Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 1995, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on Reorganization and Revitalization of America's Foreign Affairs Institution.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, March 23 at 10 a.m. for a markup on S. 291, the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, and S. 343, the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 1995. ordered. subcommittee on medicaid and health care for low income families

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Medicaid and Health Care for Low Income Families of the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, March 23, 1995, beginning at 2 p.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on Medicaid 1115 Waivers.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission to meet Thursday, March 23, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing on legislation to approve the National Highway System and transportation issues related to clean air conformity requirements.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, March 23, 1995 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting an executive session and markup.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on armed services be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 23, 1995, at 2 p.m. in open session, to receive testimony on the Department of Defense Medical Program and related health care issues in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 1996 in the future years defense program.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order, the Senator from Indiana was reserved 5 minutes of his own time. I inquire of the Senator from West Virginia, if he wishes to use or delegate any of the remainder of his time?

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, earlier the Senator from West Virginia read the names of the distinguished Americans who signed the Constitution, which is a document that we all revere. He asked the question: What would they think if they observed what we were doing this evening? And I ask the question: What would they think if they were able to observe the spending habits of this Congress, the abuse of the power of the purse that has resulted in a $4.8 trillion debt, the practice of taking every penny of appropriations and putting it into one continuing resolution, placing it on the desk of the President at 11:59 of the last day of the fiscal year and saying, ``Mr. President, take it all or close down the entire Government of the United States.'' What would the Founding Fathers think of that practice? What would the Founding Fathers think of the practice of taking appropriations bills and titling them ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations'' or ``Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations,'' to provide relief for hurricane victims in South Carolina or Florida, or earthquake victims in California, or flood victims in the Midwest--and attaching to that spending that is totally irrelevant to the question, totally unnecessary, at a time when we are running deficits of several hundred billion dollars and increasing a debt which our children and grandchildren and our posterity will find extraordinarily difficult to pay? Mr. President, $20,000 now for every new child born in America, of debt that child assumes. What would they think of that? We are not new to this issue. Line-item veto was first introduced nearly 120 years ago by a gentleman from West Virginia, Congressman Charles Faulkner. He was the first to introduce line-item veto in 1876. It was referred to committee, the Committee of Judiciary, where it died. Since then, nearly 200 attempts at line-item veto have been introduced, each time buried in committee, filibustered to death, or procedurally blocked from direct consideration. Last November the long-building anger against this Congress for such abuses of the power of the purse erupted, and with their votes the American people decisively demonstrated their deep frustration with business as usual, with the status quo, with the practice of the Congress in exercising the power of the purse. Recently the U.S. Senate fueled that anger by failing to pass a balanced budget amendment and in doing so clearly demonstrated that we as an institution are more concerned with preserving our power than protecting our Nation's posterity. Let us, by our vote tonight, show the American people that we heard their message in November; show them that we are serious about fundamental changes in the way the Congress works and does its business. Let us show them that we intend to present tax and appropriations bills without subsequent embarrassment. Let us send the message to taxpayers that under our guidance, their dollars will no longer be wasted on pork-barrel spending or tax benefits that favor the few at the expense of the many. Let us act boldly to eliminate the dual deficits of public funds and the public trust. Let us tonight show the American people that business, as the Senate has practiced, it is over. Mr. President, it has been 120 years since that Congressman from West Virginia offered line-item veto. The time has come for this Congress to finally pass that measure.

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 347

Mr. COATS. I would like to yield the floor if the Senator from West Virginia seeks the floor.

Mr. COATS. There is no dispute on that point.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is always enlightening listening to the Senator from New York. He always presents a thoroughly researched and thoroughly examined and well-articulated argument for his positions. And I enjoy his presentations immensely. As the Senator from New York knows, there is a difference of opinion on the constitutionality of separate enrollment. Distinguished constitutional scholars have come to opposite conclusions, one of which is Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar frequently quoted by members of both parties, but particularly by members of the party of the Senator from New York. Service have given indication that they believe the separate enrollment procedure is constitutional, and Senator Biden, currently a Member of this body and ranking member of Judiciary, has argued articulately for the constitutionality of such procedure. So, clearly, there are opinions on both sides of this issue. Ultimately, of course, the court will make that determination. We have adopted expedited procedures, traditional procedures of which that determination can be made. This Senator hopes and trusts that the opinions of Mr. Tribe and Senator Biden, the American Law Institute, and others, will prevail and be persuasive with the courts. But we will find out in due course what that is. I thank the Senator from New York for his contributions, which are always valuable contributions and thought-provoking contributions.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would have no objection to that within the constraints of the overall agreement.

Mr. COATS. And is the request of the Senator from West Virginia that that amendment be subject to being called up in a different order at the Senator's request?

Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I wonder if I can inquire of the Senator, I want to just make sure I understand what the Senator from West Virginia has requested. I thought I heard the Chair to say that under the regular procedure, the next order of business following disposition of the Daschle amendment would be the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. COATS. First of all, it would not make sense for the President to do that. Theoretically, he could under the bill. But it would not have the effect of changing expenditures under those entitlements because those entitlements are contractual obligations entered into by the United States and they must be paid. First of all, I do not know why a President would want to do that, but particularly he would not want to do that because he knows it would have no legal effect. Those are entitlements that have to be paid under a contractual obligation. And while they would be separately enrolled and theoretically subject to a Presidential veto, such veto could not have legal effect because it is a contractual obligation which the Treasury must pay. It would only apply, as it is stated, to new expenditures under entitlements or where the benefits package has been changed to expand the entitlement. Those who suggested this argued, I believe rightfully so--and in fact many Members on the Democratic side, or those opposing this effort-- that one of the original problems was that it was too narrowly drafted; it only applies to appropriated expenditures; it did not apply to targeted tax benefits and it entitlements. So the habit that Congress has been in, even though an entitlement program is running amok with spending, we cannot begin to pay for it without incurring substantial additional debt. We keep expanding the reach of the entitlement programs and the benefits promised under the entitlement programs. We think those should be subject to a Presidential review and, if necessary, veto of that item, and Congress having a greater hurdle to cross in terms of passing that with a two- thirds veto. Additionally, I trust that President Clinton and all the other candidates seeking that position would never seek to veto these items.

Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, some of the logic and reasoning of those who are opposing the line-item veto measure offered by the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Indiana is curious. On the one hand, they say that the bill is flawed and that if Republicans would simply reach out and attempt to correct what they perceive to be the flaws, we will have a better bill. They come to the floor and say, we need a line-item veto, we need to have a process in place whereby the executive branch has the option or the ability to check the excess spending habits of Congress that design spending or tax breaks that do not serve a broad purpose, and that they support that effort, but that some of the provisions of the bill, which the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Indiana have offered, need to be modified. When the points they make are legitimate points, because we never claimed that our bill was perfect, as no one really claims their bill is perfect--that is why we have an amendment process, that is why we have a debate process--and when a Senator from the other side who happens to want to support it but simply wants to strengthen the bill points out a particular provision that is not designed or drafted as accurately as they think it should be suggests that and we agree with them that it addresses a problem in a more accurate way, then they turn around and say, ``See, that is proof that the bill is flawed.'' Well, what are we to do? On the one hand, they criticize us because the bill, they say, is flawed and needs to be improved. On the other hand, when we say, ``OK, we'll accept that improvement, that's a legitimate improvement,'' they say, ``See, there's proof that it is flawed; therefore, we can't vote for that.'' That is circular reasoning and circular logic that this Senator finds hard to understand. One of the points that the Senator from Georgia has made is that as the bill is currently constructed and is currently presented, policy decisions would be subject to a Presidential veto and, therefore, it would require a two-thirds override. But that issue has been debated and discussed at length. An amendment has been offered by the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, to clarify that that will not happen. It has been cosponsored by a Republican Senator, the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski. It has been accepted by the managers of the bill on both sides. It has been accepted by Republicans, and it is designed to clarify a provision in the original language that there is some ambiguity on, or at least some are concerned about some ambiguity. It was never the intent of the separate enrollment legislation to separate legislative language, to have legislative language vetoed by the President. Those were the dollars that are attached to it. That was debated at length. The Levin-Murkowski amendment, which is going to be accepted on both sides, clarifies any question in that regard. Yet, we find ourselves being criticized for a legislation which we have agreed to improve and accept the amendment of the very Senators who have raised the question of criticism. So I do not understand how our opponents on this issue want us to proceed. Do they want us to work with them or not? Do they want us to improve the bill or not? Do they want us to clarify ambiguities or not? If they do--and it appears that most do--then others should not come to the floor and say, see, that points out that the bill is flawed. The Murkowski-Levin amendment protects all legislative language from being separately enrolled and vetoed. The policy language is protected. That is the intent and that is the result of the amendment which has been agreed to and will be accepted as soon as, procedurally, we can get to that point. The Senator from Georgia also points out that if we go with the separate enrollment process, it will require an inflexibility in terms of various agencies being able to reprogram funds and, therefore, it will hideously confuse the legislative process. All it will do is change the way in which funds are able to be reprogrammed. Instead of the current practice of a phone call or a letter to a committee chairman and/or the ranking member, instead of a process which involves two, and at most four Senators out of 100, we will have a process which will involve all 100 Senators. We spend a great deal of time crafting an authorization for the use of funds, and we spend a great deal of time appropriating funds for that authorization. We spend a great deal of time debating those decisions on this Senate floor. Clearly, situations and circumstances change. So that it is appropriate for agencies to come forward and say that circumstances have changed, spending was greater in this area than we anticipated 6 months ago when this was negotiated, or spending is less in that area, and we would like to shift some funds from one area to the other. But what will have to take place now is that that request will have to be made available to all 100 Senators. I think that is appropriate. If the reprogramming request was always made on an objective basis, always made for legitimate purposes, I think there might be some validity to the arguments presented here this morning. But I think we all know that they are not always made that way, that little side deals are concocted and, yes, phone calls are made; but phone calls are made after hours, and special requests are made from certain Members to other Members for--Heaven forbid--political purposes, and not necessarily for legitimate new expenditures or shifted expenditures, but made for political purposes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, again, just for the information of our colleagues, under a unanimous-consent agreement, we have only until 10 a.m. Those amendments must be amendments that have been cleared and are on the list as agreed to by the unanimous-consent agreement. Those must be offered by 10 a.m., after which we will turn to 2 hours of debate on the Daschle substitute amendment. So Members can expect votes throughout the day, but need to be aware of the fact that the time is fast running out for the offering of amendments. That time will elapse at 10 a.m. this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I ask for the second reading of H.R. 1158.