its services include child care, assistance for senior citizens, and job retraining. La Casa's most notable achievements include building low-income two-family housing units and town houses for the residents of Newark. La Casa also developed a credit union that has loaned $2.2 million to residents. If it were not for the credit union, many of the community residents would have no place to deposit money, secure small loans, or take advantage of services we often take for granted. Ramon Rivera, born in Puerto Rico, came to this country at the age of 12. He began his long career in community service as an organizer for the National Welfare Rights Organization, assisting Latina and non- Latina women seek food and clothing. He was then founder cultural program for Hispanic youth. Before he founded La Casa, he was the northern regional representative for the Puerto Rican Congress of New Jersey. A graduate of the school of social work at Rutgers University, Ramon Rivera has devoted more than 30 years of his career to helping low-income families help themselves. Ramon Rivera created an island of hope in a community that lacked access to opportunities and equity. He developed a vibrant social service organization that has served almost two generations of New Jersey residents. While his retirement will be a great loss for those who have worked with him and for those he has served, he has left an exemplary legacy of philanthropic effort and commitment.