Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following nominations on the Executive Calendar, en bloc: Calendar Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 35, and 36; further, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. I would like to gather the attention of the Senator from Alaska for just a moment, if I could. I want to second the comments of my colleague from Arizona relative to the Senator from Alaska. One of the tests I used to judge the character of individuals that I serve with is what I call the foxhole test. If I am in a foxhole surrounded by the enemy and the situation is desperate, who would I want there back by my side? I know of no individuals that are as tenacious, and who I would rather have by my side in a desperate situation, than the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Alaska. I respect them both, even when they differ. I respect their tenacity. I respect the strength of their convictions. I just want to say to the Senator from Alaska that he has made an enormous contribution to this effort which we are undertaking. It was the Senator from Alaska's perseverance on the issue of the standard, the reach of the line-item veto to include not only discretionary domestic spending, which the Senator has labored mightily to restrain and to be responsible, but to extend that reach to other accounts. It is solely on the basis of that Senator's persistence that we opened up the discussion again. We are now in the process, and I think very, very close, to crafting an even better and more effective bill. I very much appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Alaska, his spirit in which he pursued the issue and then his spirit in working with Members to define the issue. I think we will have a stronger proposal shortly before the Senate, and a great deal of credit goes to the Senator from Alaska. I thank him.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I might first announce that we believe there is just one additional speaker. Senator Heflin will be coming to the floor to speak. I will go forward here, as if in morning business, until he arrives, and then I will be happy to turn the floor over to him. Then it is my understanding the Senate will stand in recess for the weekend.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I noticed today a small item that appeared in the Washington Post, the news that the President's Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, Mr. William Galston, had submitted his resignation, effective in May. Mr. Galston is a Democrat. I am a Republican, but I have been an admirer of some of the work that he has done in the past. He played a prominent role--I believe he was executive director--in the Progressive Policy Institute, the arm of the Democratic Party that was looking for new and innovative ways to address, in particular, some of the social concerns, of the Democratic Party. Mr. Galston said he is resigning because of his desire to strike a different balance between family and career. And I do not doubt that at all. Mr. Galston has written eloquently, has done a great deal of research, and, I think, made a real effort in the administration to point out the importance of the family and American life in our society. He is going to return to teaching at the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland, where he is a senior research scholar at the university's Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy. He has been a prolific writer, author of five books and politics, and public policy. He served in the Marine Corps, is a graduate of Cornell, with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and taught at the University of Texas for 10 years before coming to Washington in 1989. Mr. Galston, along with Elaine Ciulla Kamarck, co-authored a policy paper criticizing liberal fundamentalism in the Democratic Party. Mr. Galston urged the Democratic Party to identify more with ``middle-class values--individual responsibility, hard work, equal opportunity--rather than the language of compensation.'' Those are phrases and words that, obviously, Republicans have been using for some time. We were encouraged when someone from the other party, who occupied an important position in the Clinton administration, used those terms and identified himself with that particular philosophy. Mr. Galston has been, and I am very sure he will continue to be, an advocate of the importance of the family in the development of our children, an advocate of teaching individual responsibility and personal achievement as the means of success and as the real solution to the problems facing our society today. We are at a crossroads, Mr. President. We are at a critical juncture. Our problems are great. Our society is laboring under the burden of a disintegrating moral and cultural fabric. To turn this tide, we will need voices of moderation, of reason. Voices such as William Galston. I hope that Mr. Galston's resignation does not signal that voices of moderation, voices of reason, advocates for individual responsibility and moral courage are no longer welcome in the Clinton White House. This would be an ominous signal. I trust that is not the case. But I want to wish Mr. Galston the very best and thank him for his contributions and his efforts to try to point out the importance of family, individual responsibility, the decline of the moral climate in this country, and the need to reestablish and restore the fundamental, basic institutions of our country--family, church, education, community service--that have been so important in transmitting moral values to our children and to the next generation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 10 a.m. on Monday, March 20, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date; the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that the Senate then begin controlled general debate on the line-item veto bill until 5 p.m.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, at 5 p.m. Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 4, the line-item veto bill. Amendments could be offered at that time. However, no votes will occur on that day.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho for his introductory statements, for his support for this effort, and for yielding the time to Senator Grams and me. (The remarks of Mr. Coats, Mr. Grams, Mr. Kyl, and Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 572 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medical Device Exportation Act of 1995. This bill will allow American companies to export to endure costly and unnecessary delays in the FDA approval process. Under current law, a company that seeks to export its drug overseas to Japan or Europe where that drug is already approved for marketing, must get the approval of the FDA before it may be exported. Approval is granted only after the FDA determines that exportation would not jeopardize public health and safety and that the country has approved the drug. Unfortunately, the FDA takes several weeks or even months to approve the exportation of devices that Japan or other advanced nations in Europe have already approved for marketing. This delay in approving the exportation of a device that is already approved for marketing by some of the most sophisticated device- approval systems in the world can cost Americans millions in lost revenue and thousands of jobs. A recent survey of device company CEO's confirms the cost of this unnecessary delay. Forty percent of CEO's said that their companies had reduced the size of their work force as a result of regulatory delays. Twenty-two percent had already moved jobs offshore due to the delays. This bill is narrowly targeted to the problem. It simply eliminates one bureaucratic step that serves no public health function in light of other extensive controls. This bill changes the current law that requires the FDA to make an independent determination of safety and approval and simply directs that the FDA rely on approval by the sophisticated device approval systems in Japan or the European Community. Of course, any device that is banned in the United States would remain prohibited for export. And any country that would prohibit importation of the device retains that sovereign right. I am confident that this legislation is not controversial. In the House, Congressman Kim has introduced a virtually identical measure, H.R. 485, with 17 cosponsors. Moreover, the Department of Commerce has proposed a similar administrative fix. I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation that will help keep America competitive, retain American jobs and revenues, and serve the public health needs of nations worldwide.

Mr. COATS. Thank you, Mr. President. Our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol already have begun to take action on many of the reforms that I have laid out in this legislation. But now it is time for the Senate to deliver on a promise and give family tax relief to hard-working, overtaxed middle Americans. Over that past few years Americans have heard a lot of talk about tax relief promises. Today, Mr. President, we signal our intent to not just talk about, but to act upon tax relief for our citizens, especially our families. This legislation is a blueprint that shows that deficit reduction and tax relief can go hand-in-hand. These goals are not mutually exclusive if Congress is willing to make the hard choices necessary to put our fiscal house in order. We clearly need to restore fiscal integrity and economic soundness to the budget process. We need the kind of change that will force Congress to act differently by rewriting the ground rules of the game. For too long we have chosen to take the easy road by putting off or ignoring the frugal spending path that over and over we have laid out but failed to adhere to. This legislation we introduce today includes a real sequester provision so that if Congress once again cannot make the hard spending choices they will be made anyway. The Family, Investment, Retirement, Savings and Tax Fairness Act--families first--charts a different course and reorders our spending priorities. Last year's election proves that the American people are fed up with the status quo--they want action. Action taken to eliminate the deficit and the ever growing debt that we are burdening our children with and action to relieve them of the taxes that are stifling their quality of life and leaving them with less and less in every pay check. Families first recognizes three central principles. First, American families are overtaxed. High taxes rob families of the resources needed to care for children. Second, the private sector, not government creates jobs. We must reduce the cost of capital and encourage productive investment by reducing the tax on growth. We will find new jobs in a growing economy, not in a growing government. Third, the American people want deficit reduction upfront--obviously the President did not hear that message. His fiscal year 1996 budget just keeps reinventing the same spending cuts that will take place some time in the future. Is this any kind of leadership when the Nation's debt now stands at over $4.7 trillion? That is over $18,500 for every man, woman, and child in this Nation. This is a carefully planned, meticulously documented theft from our children. Specifically, the families first bill does the following: First, it provides relief to American families with children through a tax credit of $500 per child; Second, it provides incentives for businesses to create jobs, including a reduced capital gains tax rate, a neutral cost recovery plan for capital investments, and expanded IRA's; Third, it repeals the retirement earnings test on older Americans; Fourth, it places a 2 percent cap on the growth of Federal spending; Fifth, it creates a commission, modeled after the Base Closure Commission, to identify the legislative changes needed to meet the cap. If Congress fails to approve the commission's plan by a date certain, the cap would be enforced by sequester, holding Social Security harmless. The bill is not only entirely paid for by the spending cap--our plan cuts the deficit by half in 5-years, eliminating it altogether in less than 10 years. I would like to take a moment to discuss the family tax credit component of this plan which addresses an inequity that has been developing for decades. Families are finding it more and more difficult to bear the financial costs of raising children. According to Family Economics Review, the average American family it faces costs of between $4,000 and $5,000 per year, per child. This is because, over the last several decades, tax burdens have been radically redistributed, not from poor to rich or rich to poor, but directly on families with children. The facts are these. Adjusting for inflation, single people and married couples with no children pay about the same percentage of their income in taxes as they did at the end of World War II. In 1948, the typical family of four paid just 3 percent of its income to the Federal Government in direct taxes. In 1992, the equivalent family paid nearly 24.5 percent of its income to the Federal Government. This is an increase of over 717 percent. It is time to restore fairness in the Tax Code. The reason is simple. The personal exemption--the way the Tax Code adjusts for family size--has been eroded by inflation and neglect. The exemption that once protected families with children has fallen significantly in the last six decades. Currently, the personal exemption is $2,450 if this had kept pace with inflation the personal exemption would be over $7,000. Many households now have two working parents who spend greater amounts of time away from their children out of simple necessity. Rising healthcare and education costs in particular place the family under great financial pressure. This tax burden translates into less time that families can spend together. Families have 40 percent less time to spend together today than they did 25 years ago. Families are clearly working harder, longer, for less. A $500-per-child tax credit would give a family of four over $80 a month extra for groceries, school clothes for the kids, or savings for education, et cetera. Our bill will reduce the tax burden, allowing families to keep more of their hard earned dollars. It will empower families to make their own choices and rely less on government; 50 million children are eligible for this credit. In my own State of Indiana, 1.1 million children are eligible, enabling Hoosier families to keep $555 million of their hard earned money each year. Advocating family tax relief, President Clinton said, ``$400, people say it's not very much money. I think it is a lot of money. It is enough for a mortgage payment. It is enough for clothes for the kids, and enough to have a big, short-term impact on the economy.'' No change is more urgent for average families than tax reform. Increased taxation on families with children is a tool of the bully, picking on the weak. For larger families it has meant a recession in both good times and bad, a recession that never seems to end. But for decades families have suffered quietly. There are many programs like the earned income tax credit designed specifically to help impoverished families--as there should be. This commitment is constant and important. But we must not forget that it is middle income families who have not only been forgotten, but given extra financial burdens. It is time to target this group for relief--as we have done in the past for others. Over 85 percent of the family tax relief provided by this credit goes to Americans with family incomes of less than $75,000. This relief is not a handout. It is a matter of simple justice. It is a return to tax fairness. This plan tackles the two great threats to the American family--the budget deficit and the ever growing tax burden. In addition, it recognizes that only a growing economy will provide jobs. It recognizes that high taxes bleed an economy of its productive power. They strip individuals of incentive and devalue their work. For too long we have dismissed their needs to answer the calls of other interests. I hope my colleagues will join us in this fight for the American family. We must give them the tax relief they deserve. key facts on tax credit Fifty million children eligible for the credit. It eliminates the total tax burden for families making less than $23,000. Some 4.7 million families would have their tax liability eliminated. Mr. President, over the past few years Americans have heard a lot of campaign promises and a lot of talk about tax relief, but they have yet to see Washington act on these promises. Today, Mr. President, in sending this legislation to the desk for consideration, we signal our intent to not just talk about tax relief but to act upon it for our citizens, and especially for our families. I am pleased that this morning my new Senate colleague, Senator Grams from Minnesota, who joined with me in the last Congress as a Member of the House of Representatives in sponsoring this legislation, has joined us and will be joining me in advancing this legislation before this body. Already our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol have begun to take legislation. Now it is time for the Senate to deliver on a promise made by so many to give family tax relief to the hard-working, overtaxed, middle-income Americans. This legislation is a blueprint that shows that deficit reduction, which surely we must engage in, and tax relief can go hand in hand. These goals are not mutually exclusive, if we are willing to make the hard choices necessary to put our fiscal house in order but in doing so recognizing the impact on the average American family today and their need for substantive relief and deal with the burdens and expenses of raising children in today's society. Our efforts are incorporated in legislation with the acronym FIRST. FIRST stands for family, investment, retirement savings, and tax fairness. It combines efforts to address a glaring deficiency in our Tax Code, a deficiency that robs middle-income Americans of hard-earned dollars to spend as they see fit and as they see the need to raise their children, to pay the mortgage, to rent the apartment, to make the car payments, to buy the clothes, to save for the education, to meet the needs, the ever-growing needs, of their ever-growing children. It combines that relief with real, meaningful incentives for the business enterprises of America, to expand, to accumulate capital and to create the jobs which those children will be seeking as soon as they finish their education. And it adds to that relief for our senior citizens who are able and want to keep working beyond retirement age but whose income is severely eroded by the offsets that are required under the current law. We lift the earnings requirement so that those seniors that are willing and are able to continue working beyond retirement can do so without penalty. There are incentives for contributions to an IRA, an IRA designed to help with those burdens and those expenses of providing for education and providing for the purchase of a home and other needs. It does so with the recognition that we have to pay real attention to the ever-growing debt burden which is saddling this generation, and particularly future generations, with a debt and an interest cost that they may be unable to pay and that will surely limit their opportunities in the future. Deficit reduction is a serious effort that must be undertaken by this Congress and not future Congresses. So we are trying to reconcile two very important goals, and we think we have done that in this first legislation, because combined with these incentives for family relief and for business growth and for help for our seniors, combined with this is an effort to rein in the costs--excessive costs--of the spending of this Congress and of this Government, by placing a cap on the overall rate of growth. I want to stress that phrase ``rate of growth.'' Those who say that we need to drastically slash this and that, and take money away from this program or that program, are not recognizing the reality that if we simply limit the rate of growth of Government spending, we can free up money to provide significant deficit reduction, put us on a path to a balanced budget and, at the same time, reorder our priorities and direct funds into areas where they are needed the most. Our job as elected representatives is to wisely, efficiently, and effectively spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and make sure that those dollars spent at the Federal level are spent in a way that gives us the best results. We have been pointing to a whole number of programs that are marginal at best and, clearly, as we look at limiting the rate of growth of the Federal Government, we will need to look at our priorities. There are some programs that probably are not performing the service that was intended and they ought to be flat out eliminated. They no longer are needed or are not doing the job. Other programs have marginal benefit but do not rank high in the priority list. I suggest that those programs need to be reduced in the amount of expenditures and amount of budget they are given each year. Some may be 1 or 2 years, some may be 5, 10, some 30--who knows. We need to look at the effectiveness of those programs and reduce that spending. Others ought to be frozen. They are providing an effective service, but we cannot afford to continue increasing them at the past rate, so let us freeze at the current level. Yes, Mr. President, there are probably some programs that ought to be increased because they are meeting necessary needs for Americans. They go to important programs and they deserve an increase. With the first bill, we are saying let us put an overall cap on the rate of growth at about 2 percent, and in doing so let us back it up with a spending commission that will recommend cuts and provide the mechanism, as we have done in base closing, to ensure that Congress lives up to its promise. If we do that, as I said, we can balance the budget over a number of outyears--roughly 8 years--we can balance the budget. We can also reprioritize our spending in the areas that I have talked about-- family relief, investment in new jobs, help for our seniors, and some other important programs. The core of this program is the family relief. Families today are struggling to meet ever-rising tax demands. American families are overtaxed, and they rob our families of the resources needed to care for children. In 1948, a typical family of four paid just 3 percent of its income to the Federal Government in direct taxes. In 1992, the equivalent family paid nearly 24\1/2\ percent of its income to the Federal Government--an increase of over 717 percent. At times, special-interest deductions have been granted to all types of special interests in our country under our Tax Code. But the most special of all special interests--the family--has been shorted. These other deductions have been at the families' expense. They are struggling to keep up. Personal exemption has not kept pace. Today, it is $2,450 per dependent. If it had kept pace with inflation, it would be well over $7,000. Today, families have 40 percent less time to spend with their children, partly because they are out working trying to make ends meet. They are clearly working harder, longer, for less. The $500 per child tax credit for children under 18 will provide real relief for families struggling to meet the needs of their family and to pay the bills. It is the central part of the package that we are introducing. Over 85 percent of this family tax relief provided by this credit will go to American families with incomes of less than $75,000. The relief is not a handout. It is a matter of simple fairness and simple justice. It is a return to tax fairness under the code. Surely, Mr. President, as we look at how we spend the taxpayers' dollars, as we look at how we reprioritize our spending--and that is the exercise we are going through here in this Congress--surely there will be room, or there should be room, for families. Surely, we can find a way to direct our expenditure of Federal dollars to help struggling families. And we are not giving them the money back. We are saying we are going to allow you to keep more of your hard-earned dollars; you are going to be able to send less of your paycheck to Washington, and you are going to be able to make the decisions which are in the best interests of your children and your family. Surely, in all of our debate as to where we spend the taxpayers' dollars and how we spend the taxpayers' dollars, we can make room for the family. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Grams and I are joined by a number of our colleagues as original cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Grams, Craig, Lott, Brown, McCain, Kyl, and Inhofe be added as original cosponsors.

Mr. COATS. I also note, Mr. President, that last year, as part of the Republican alternative budget, every Republican Senator voted for that Republican alternative budget which, unfortunately, failed. We did not have enough votes to gain a majority. But the core of that alternative Republican budget was this first bill and the family tax relief, which is the heart of that. So I anticipate that most of our colleagues, if not all, will join Senator Grams and I. I am so pleased to have him join us in the U.S. Senate. He will think is an extraordinarily important concept and idea. We have terrific support in the House of Representatives. Just 2 days ago, the Ways and Means Committee reported out a bill with many of these features, the central part of that bill. So it is now time for the Senate, Mr. President, to act on its promises, to fulfill its commitment, and to put families at the centerpiece of the actions that we take this year. With that, Mr. President, I yield my time and yield whatever time the Senator from Minnesota wishes to consume. How much time remains?

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

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. COATS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas and reserve the last minute for the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hutchison as an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to Senator Grams.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this morning we rise to introduce legislation to put the American family first. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation which will do just that and will explain its content.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, my understanding is that under the unanimous consent agreement time is managed by the Senator from Arizona. The Senator from Alaska has asked for 5 minutes of time in which--or more if he wishes--to introduce some legislation. I think if the Senator from Arizona will yield that time I think it would be appropriate at this time.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Calvin Coolidge may have been a man of few words, but the thoughts he expressed when he chose to speak were very precise. On the subject of government spending he once very accurately observed that, ``Nothing is easier in the world than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anyone.'' How true those words were because we have seen a Congress spend the public's money in a way that has significantly reduced the respect and credibility of this institution in a way that has taxpayers across America not only scratching their heads in wonder but shaking their fists in rage, disturbed over the fact that while they are getting up in the morning and fighting traffic and getting to work and putting in an honest day's work for what they thought was an honest day's pay, they receive their paycheck at the end of the week and bimonthly and note the ever-increasing deduction for funds being sent to Washington to pay for programs and to pay for expenditures that they do not deem in the national interest. They are becoming outraged, and they are frustrated. They expressed that outrage and frustration this past November. They wanted a change in the way that this Congress does business. They have been calling for it for years, even decades. Politicians have been going back home and promising change. ``Elect me and we will do it differently.'' People ask, ``Well, what can you do about it?" Many of us were proposing two basic structural changes in the way that the Congress does business. One was the balanced budget amendment. Despite all of the fine rhetoric, all of the wonderful promises, all of the budget bills, the budget deals, the budget reduction packages that were debated, voted on, and promised by the Congress, despite all of that, Americans continued to see an ever-escalating debt, hundreds of billions of dollars annually of deficit spending, and a frightening explosion in the national debt. In 1980, when I was elected to Congress, one of the very first pieces of legislation that we had to vote on was whether or not we would raise the national debt ceiling--that is, that level over which we could not borrow money--to raise that to $1 trillion. Many of us were deeply concerned that we not break the trillion dollar threshold. We had campaigned that year in 1980 on fiscal responsibility. We campaigned on balancing the budget. We knew that, if we were going to balance the budget, we had to stop the flow of red ink. That was our first priority. We knew, if we were going to reduce that debt, that we could not have any more years of deficit spending. So we were concerned about raising that debt limit. Yet, for a whole variety of reasons--some of them valid and many of them invalid, but all because of a lack of discipline--we not only did not balance the budget but we saw the national debt explode; explode from the $1 trillion level to nearly $5 trillion today, a 500-percent increase. It almost is beyond our ability to comprehend how we as a Nation could have gone from a $1 trillion debt level to nearly a $5 trillion debt level. Automatic spending as a way of meeting entitlement obligations clearly has played an enormous role in all of this, some necessary defense increases, some less than projected revenue estimates, but primarily a lack of will on the part of the Congress to curb its spending habits and its appetite for spending. I said then and I said in the debate a few weeks ago and I still believe that until we enact into the Constitution of the United States a requirement that this body balance its budget each and every year, we will not solve our debt problem. We will not begin to solve our debt problem. My greatest disappointment in my years in Congress has been our failure by one vote to join the House of Representatives and pass on to the States for their consideration and, hopefully, their ratification a balanced budget amendment--one vote. We came that close. I think the American people instinctively know that, unless the Constitution forces us to balance the budget, we will always find an excuse not to. As Calvin Coolidge said, how easy it is to spend what appears to be someone else's money because it does not appear to belong anywhere. We have seen year after year after year Congress saying, ``Well, maybe next year, too many pressing priorities this year, too big a problem to address all at once, we will do it another time.'' Or, we have seen Congress say ``Here is the legislation that will put us on the path to a balanced budget, that will bring finally fiscal discipline to this body.'' Of course, we have seen every one of those efforts fail. Now we are looking at the second tool to try to curb congressional spending, this appetite for spending, spending, spending, and paying for it not by asking the taxpayer to ante up, although we have done that, and it has I think had a negative effect on our ability to grow and provide opportunities for our young people and job opportunities for Americans. But we found a convenient way to pass on the debt to a different generation to a time when we are no longer here serving; pass it on by floating debt, by incurring debt which future generations will have to pay. We are paying it now. We are paying $200-and-some billion a year just in interest. It is rapidly approaching $300 billion a year--$300 billion which could Americans, to provide a child tax credit which would give American families with children an opportunity to meet some of their financial obligations, to put aside money for college or savings, pay the rent, pay the mortgage, buy the clothes, or meet their monthly obligations. Or it could be used for more appropriate needs that exist in our society. But, no, it goes simply to pay interest on the debt, and it mounts every year. It is the second largest expenditure in our budget. If a few years, it will exceed the entire spending for national security, for all our military men in uniform, for all that we provide for national defense. Interest. Just paying obligations so that we can spend now and somebody can pay for it later. So we come to the second tool. The Senate has rejected, unfortunately, by one vote, the right of the people, the right of the States to determine whether or not they want this fiscal discipline imposed constitutionally on the Congress of the United States. We now come to the second institutional change, the line-item veto. As my colleague, Senator McCain, said, make no mistake about it, this will not balance the budget. This is not enough of a tool to do the job. But it is an institutional change. It is a structural change in the way that we do business, and it can make a difference and it can make a substantial difference. Senator McCain and I, as he recently has said, have been fighting this battle for a number of years. We have alternately introduced it. John McCain manages it one time, and I manage it another time-- alternately introducing the line-item veto under different forms-- enhanced rescission we called it. It is a statutory measure designed to secure passage with 51 votes instead of two-thirds. It is not a constitutional amendment. But we have been offering it in Congress after Congress, year after year, always falling short of the necessary number of votes to break a filibuster, because those who oppose line- item veto, those who believe Congress can exercise the will for fiscal discipline, those who feel that the power of making those decisions should not rest anywhere except in this body have been able to block our efforts. Senator McCain has been, as is his great talent, a man of extraordinary perseverance, extraordinary commitment, extraordinary dedication to this issue and many others that he has been involved with. He paid me a nice compliment by saying I shored him up at times when he was discouraged and we were not making more progress. He has picked me up equally as much, and maybe more. Sometime we think, what is the use, we are never going to get there, we are never going to break the power and the hold on the spending process that currently exists with those who see spending, or the control of the process, as advantageous, for whatever reason. But I want to compliment him for continuing to persevere. He is a man of great perseverance. I want to compliment him for pushing through and insisting that we go forward. Together we are doing that. And we know we have the support of many colleagues and we have the support of a vast majority of the American people because they have lost confidence in Congress' promises, in Congress' ability to discipline itself. They know that we need system changes. They know that we need structural changes if we are going to get this accomplished. It has become so easy to spend in this body that, every year, about $10 billion worth of appropriations are tacked onto an already loaded Federal budget for spending that meets no emergency request, is not formally authorized by Congress, and that means it has not been discussed and debated and examined by the authorizing committees and voted on and put forward to our colleagues to examine. Nor has it been requested by the President. On the contrary, it is $10 billion that serves only to appease or satisfy a particularly parochial special interest. As a result, Congress has become so addicted to spending other peoples' money, that the last time the Federal budget was balanced on a regular basis, Calvin Coolidge was still alive. Political scientist James Payne calls this a culture of spending. ``Members of Congress,'' says Payne, ``act as if Government money is somehow free.'' They distribute it like philanthropists helping worthy supplicants-- except that they are usually lobbyists or special interests, and the money goes to a very narrow, very parochial use. In a recent tabulation of witnesses who testified at congressional hearings, Mr. Payne found that fully 95.7 percent of them came to urge more Government spending. Only 0.7 percent spoke against it. I do not know what happened to the other 3 or 4 percent. They probably just came to see the monuments and watch Congress in session. This year, the President sent to Congress a budget that directs the Government to spend $1.6 trillion. Every month of that year, the Government will spend $134 billion; every week, $31 billion; every day, $4.4 billion; every hour, $184 million; $3 million a minute; every second of every day, the Federal Government will spend another $50,000 of someone else's money. By the end of 1996, the Federal deficit will have increased by $200 billion, a figure that will be repeated in 1997, 1998, 1999, and the year 2000, after which it will rise even greater. That is a projection on which we almost always come in under what the actual figure is. But the sad fact is that even if the President could manage to send a balanced budget proposal to Congress, it probably would not make any difference. Congress would still choose to pad the bill with billions of extra dollars of parochial pork. In some cases, these projects are tacked on--usually at the last minute--to legislation that is too important or too politically risky for the President to veto, like Federal disaster assistance when California is devastated by floods, when hurricanes devastate south Florida, or when the military needs a pay raise, or emergency spending is needed to cover deployments or costs that it has incurred, or benefits for veterans. These huge bills pass often, literally, in the dark of the night. But almost always we find tucked away in the very dark recesses of complicated bills, sometimes weeks and months later, we find items of appropriations that go for special interests, that go for special spending, which causes all of us to ask, how in the world did that become part of this bill? How in the world did the Congress ever pass something like that? In honesty, many of us say we did not even know we passed it. Well, it was part of the HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill. Well, that was a 1,300-page bill, and while we searched through it, we must have found tucked away in there-- sometimes in very obscure language--spending that goes for something that the taxpayer finds is absolutely outrageous. And every year, this type of spending adds up to billions of dollars worth of unnecessary spending that would wilt in a white-hot minute if it were forced to weather the glare of public scrutiny. If that item was brought to the floor of the Senate and debated solely on that item, and if Members were forced to vote yea or nay on that item, it would never pass; it would never stand the scrutiny of the light of public debate. Members would never risk a vote for an item that brings outrage to the American public when they hear about it. The list goes on and on, and Senator McCain and I will have the opportunity to detail some of that list. It is not our purpose tonight to castigate other Members. In one sense, we are all guilty. There is probably not a Member of Congress that has not gone to the Appropriations Committee and said, ``Do you think there is a way we can get this particular appropriated item in the bill? It is important to my constituents and it is something that I think is important. Can we get it tucked on there? Has it been authorized?'' ``No. You know it is going to be tough to get that through the authorization process, and my colleagues might not understand. But could we just add it to this bill? This bill is going through.'' There is probably not one of us that does not bear some responsibility, some blame, for this. What we are saying here is that the system is bad, and the system needs to be changed. Some people make a career out of doing this. Others do it on occasion. But whether it is a standard operating procedure or whether it is just an occasional request, the system allows If you happen to occupy an important position here, a position where you are influential in terms of appropriating certain funds, it is quite easy to add some items. Every year in appropriations bills, we find certain Members seem to do quite well, thank you. They happen to occupy positions that allow them that opportunity. But we are not going to list the items. Americans read about them regularly in the newspapers, in the magazines. They hear about them on the national news. In fact, one network outlined on a regular nightly basis for several weeks--and perhaps it is still going on--how your money is spent. And each time they do that, our phones light up the next morning, the mail pours in, people stop you back at home and say, ``How in the world can you take my hard earned dollars and spend it on that item?" Mr. President, we have a budget process that encourages delay, rewards subterfuge, and works to the detriment of the American people. But any spending that must be attached or hidden is spending that cannot be justified on its merits. It is time for us to change the system. It is time for us to shine a light in the deep, dark corners of deficit spending. It is time to give the President and to give the American people the line-item veto. Just as a yellow highlight earmarks and highlights a text, the line- item veto will give the President the power to highlight Government pork by drawing bright lines through the billions of dollars of added on Federal waste. No longer will unnecessary expenditures be able to hide in the dark details of necessary bills. The line-item veto will spotlight their existence and force legislators to defend their merits in open debate. More importantly, the line-item veto means that pork finally stops at somebody's desk. Even if the Congress persists in passing wasteful spending measures, the people can still demand that the President line out parochial pork barrel projects that increase their tax burden and threatens their children's future. The line-item veto is a giant step forward in fiscal responsibility. Mr. President, today objections raised by the Congress against the line-item veto seem to boil down to some fundamental questions. One of the questions is: Is the line-item veto the best solution to the problem? As I said earlier, the best solution would have been a balanced budget amendment. Congress failed by one vote in that effort. But the next best structural change that can take place would be the line-item veto, in this Senator's opinion, because it is clear the Congress cannot muster the will to, on a regular basis or even on an occasional basis, balance the budget. As I said, Calvin Coolidge was still alive the last time we did balance the budget. Our record is pretty sorry, despite our promises, despite our best efforts. The other objection raised is: Is this constitutional? Let me address the first one: Is it the best solution? Obviously, the best solution would be for the Congress to put the interest of the country before its own parochial interests, to follow the basic principle, which we attempted to teach our children around the kitchen table or sitting in the family room, that every corporation in America has to follow, that every home owner has to follow: If you keep spending more money than you take in, you are going to get yourself in deep trouble. How many times have I told my children, how many times have any of us told our children, ``Look, you can't spend more than you have. Sure you can get a plastic credit card, but the bill comes 30 days later and there is interest attached. And the interest is not cheap. It keeps adding up. And if you keep mounting that up, you are going to get yourself in a real hole.'' And there are a lot of Americans that have done that. Well, we each are given a credit card when we come here. It is called our ID. In the House, they actually use it to put it in a machine and that records their vote. Here, we vote by voice vote. But this is the most expensive credit card in America. It says ``United States Senator.'' It allows us to walk in this Chamber and, because we can carry this card, we have license to the taxpayers' dollar. What we are suggesting here is that that license has been abused. We have racked up the points. We have reached the limit and it is time to call each of us on that. And it is time to change the system, time to put some restrictions on the use of this card. Maybe I should say the abuse of this card. We have demonstrated an institutional inability to restrain ourselves from unnecessary pork barrel spending. And perhaps the line-item veto is the only tool we have left. Each year, Congress sends the White House massive bills, at most 13 appropriations bills. All of our spending is pretty much compressed into 13 bills. Sometimes we send the President one continuing resolution. That combines all the bills that we have not passed separately into one bill and we have one vote, yes or no. We send this massive bill to the President--sometimes it is the entire spending for the entire Federal Government--and we say, ``Well, Mr. President, the fiscal year runs out on September 30 at midnight. We are going to send you a bill up about 10 p.m., September 30. That is going to allow you to continue Government running until we get around to passing the separate appropriations bills.'' Sometimes we never do. We just operate. In other words, we give him authority to continue spending the money that he had last year. Send it up there about 10 o'clock and say, ``Mr. President, you have about 2 hours--I know the bill is several thousands of pages long--a couple hours to look at it. Now you can veto it. You might find some things in there you do not like. You can veto it. But, of course, the Government will shut down. Nobody will get paid. Everything stops. All the checks stop.'' And the President is held almost in a position of blackmail because his only choice is to either accept the whole bill or veto the whole bill. So the ground rules offered by Congress are very clear. Tie the President's hands by leaving him with a take-it-or-leave-it decision and obscure in the process all the uncounted billions of dollars of unnecessary pork-barrel spending. Now this maneuver is very commonplace in the Congress. Because it seems that our facility for outrage has been dulled by the repetition of the times that we have done this. But I would suggest it is also contemptible, for when we hide those excesses behind the shield of vital legislation, we do it precisely to avoid making hard choices, to mask our actions and to confuse the American taxpayer. In other words, we avoid public ridicule by consciously attempting to keep citizens from knowing how their money is spent. We hope they do not find out. We criticize the press sometimes, but sometimes we have to give them credit. Sometimes those people sit down and pore through those bills and say, ``Wait until you, American taxpayer, hear about this one.'' And we pick up the USA Today the next morning and there is the list of spending that just defies rationality, particularly at a time of burgeoning deficits. In his 1985 State of the Union Address, President Reagan very effectively demonstrated this point; that is, the point of Congress dumping massive legislation on his desk in a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. The President slammed down 43 pounds and 3,296 pages of Congress' latest omnibus spending bill. He slammed it down on the desk of Tip O'Neill. It was the bill that represented $1 trillion worth of spending--one bill. Not one penny of which he had the power to veto unless he rejected the entire bill. As my colleague, Senator McCain, has pointed out, Congress' addiction to pork barrel politics has reached the point where it is threatening even our national security and consuming resources that could be better spent on returning it to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, on deficit reduction, or any one of a legitimate number of worthwhile programs that would benefit all Americans--not just the few who happen to live in one particular State or one particular district. The seriousness of this problem demands a serious response. I suggest, as serious response because it will force this Congress to get serious about spending and end business as usual because ``business as usual'' is something that this country can no longer afford. Mr. President, before the Budget Impoundment and Control Act of 1974, Presidents could eliminate or impound political pork by simply refusing to spend the appropriated funds. Using this tactic, President Johnson in 1967 eliminated 6.7 percent of total Federal spending, which in today's terms would amount to about $99 billion. A few years later, President Nixon provoked Congress' wrath by impounding the money for more than 100 different programs. Typically, Congress was outraged, in 1974, it retaliated. Grab the power of unlimited political pork by passing legislation that would ``ensure congressional budget control.'' Now, I do not know if that is an oxymoron or not. I guess an oxymoron is just 2 years. Maybe this is an oxy-oxymoron. ``Congressional budget control,'' it is like airline food and the Postal Service--they just do not seem to ring quite right. Congressional budget control. Dare we use the term ``ensure" congressional budget control when we have seen the national debt increase from $1 to $5 trillion in less than 15 years? Under the new law passed in 1974, the President can still propose cuts. The Congress said, ``Well, listen, we will not take this power away from you completely. You can still propose cuts, but those cuts will not take effect,'' Congress said, ``unless both the House and the Senate vote to approve those cuts in 45 days.'' Well, as we can guess, this proved just a little too convenient for Congress. In order to kill a Presidential cut, Congress quickly learned it does not have to do anything, a skill at which we are very adept at, as history will testify. So in the years that followed, only 7 percent of the proposed cuts that President Ford sent to the Congress were approved. From 1983 to 1989 we only approved 2 percent of President Reagan's proposed cuts. President Bush proposed 47 recisions. We approved one of them. Congress got its way. But the result was not only more congressional control but more congressional spending. From 1969 to 1974, President Nixon kept domestic discretionary spending to an annual growth rate of 7.3 percent. In 1975, the first year the new recision provision went into place, that is, if Congress does nothing, the President cannot stop the spending, Federal spending, and nondefense discretionary programs grew by an unprecedented 26.4 percent. Let me make that point again: When he had the power to check congressional spending, congressional spending only grew, discretionary spending only grew at 7.3 percent a year. The year after Congress took it away, took the President's power away to do this, it jumped to 26.4 percent. The wild growth in Federal spending can often be traced to a number of causes. One of the reasons is crystal clear: The President has had limited authority left to prioritize how funds are spent. Congress can no longer be checked by the prospects of Presidential impoundment. Today what we have is a President with no reliable means to check the excesses of Congress, because by simple inaction Congress can perpetuate projects that we can no longer afford. Inertia is rewarded with scarce funds. Pet projects are shielded by our indecision. Predictably, the effect on the deficit has been dramatic. Mr. President, I expect that the majority leader will introduce a substitute to the bill that Senator McCain and I are introducing. We have been working very, very closely with the majority leader in crafting a measure which we believe is even more effective than the one which we proposed and which, hopefully, can secure additional support. I want to commend the majority leader for his efforts in moving forward, in designating line-item veto as a top five priority for this Congress. Mr. President, S. 4 is the bill that was introduced by the majority leader. The one that Senator McCain and I have been working on for a number of years, trying to refine the differences, pick up additional support. We have been working now with the majority leader, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, and others in this Congress to write an even stronger bill, write an even better bill. We expect that the majority leader will be introducing that in a relatively short time--not tonight--but early next week. Under that legislation, each item in an appropriations bill will be enrolled separately. That means it will be defined separately as a bill and presented to the President for his signature. In this way, the President will be able to pick and choose among funding, supporting those he considers worthy, and vetoing others. Under this process, Congress will no longer be able to protect its excesses by simply wrapping egregious spending in one omnibus bill or tacking it in, hoping to hide it from public scrutiny. On the contrary, Congress will be forced to put itself on the record, and any conflict between the Congress and the President will be publicly aired before the American people. The reform embodied in this amendment is not radical. It would simply restore a balance between the executive and legislative branches to what was regular practice for 185 years of American history. As I said, since 1989 Senator McCain and I have fought for the line- item veto as a tool to rein in out-of-control spending. I believe there is no surer sign of our commitment to real change than our willingness to have this Republican Congress, in one of its first defining acts, to give this tool to a Democrat President. If President Clinton had the line-item veto, the savings would not be miraculous, but they could be substantial. For years, Senator McCain and I heard the charges from the opposition. ``Well, you would not do this if it were a Democrat sitting in the White House. You would not give up that power.'' We said, ``yes, we would.'' We are not giving it to a particular person. We are giving it to the office, to the office of the Presidency, because we so firmly believe that Congress has abused its privilege of deciding and solely determining the power of the purse that we believe that the President needs a check, a balance, that the President had prior to 1974. It is not like we are giving him something new. We are restoring something that he already had. We want to give him that authority. Whether it is a Republican President or a Democrat President, there needs to be a check on the excessive spending habits of Congress. Senator McCain has mentioned that the GAO report that says that in the mid-1980's we could have saved $70 billion if the President had line-item veto. Some will dispute that amount. No one can dispute--no one can dispute--that we would have saved money. No one can dispute that we would have prevented a great deal of excess wasteful pork- barrel spending, whatever the amount. If it were $70 billion, think what that could have done. We can have doubled the personal exemption for families struggling to raise their children, to pay the bills. We could have paid for the entire student loan program for 5 years. We could have cut the national debt, and could have substantially reduced our interest obligations. If the President gets this line-item veto authority, we will never know the full extent of the savings because what it will do is it will send a message to every Member of Congress that the days of pork-barrel spending are over. The slick little habit that is exercised time and time again of attaching an item of spending that everybody knows deep down in their heart would never, never withstand the glare of public scrutiny, would never withstand the openness of public debate, would never achieve a majority of Senators voting for their particular item, that will never even get attached to a bill. But they know that the President has line- item veto authority and their spending item, their special interest parochial spending item is lined out and sent back to the Congress and that the only way it can be restored is to bring it to the floor and override the President's veto. We will never know how much money we will save in this process. We will never know how many would have been attached and hidden in the appropriations bills or a tax bill if the process is changed. Mr. President, as I said, one of the other objections to this are the constitutional concerns. The majority leader's substitute will restore a healthy tension between the legislative and executive branches necessary for fiscal discipline. President Truman wrote: One important lack in the Presidential veto power, I believe, is authority to veto individual items in appropriations bills. The President must approve the bill in its entirety or refuse to approve it. . . it is a form of legislative blackmail. Some will argue that the veto is too high a standard; that it is difficult to muster the numbers to override it. To those, I would say, that the greater challenge today is to reduce our Nation's debt and balance our Nation's books. In this day, it should be a formidable challenge to continue to spend our children's and grandchildren's money. It is time for a higher standard. Others will say that the separate enrollment is inconvenient; the President will be forced to examine and sign hundreds of bills instead of one; how is the House going to process all this? I find it interesting that every President since Ulysses Grant, with a couple of exceptions, has asked for a line-item veto. Not one of them has complained about the inconvenience of a line-item veto. I also will say to my colleagues that modern technology, the information age, is upon us, the computer age is here. What used to be a tedious task, what used to be a complex process, what used to be a question as to the decisionmaking power of an enrollment clerk--that is someone who writes up the bills and presents them for final approval to the executive branch--what used to be a complex process is now a very simple process. Software has been written for computers that can process this in a matter of moments. And so to separately line item and enroll a large appropriations bill is no longer a difficult process. So the objection to the nightmare of the mechanical difficulty has been met through the miracle of modern technology. As I said, some question the constitutional standard. Article I, section 5, says that each House of Congress has unilateral authority to make and amend rules governing its procedures. Separate enrollment speaks to the question of what constitutes a bill, it does nothing to erode the prerogatives of the President as that bill is presented. The Constitution grants the Congress sole authority for defining our rules. Our procedures for defining and enrolling a bill are ours to determine alone. There is precedent provided in House rule XLIX, the Gephardt rule. Under this rule, the House Clerk is instructed to prepare a joint resolution raising the debt ceiling when Congress adopts a concurrent budget resolution which exceeds the statutory debt limit. The House is deemed to have voted on and passed the resolution on the debt ceiling when the vote occurs on the concurrent resolution. Despite the fact that a vote is never taken, the House is deemed to have passed it. The American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service has analyzed separate enrollment legislation and found it constitutional. Let me quote from Johnny Killian of the CRS: Evident it would appear to be that simply to authorize the President to pick and choose among provisions of the same bill would be to contravene this procedure. In [separate enrollment], however, a different tack is chosen. Separate bills drawn out of a single original bill are forwarded to the President. In this fashion, he may pick and choose. The formal provisions of the presentation clause would seem to be observed by this device. Prof. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar, has also observed that the measure is constitutional. He recently wrote, and I quote: The most promising line-item veto idea by far is . . . that Congress itself begin to treat each appropriation and each tax measure as an individual ``bill'' to be presented separately to the President for his signature or veto. Such a change could be effected simply, and with no real constitutional difficulty, by a temporary alteration in congressional rules regarding the enrolling and presentment of bills. He goes on to say: Courts construing the rules clause of article I, section 5, have interpreted it in expansive terms, and I have little doubt that the sort of individual presentment envisioned by such a rules change would fall within Congress' broad authority. The distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, during his tenure as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote extensive additional views in a committee report on the constitutional line-item veto. He wrote about a separate enrollment substitute he offered, and I quote: Each House of Congress has the power to make and amend the rules governing its internal procedures. And, of course, Congress has complete control over the content of the legislation it passes. Thus, the decisions to initiate the process of separate enrollment, to terminate the process through passage of a subsequent statute, to pass a given appropriations bill, and to establish the sections and paragraphs of that bill, are all fully within Congress' discretion and control. He goes on to say: A requirement that Congress again pass each separately enrolled item would be only a formal refinement--not a substantive one. It would not prevent power from being shifted from Congress to the President, because under the statutory line-item veto, Congress will retain the full extent of its legislative power. Nor would it serve to shield Congress from the process of separate enrollment, because Congress will retain the discretion to terminate that process. Mr. President, the line-item veto will discourage budget waste because it will encourage the kind of openness and conflict that enforces restraint. The goal is not to hand the Executive dominance in the budget process. It is not a return to impoundment. It is a gentle and necessary nudge toward an equilibrium of budgetary influence, a strengthening of vital checks on the excesses of this Congress. The President's veto or ``revisionary'' power, as the Constitution defines it, was intended to serve two functions: To protect the Presidency from the encroachment of the legislative branch, and to prevent the enactment of harmful laws. Certainly, any attempt by a President today to line out unnecessary spending would meet the second of the Framers' objectives, that of preventing the enactment of harmful laws. In 1916, a Texas Congressman, who shall go unnamed but will be quoted, had this to say: There are a half a dozen places in my district where Federal buildings are being erected or have recently been constructed at a cost to the Federal Government far in excess of the actual needs of the communities where they are located. This is mighty bad business for Uncle Sam, and I'll admit it; but the other fellows in Congress have been doing it for a long time and I can't make them quit. Now we Democrats are in charge of the House and I'll tell you right now, every time one of those Yankees gets a ham, I'm going to get myself a hog. Mr. President, that was colorful language. We do not use that kind of language too much around here in 1995. But the principle is the same. Everybody else is getting it for their district, so I better get it for mine. If that fellow over there can get a ham, I am going to see that I get a hog. That is not spending in the national interest. That is not appropriate spending even if our budget is balanced, but I guarantee you it is not appropriate spending when you have an unbalanced budget, when needs are being unmet, when the taxpayer is paying a higher burden than he should, when the debt is running out of control, when we are saddling future generations with a debt obligation which will bury them and bury their opportunity to enjoy the same standard of living available to each one of us. The line-item veto is a measure whose time has come. The American people voted for it. The House has passed it. The President wants it. And now only the Senate, only the Senate, stands in the way of the line-item veto. Let us make sure that the Senate is viewed as the world's greatest deliberative body and not the world's greatest deliberative obstacle to the line-item veto. Mr. President, I contend it is time to pass the line-item veto. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we hope later today to be bringing to the floor the line-item veto. Senator McCain and I are leading that effort. We are in final stages of negotiation as to the final form of the legislation. It is something that has been discussed at length over the past several years. Senator McCain and I have offered it alternately and jointly several times. We have not been able to secure the necessary 60 votes to break a filibuster on the line-item veto or to secure a budget waiver. This is the year we believe that it is time for the Senate and time for the Congress to fulfill its commitment to the American people on an item that an overwhelming majority of the American people support. Poll after poll show the support for line-item veto in the 70 to 80 percent range; 43 Governors enjoy the line-item veto and have for many, many years and have effectively demonstrated that it works in their State. Line-item veto is simply a measure by which the President can provide a check and balance against the gaming that Congress has engaged in on appropriations bills, in particular, and also on tax bills, I would say, in terms of attaching an item that has not been exposed to the light of debate on that item and a separate vote on that item, but has been attached to an otherwise necessary appropriations bill or tax bill that is being sent to the President. Under the current law, the President has only one of two options: Either accept the entire bill as it is written--sometimes it covers thousands of items--either accept that or reject the entire bill. So the President, in a sense, is being held in a position that some will describe as blackmail but others will say is at least extraordinarily difficult because it allows Members of Congress, when they see a popular bill moving through the Congress, to attach an item that could at best be described as pork barrel, an item that does not benefit the national interest, but an item that goes to the benefit of a very selected parochial interest. We are annually embarrassed by the disclosure in the popular news media of some of the items that have been attached to these bills. Constituents say, ``How in the world could you pass that? How in the world could you allow a grant that studies the well-being of America's lawyers? How could you pass something that would allow the study of the bathing habits of South American bullfrogs? How in the world could it be made a priority the expenditure of money to refurbish the Lawrence Welk Museum,'' and on and on and on it goes, schools in France, special bridges, special buildings--items that go toward, I suppose, pleasing a selected constituency in someone's congressional district or someone's State, but certainly would not fall within the list of priorities and receive, I believe, a majority vote if that specific item was debated on the floor of the Senate and voted on. But Members know, if a bill is rolling through here that provides necessary funds for the Department of Defense, as this supplemental appropriations bill we have been dealing with this week does, or a measure provides earthquake relief or hurricane relief for either California or Florida or other parts of our country, or if a measure goes to fund something popular or needed or necessary health care measures, veterans' benefits, whatever, they know that the President is going to find it very, very hard to veto that entire bill to get rid of the extra pork that is attached to that bill. And so the President's only choice is to veto the whole thing and sometimes, as a consequence of that, shut down the entire Government or accept the bill, and more likely than not, he has to accept the bill. Line-item veto gives the President the opportunity to say, ``I'll take that bill, but I won't take this special interest provision that is on line 16 of page 273, and I'm going to line-item veto that particular item.'' This is a check and balance on what I would say are the egregious habits of Congress to accomplish in the dark of night without the light of debate, without the risk of a yea-or-nay vote on a particular item, to accomplish something that could never be accomplished in full debate and with a vote. It is designed to check that practice. Congress, if it thinks that the President has not followed its wishes, can bring that item up, because under the Constitution, if the President vetoes an item, we can override that item. Yes, it takes a two-thirds vote. It ought to be harder to spend the taxpayers' dollars, particularly on those items that the executive branch does not think are appropriate and have not had the normal process of authorization and debate and vote so that their constituents, our constituents, know where we stand on these particular items. That is the whole concept and purpose behind line-item veto. The President of the United States has supported line-item veto. Some people have said, ``Why would Republicans want to give a Democratic President the line-item veto?'' We think the Presidency deserves that authority to check the excessive and unnecessary, unwarranted spending habits of Congress that do not follow the normal procedures in devising these spending items. So we will be debating that. I expect the debate to be fairly fierce. We probably will get a filibuster on our efforts. This is the year, though, that if we are going to fulfill our commitment to the American people to make substantive changes in the way we do business, this is the year to do it. We will hear all kinds of excuses about delegation of power and will this really work and how much will this save. I guarantee you, it will save more than if we do nothing. This is a debate between the status quo, let us keep doing things the way we are doing them; oh, we will promise to change, we will promise to do it differently, we will summon the will, we will do what is necessary--no, we will not, because we have not. Year after year, decade after decade, promises--just rhetoric--no reality, no fulfillment of the promise. This is the time. I am deeply and bitterly disappointed that we could not pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That would have provided the mechanisms by which we can eliminate this debt which would force us to own up to our responsibilities, which we have not done over the past several decades. But at the very least let us enact line-item veto so that we can get at some of this problem and so that we can restore credibility with the American people that we are responsible in handling their money and we can eliminate this practice of providing pork-barrel spending that never gets the debate it deserves and is never subjected to a vote. Mr. President, we will be talking a lot about that later. I think my 5 minutes has about expired. Given the fact no one was available to speak, I thought it might be more interesting than a quorum call. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in 1988, when I ran for reelection to the House of Representatives, I was, shortly after that both surprised and also very privileged to be considered for appointment to fill the vacancy created when Senator Dan Quayle was elected to the Vice Presidency. I was fortunate enough to receive that appointment to the Senate. I then resigned my House seat, and I was appointed to the Senate beginning in 1989. I had several thoughts when that decision came down, but one of the very first thoughts that I had was the fact that I would have the privilege of serving in an institution in which Rev. Dick Halverson was Chaplain. We are fortunate to have been graduates of the same institution, Wheaton College. I followed Chaplain Halverson's career as minister of the Fourth Presbyterian Church and his chaplaincy here in the Senate. So I had an inkling of the kind of man he was and deemed it a great privilege to be able to come here and serve with him. I have observed few, if any, people that in my opinion better exemplify the walk of the Lord and the love of the Lord than Dr. Halverson. He has been a great inspiration to me. He is a humble servant of God. We see him publicly, and most of the world sees him publicly, giving the opening prayer to the Senate. And those of us who are privileged to serve in the Senate see him on Wednesday morning in our Senate prayer breakfast. We have the opportunity to see him on the floor as he listens to our debate. And we know of his work behind the scenes, in total confidentiality, and his counsel to the Senators. But what most do not see is the work that Dr. Halverson has done throughout the Senate for the Senate family. I think the thing I appreciate the most about Dick Halverson is that he sees us as God sees us. He sees us all as one. He shows respect to all persons. It is the example of Christ embodied in this man, who has served us so faithfully as our Chaplain. We have heard some wonderful tributes here this morning. But I do not think any of the tributes that we can provide could begin to equal the tributes that we would hear if the guards and the cooks and the clerks and the staff and all those who serve us in the U.S. Senate could come to this floor and tell us what Dr. Halverson has meant in their lives. The guard at the door, the cook in the kitchen, the maintenance man working in the basement, and the staffers working in the back offices, are just as important to Dr. Halverson's ministry as the Senators who speak on this floor. That is a story that will not really be told and which most of the world has not heard. But that is the example of a Christ-like walk that has meant the most to me. And so, if I could, on behalf of the thousands of people who support us so that we can come here and stand in the spotlight, I want to pay tribute to Dr. Halverson and all that he has meant in their lives and for all that he has done. I wish he and his dear wife many, many years of happiness together, rest, and well-deserved relaxation. I know he will keep us in his thoughts and prayers as he views the Capitol from his apartment and looks over this city that he loves so much and this institution into which he has poured his life and his love. We will miss you deeply. Your successor, Dr. Ogilvie, is a fine man of God. He has huge shoes to fill. God's grace will allow him to do that. But you will be deeply missed. Your legacy lives in our hearts and in the hearts and minds of the thousands of people you have touched during your chaplaincy here, and we thank you for it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to use this opportunity to provide a statement of appreciation for Rev. Neal Jones, who has volunteered this week to open our Senate sessions with prayer. Mr. President, Reverend Jones has faithfully served for the last 26 years as the pastor of Columbia Baptist Church in Falls Church, VA. During this time of esteemed service, Reverend Jones has displayed the personal, professional and spiritual characteristics that distinguish him for the important role of opening the Senate's day with prayer. Reverend Jones has a heart devoted to God, as evidenced by his love of people and concern for others. Of special note relating to his duties in the Senate, Reverend Jones has a broad doctrinal understanding of various religious traditions, and, while firm in his convictions, he has maintained an attitude of grace toward differences of opinion. Pastor Jones has a warm and winsome manner allowing him to pastor to all types of persons without regard to their status. He has a truly special gift for pastoral ministry and encouragement. Mr. President, these personal, professional and spiritual traits are revealed through Reverend Jones' dedicated work in the community. Under the leadership of Pastor Jones, Columbia Baptist has grown into a dynamic church ministering to a changing community in extraordinary ways. The church has a vibrant Korean and Hispanic ministry, a model child-care program of low-income families and single mothers, a major food, clothing, and medical program for a sister church in Moscow, and many other community outreach programs. In addition to providing leadership and guidance for these ministry activities, Reverend Jones serves on the Executive Board of Prison Fellowship; he is a member of the Baylor University Board of Regents; and he has served on the Foreign Mission Board and is past president of the Baptist General Association of Virginia. Reverend Jones also has shared his ministry in Japan, Africa, and Russia. Mr. President, as I am sure my colleagues have noticed this week, the Reverend Jones has an extraordinary gift of prayer. One prominent national Christian leader told me, ``Neal's prayers would rank with those of Peter Marshall,'' who is, perhaps, the best known of all past Senate chaplains. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate has been truly blessed by the efforts of Rev. Neal Jones, and I am honored to have this opportunity to recognize and commend him for his service to us this week. I yield the floor.