Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding, then, that upon completion of the Murray amendment, which will take an hour--at least there is an hour of time for consideration of the Murray amendment--and then I take it there may be a vote? Or not?

Mr. SARBANES. At the end of that we would be back on the D'Amato amendment, in the exact posture in which we find ourselves?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Arizona yield to me for just 30 seconds?

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator from New York asserted only a few moments ago in the debate that the Mexicans have been printing money throughout this period. That, in fact, is not the case. They have upheld a tight money policy. Through March 15, the nominal money supply has shrunk by 13 percent since the beginning of the year and the real money supply has shrunk by 23 percent. Now, we may differ over the policy, but at least let us get the right facts out before us. To stand here and assert that they have been following a very loose policy in printing money does not square with what the reality is. The reality is that the money supply, since the beginning of the year until the 15th of March, in Mexico has shrunk-- shrunk--by 13 percent. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I have been listening to this exchange with some interest and some bemusement--if one can use that term--with respect to a matter that has such potential serious consequences. This ought to be underscored: A matter of the utmost gravity. The New York Times on the 25th had an article headlined ``Mexico's Recovery Plan Shows Signs It Is Working.'' Two weeks after it was introduced, Mexico's tough new recovery plan is showing the first signs that it may be working. The floundering peso has started to stabilize while the economy is being squeezed even more tightly. The article ends up with a quote from the director of analysis in a brokerage firm in Mexico City, saying ``There is a little bit more confidence in Mexico. Things are getting better. But there is still a long way to go.'' Now, if there was any doubt about whether what we do here or what we say here--let alone what we do--may have significant consequences, this Mexican crisis may prove the point. Let me go back with a little history. On the 11th of January, one of my colleagues took the floor and this is what he said: Mr. President, while American diplomats and foreign policy pundits handwring over various crises in Eurasia, and the American military is hand-holding the doomed in a number of Third World quagmires, an economic crisis of alarming proportions is threatening to engulf our nearest neighbor to the south. Could there be a better example of the failure of our foreign policy than the potential collapse of Mexico? Continuing with this statement: I believe that charity begins at home. Mexico and Canada are part of the American family. Yes, we bicker, we snipe, we engage in the kind of heated battles only family members could get away with, but in the end it is the family ties that bind. We can no longer take our good neighbors for granted. Our national security and our economic well-being are inextricably linked to the health and stability of Mexican society and the Mexican economy. Let me repeat that colleagues' statement here. We can no longer take our good neighbors for granted. Our national security and our economic well-being, are inextricably linked to the health and stability of Mexican society and the Mexican economy. We face a far greater threat from instability in Mexico than we will ever face from open conflict or economic chaos in most of the places American diplomatic attention and foreign aid are currently focused. We must help the Mexicans stabilize the peso to renegotiate their debt, and to develop an economic strategy of long-term investment and growth that will improve the quality of life of all Mexicans and, by extension, the quality of life of all Americans. To do as we have been doing, to focus on the problems of other continents while ignoring our own, is asking us to worry over a distant storm as wolves gather in our own backyard. That is a very strong statement about the Mexican problem and a very strong statement about the United States responsibility to respond to the Mexican problem. That statement was made by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato, who has just spoken at great length here on the floor. This was on January 11. Of course, the administration, I assume in part influenced by Senator D'Amato's statement about responding to the Mexican situation, influenced by this strong, forceful declaration in the Senate as to what needed to be done with respect to Mexico, and the responsibility of the was impacted by that statement. And of course they began to try to construct some package that would enable the United States to play a role in addressing the economic crisis confronting Mexico. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve came to the Congress to seek congressional authorization for a loan package to provide assistance to Mexico. That loan package in fact was in the amount of $40 billion. What we are now talking about is the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund for $20 billion, with the international community coming in for other amounts to create a larger package which is judged as necessary if Mexico is going to be able to move out of this crisis. But the administration came to the Congress to seek approval from the Congress of a loan guarantee package of $40 billion. That loan guarantee package, the administration's request, was endorsed by the Republican and Democratic leadership of the Congress. We want to be very clear here about where the responsibilities are, and clear about this amendment in its historical context. It needs to be made clear that there is a recovery program now underway in Mexico, and if the rug is pulled out from under that recovery program the responsibility for that also needs to be made clear. The recovery program has risks connected with it. No one has denied that. There has to be some evaluation of those risks, and weighing them, but on the 12th of January, President Clinton and the congressional leaders issued a joint statement on Mexico's currency crisis after meeting at the White House. I will quote from that statement. This was the statement of the Republican and Democratic leadership of the Congress, both Houses. We agree that the United States has an important economic and strategic interest in a stable and prosperous Mexico. Ultimately the solution to Mexico's economic problems must come from the people of Mexico. But we are pursuing ways to increase financial confidence and to encourage further reform in Mexico. We agree to do what is necessary to restore financial confidence in Mexico without affecting the current budget at home. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that statement be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. The submission of that proposal was followed by extensive consultations between the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and Members of the House and Senate to craft a package that could win congressional approval. A January 14 article in the Washington Post reported: Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan canvassed Capitol Hill, briefing legislators on the details of the plan and lobbying for support. At a question and answer session attended by more than 100 legislators yesterday morning, many Members of Congress questioned Rubin, Under Secretary Lawrence Summers, about whether the proposed rescue package would put U.S. tax dollars at risk. And some demanded assurances that the United States would extract broad promises of economic reform from the Mexican Government before the Treasury extended any financial support. But at the close of the 2-hour meeting, House Speaker Newt Gingrich told the gathering that the Republican leadership in the House stood firmly behind the administration's rescue plan, ``We have zero choice on this,'' he said, according to those who attended the meeting. ``Republican leadership,'' he added, ``is committed to doing everything we can to make it work.'' ``There is generally a consensus that as the leadership agreed last night, we need to do what is necessary to make this work,'' Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole said after the morning meeting. ``We do not have the luxury of waiting very long,'' he added. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, there then followed 2 weeks of extensive efforts by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and congressional leaders to craft the package. A January 19 article in Roll Call reported, ``Not only did House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate majority leader Bob Dole immediately back President Clinton in offering a $40 billion''-- and I emphasize that $40 billion--``loan guarantee to Mexico, but House and Senate task forces have been working tirelessly with the administration and Mexican officials to craft legislation to put the guarantee into effect. This period ensued with these discussions with the Congress, with the Federal Reserve and the administration.'' And an article in the Financial Times recounts what transpired. I quote it: It was around 8 p.m. on Monday, January 30, that Leon Panetta, White House Chief of Staff, finally accepted that the administration's plan to rescue Mexico with up to $40 billion of loan guarantees was not going to work. Two phone calls in the space of a few minutes had virtually made up his mind. One was Newt Gingrich, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, the other from Mexico, Guillermo Martinez Ortiz, the Mexican Finance Minister. The message from Gingrich was simple and pessimistic. Congress was objecting to the loan guarantee package, and the chances of its rapid and successful passage were slim and worsening. The conversation with Ortiz was also deeply worrying. Money was flowing out of Mexico so rapidly that without U.S. help they would soon have to abandon the convertibility of the peso. According to the article, Speaker Gingrich told Panetta it would take at least another 2 weeks to line up support for the package. If the President acted on his own, Congress would breathe a huge sigh of relief. Let me repeat that: According to the article, Speaker Gingrich told Panetta it would take at least another 2 weeks to line up support for the package. If the President acted on his own, Congress would breathe a huge sigh of relief. Let me just recount what has transpired up to this point and where we are. The administration, confronted with an economic crisis in Mexico, sought to devise a package to respond to the situation. It in effect was urged to do so by Members of the Congress and many other commentators on public policy issues. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber took the floor to underscore the seriousness of the Mexican crisis, and the interrelationship between our two countries. ``Our national security and our economic well-being are inextricably linked to the health and stability of the Mexican society and the Mexican economy.'' Statements of that sort, which urged that we must help the Mexicans stabilize the peso and renegotiate their debt, were being heard from various Members of the Congress. The administration came to the Congress proposing a loan guarantee program for $40 billion and seeking the approval of the Congress for that loan guarantee package. The administration's proposal was supported by leadership of the Congress, and I quoted statements from both Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Dole supporting the administration's effort. As Senator Dole said--this is after the administration submitted at a briefing the loan guarantee package--``There is generally a consensus that, as the leadership agreed last night, we need to do what is necessary to make this work.'' As we all well know, the efforts to muster congressional approval for the loan guarantee package of $40 billion ran into difficulty. And it was then that there was indication from some of the leadership. Speaker Gingrich stated, ``If the President acted on his own, Congress would breathe a huge sigh of relief.'' That Financial Times article, from which I was quoting, then went on to say that the decision was then made to abandon the loan guarantee package which leadership had endorsed but for which there was difficulty commanding approval in the Congress. To abandon the loan guarantee proposal and develop a new support package centering on $20 billion of finance from the Exchange Stabilization Fund. So a new approach was taken. On January 31, a joint statement was issued by President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, House Minority Leader Gephardt, Senate Majority Leader Dole, and Senate Minority Leader Daschle. That statement said, and I quote, this is now quoting the statement of the President, congressional leadership, Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Dole and leaders Gephardt and Daschle. We agree, that in order to ensure orderly exchange arrangements and a stable system of exchange rates, the United States should immediately use the Exchange Stabilization Fund to provide appropriate financial assistance for Mexico. We further agree that, under title 31 of the United States Code, section 5302, the President has full authority to in Mexico raises unique and emergency circumstances, the required assistance to be extended will be available for a period of more than 6 months in any 12-month period. The statement then goes on to indicate that the support that is coming from other nations, from the IMF, through the Bank for International Settlement, and then it goes on to say, and I quote: We must act now in order to protect American jobs, prevent an increased flow of illegal immigrants across our borders, ensure stability in this hemisphere, and encourage reform in emerging markets around the world. This is an important undertaking, and we believe that the risk of inaction vastly exceed any risk associated with this action. We fully support this effort, and we will work to ensure that its purposes are met. We have agreed to act today. That is the end of the statement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of the President and the congressional leadership be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. What is happening is that there is a move afoot to, in effect, cover the amounts needed for the disaster relief. Now, I have obviously some questions about this decision on the basis of past practice, but let me pass beyond that issue and simply address the manner in which disaster spending is being covered in the proposed supplemental appropriations bill before us. A very heavy proportion of the disaster spending amount in the supplemental is being taken out of the allocation to the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in which the FEMA funding is located. Now, it is my understanding that more is coming out of that subcommittee than the cost of the disaster relief that is before us. So, in effect, this particular subcommittee, which by chance has jurisdiction over FEMA, is absorbing the entire additional amount given to FEMA for disaster relief out of the allocations for the other agencies under its jurisdiction. This just does not make sense. It leads to great inequities that a disproportionate burden is borne by the other agencies within the jurisdiction of that subcommittee. I am particularly concerned because I have a responsibility with respect to the authorization of housing programs. The housing department finds itself within that grouping of agencies that are covered by the arbitrary differentiations that are made within the Appropriations Committee. If there is anything that calls for the kind of approach that the distinguished Senator from Maryland has taken, it is handling disaster relief. Obviously, if you are going to cut other programs to pay for disaster assistance, the burden of these cuts ought to be borne across the board. There is no rationale, no logical or rational reason, why paying for the disaster relief ought to come out of those few agencies that happen to be grouped with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for purposes of handling an appropriations bill. Providing for disaster relief must be done; I support this supplemental for disaster relief. In fact, I would support doing it as an emergency the way the President submitted it to the Congress. If, in effect, the cost of the disaster is going to be covered by diminishing other accounts--and we are talking about the very fiscal year in which we find ourselves--I do not think that the disaster spending ought to be covered out of those agencies that are grouped within this particular Appropriations subcommittee. That is illogical, not logical, and that is inequitable, not equitable. The amendment that has been put before us would recognize that national disasters are a national responsibility. It would avoid setting a precedent, that you are going to pay for disasters out of the accounts of this particular subcommittee. With the bill before us, you are going to establish a precedent that makes this particular subcommittee the window to which you go for all future disaster relief. What is the logic in that? We could just as easily put FEMA over into the Defense Subcommittee. We could combine FEMA with emergency preparedness which covers not only disaster relief, but other emergencies. At one point, FEMA's prime responsibility was to address questions of how we would react to a nuclear attack. So maybe FEMA should be put in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and then, if you followed the principle that is being used here, when we have a national disaster, we would pay for it entirely out of the defense budget. I am not arguing that should be done. I am only making that point to illustrate the lack of logic of what has been done in the supplemental appropriations bill that is before us. This is not the way to handle the funding of disasters. I very much hope the amendment of the Senator from Maryland--which I think provides a much more equitable way of paying for disasters--passes. This amendment is an across-the-board cut with respect to all agencies and departments. It is a much more sensible way to go about this at this time. An across-the-board cut may not be the best way to pay for disasters in the future. I know the Senator from Maryland has pushed the notion of providing an anticipatory mechanism to meet future disasters. Under that approach you would set up a fund and appropriate to it in anticipation of future disasters since it is fairly reasonable to hypothesize that there will be natural disasters at some time. Natural disasters do occur on a periodic basis, and we need to address them. An advanced funding mechanism would be a better way of doing it. However, that is not now before us. Confronted with the problem that we have, I think this amendment makes a great deal of sense and is certainly a far preferable approach than the one contained in the legislation that is now pending. Therefore, I very strongly support Senator Mikulski's substitute amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me time.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield me 5 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, the President declared this supplemental request an emergency disaster.

Mr. SARBANES. The last six or seven disaster supplementals over the last few years have all been handled in that fashion, I believe.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the amendment that has been offered by my distinguished colleague from Maryland, the substitute amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. First of all, traditionally we have considered disaster relief measures as an emergency supplemental and handled that way, if I am correct. I believe that is correct.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator. I just want to touch finally on a point made immediately preceding me by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. Namely, that the proposal before us places enormous power in the hands of the Executive to bring pressure on the legislative branch. What the executive branch can do under this proposal is link items in an appropriations bill with totally unrelated issues on which a Member of the legislative branch may be challenging the Executive. For example, the Executive may have a nomination it is trying to move through the Senate. A Senator opposes that nomination. The Executive can pick out of an appropriations bill an item of critical importance to the Senator's home State, an item which everyone would concede is meritorious, but yet the Executive would be able to use his veto to negate that item, not on the merits of the item itself, but because the executive branch would relate it to a totally separate item in which they are being opposed by the Member in the legislature. Think very carefully about that. I believe it will happen. In the hands of a vindictive President, it could be absolutely brutal. But I think the temptation for its use in this manner will be tempting to any Chief Executive who is concerned about moving some other matter through the legislative body and finds himself being thwarted or frustrated. Finally, let me go back to the point with which I opened. My deepest concern is the manner in which we are trivializing very important issues. The Senator from West Virginia has rendered an extraordinary service to the people of the country by highlighting that. He has stood here on the floor and underscored that we are dealing with serious matters. This is serious business. Decisions are being made in the rush of the moment that may well alter in a fundamental way our basic constitutional arrangements. We ought to be very careful about doing that, Mr. President. I regard the measure before us as a giant step down that path and, therefore, I very strongly oppose it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding there have been Presidents, Chief Executives, who have urged their lawyers within the executive branch to do exactly that: Look in the Constitution to find an existing line-item veto authority. And as much as the Presidents have wanted that authority, it is my understanding his lawyers have always come back to him and said, ``We cannot find that authority in the Constitution that enables us, in good conscience, exercising our professional judgment, to say that authority is there to be found.''

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished and able Senator from West Virginia for yielding me time. I wish to join my colleague from Michigan in the comments he made a few moments ago in expressing my for the very strong fight he has been making in the Chamber on this issue and on other issues which touch the Constitution of the United States. He has been a true champion of our Constitution and the Nation is in his debt. I am deeply troubled that this body appears to be into the symbolism but not the reality of addressing important national problems. There is a dedicated craftsmanship in dealing with problems of public policy which members of a legislative body are supposed to bring to the task. Anyone can stand up and thump their chest and holler there is a problem and we need to have a response. The real question is will the response be a sensible one? Will it in fact, in real practical terms, improve the situation? Too few want to face those questions and deal with them in a tough-minded way. Witness the proposal before us. The Congress is going to send thousands of little ``billettes'' down to the President to sign or veto. As the able Senator from Michigan pointed out, there are manifestly serious constitutional questions about this approach. There was a path the Senate could have followed, pursuant to the concept of expedited rescission, which I think would have commanded very broad support in this body. An approach which would have gotten at some of the spending problems people have criticized without bringing about a radical and fundamental shift in the allocation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches. I said earlier on in the debate that it is no great trick to have a strong executive. If you go through history, many countries have had strong executives. In fact, when it is carried to extreme, we call them dictatorships. The hallmark of a free society is to be able to have a legislative branch and a judicial branch in addition to an executive branch and for those two branches to have independence of judgment and real decisionmaking power, with the ability to check and balance executive authority. I can understand executives wanting to maximize their authority, but I have difficulty understanding legislators who in a blind way, are giving up a significant part of their role in the operation of the political system. I do not say that from the point of view that they should guard their own personal power and authority but from the point of view of guarding their role under the Constitution as representatives of the people. The Founding Fathers devised a constitutional system which has been the marvel of the world. They established a National Government with independent branches that check and balance one another; to have not only the executive with power and authority but also to have a legislative branch with power and authority. The thing we must be careful about as we consider these various line- item veto proposals is not to erode the balance, the basic balance and constitutional arrangement that has served the Republic well for over two centuries. The Congress passed the Budget Impoundment and Control Act in the mid 1970's, to address this balance between the executive and the legislative branches which provided a rescission process. It is possible to do further refinements with respect to the rescission arrangements that currently exist in the law and it is down that path I believe we should be proceeding. The current approach has been criticized. It is said the President makes rescissions, sends them to the Congress, the Congress simply ignores them. A proposal was offered by the minority leader which would have addressed this problem by requiring the Congress to act upon rescissions sent to it by the President. The Congress would not simply be able to ignore it. The President would be able to focus the spotlight on the issue and require the Congress to act on it. The expedited rescission proposal provided that if a majority in both Houses did not agree that the item should be rescinded then it would not be rescinded. That seemed to me to be a sensible way of trying to address some of the problems that have been raised without fundamentally altering our constitutional arrangements.

Mr. SARBANES. Could the Senator yield me just 2 more minutes?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the pending amendment, the line-item veto substitute amendment that is before the body, and in the course of doing that to express some thoughts on the line-item veto issue more broadly. I am very much concerned that any proposal, unless very carefully developed and worked out, could result in a fundamental reordering of the separation of powers and check and balance arrangements between the legislative and the executive branches. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to dismiss these kinds of questions, although they were very much at the forefront of the thinking of the Founding Fathers when they devised the Constitution that summer in Philadelphia. A Constitution which has served us well over two centuries of the Republic's history. A very careful balanced arrangement was put together then, and I think when it comes to changing it, we need to be very cautious and very prudent. It does not take a great deal of skill or vision to have a strong executive. Many countries throughout history too strong, we refer to them as dictatorships. One of the hallmarks of a free society is having a legislative branch and a judicial branch with some independence and with some decisionmaking authority which can operate as a check and balance upon the executive. I repeat, many countries have had strong executives, but they have not been the examples that we want to follow or to emulate. The great achievement of the American constitutional system is to have established a National Government with independent branches that check and balance one another, to have not only an Executive but legislative branch with some power and authority. I think we have to be very careful that the proposals which come before us with respect to line-item veto not erode the balance and the arrangement that has served the Republic well for over 205 years. The danger, of course, is that these line-item veto proposals open up the opportunity for the Executive branch, for the President, to bring to bear enormous pressure upon Members of Congress and, therefore, markedly affect the dynamics between the two branches. What the various forms of the line-item veto would do, unless very carefully restrained, is enable a President to link votes on matters unrelated to the appropriation bill to a specific item in the appropriation measure. Members may well be confronted with a situation in which the Executive says, ``I see this item in this bill, and it is a good item; everyone has justified it; it makes a lot of sense; it is obviously very important to your State or to your district; and I certainly do not want to exercise my veto over it; but I am very concerned about the position you are taking''--and then he mentions some totally unrelated issue, perhaps a nomination to the Supreme Court, perhaps a foreign policy matter involving very important issues of war and peace, or other issues on the domestic front. Of course, the Executive then is in position to bring enormous pressure to bear. So the line-item veto tool becomes used not as many have suggested, as a way to delete spending items and address through that deletion the deficit problem, it becomes a tool and a legislative strategy by the White House and by the Executive branch to sway Members in terms of the positions they take on unrelated items. It becomes a heavy weapon of pressure. Now, the particular provision that is before us was not the subject of any committee hearings or any report. There is no report with respect to this provision. It was a substitute that was simply presented on the floor. It would require individual items in an appropriation bill to be separately enrolled and presented to the President. And as the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, demonstrated yesterday, a single appropriations bill could end up as thousands of individual enrolled bills that would be sent to the President to be signed or vetoed. Senator Byrd indicated yesterday that this dramatic change in our system for enacting legislation raises many significant constitutional issues. First, you have important questions about the role of the enrolling clerk in carrying this forward. What will be sent to the President is not identical with what was passed by the Congress. It will be what we pass subsequently broken up by the enrolling clerk. It is not as though the Senate and the House were asked to pass each of these items and then that was sent to the President. That at least I think would be consistent with existing constitutional arrangements. With the proposal before us, you will be passing a bill, and then the enrollment clerk is going to divide it up into lots of little bills. I think Senator Byrd referred to them as ``billettes.'' And those would be sent to the President. In fact, I think there is a very strong argument that this scheme would violate the presentment clause in article I, section 7 of the Constitution, which provides: Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States. If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it. It seems clear to me that what would be presented to the President is not what has passed the House and the Senate. In fact, I understand that the Assistant Attorney General from the Office of Legal Counsel has raised serious concerns about the separate enrollment approach contained in this substitute amendment with the observation: On what seems to us to be the best reading of the Presentment Clause, what must be presented to the President is the bill in exactly the form in which it was voted on and passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate rather than a measure or a series of measures that subsequently have been abstracted from that bill by the clerk of the relevant House. Obviously, this raises a serious constitutional issue, and I hope Members will stop and deliberate about it very carefully as we consider the substitute proposal that is before us. Under this substitute, the separate enrollment of each item would be the responsibility of the enrollment clerk after the larger bill has passed the Congress. The Congress would never actually vote on the individual so-called bills that would go to the President. Therefore, it represents a dramatic and drastic departure from our constitutional arrangements. Only this morning there was an editorial in the paper, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. This editorial said in part: The ``compromise'' line-item veto bill that Republicans have put on the Senate floor is as bad as the bill it would replace, and not a compromise at all. It is sloppily drawn, would greatly complicate the legislative process, invite evasions, and likely do little to accomplish its ostensible purpose of reducing excess spending and the deficit. The main effect would be to disturb the traditional balance of powers by strengthening the President and congressional minorities at the majority's expense. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the history of the existing scheme for Presidential rescission of spending items. Congress enacted the Budget Impoundment and Control Act in 1974 in response to Executive excesses by a President who impounded funds duly enacted into law. I supported that act--as a Member of the House--to restore balance between the executive and legislative branches. And it is quite possible, of course, to further refine the rescissions scheme first put forth in the 1974 act. In fact, there has been legislation which Senators Domenici and Exon had been recommending to do exactly that. I understand that the minority leader will be making proposals with respect to so-called expedited rescission that would enable us to move forward on this issue. That would ensure the President that items he picked out of an appropriation bill and said should be rescinded would come to the Congress and would have to be voted on by the Congress. That is not now the case. The President can pick the items out for rescission, but a vote on them is not actually required. This proposal, the so-called expedited rescission proposal, would ensure that a vote had to be taken. And it provides, of course, that if a majority in both Houses does not agree that the item should be rescinded, then it would not be rescinded. But, it does provide a way to put a spotlight on the item, if that is what the President wishes to do, and it does require the Members of the Congress to address the issue and to address it directly. I understand, also, that the proposal that the minority leader may make would include within it so-called tax expenditures as an item also over which the President would have that particular rescission authority, and then would be able to require a direct vote by both Houses of the Congress on that item. That is a change in procedure, but it is one that I think is worthy of consideration and it does not fundamentally alter the arrangements between the Executive and the legislative branch that are currently contained in the Constitution of the United States. It is a more restrained and balanced approach, I think, to try to address this issue. It does not represent the which is contained in the amendment before us, or indeed in other more sweeping proposals. And it does not shift the balance between the Executive and the legislative branches in a drastic way. It addresses the concerns that have been raised without creating even larger problems--problems which would flow from a fundamental altering of the basic relationship which has existed for more than two centuries between the Executive and legislative branches. Mr. President, I very much hope this amendment will be defeated when we finally vote on it. I am hopeful that an appropriate alternative can be worked out along the lines of what is called the expedited rescission approach. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Mar. 22, 1995] Another in the Senate The ``compromise'' line-item veto bill that Republicans have put on the Senate floor is as bad as the bill it would replace, and not a compromise at all. It is sloppily drawn, would greatly complicate the legislative process, invite evasions and likely do little to accomplish its ostensible purpose of reducing excess spending and the deficit. The main effect would be to disturb the traditional balance of powers by strengthening the president and congressional minorities at the majority's expense. The problem, if there is one, is that presidents now can't pick and choose among the items in appropriations and other money bills. They can only sign or veto them in their entirety. In the Reagan and Bush years, the myth grew up that this was one of the reasons the deficit was so large--not presidential policy, but the inability of (Republican) presidents to curb the (Democratic) congressional proclivity to spend. Unfortunately, the myth has survived the election returns. The Republicans remain committed to giving the president greater power to single out and block line items, and President Clinton has unwisely said he wants as much such power as Congress is willing to confer. The House passed legislation under which he could sign an appropriations bill, then propose to kill or reduce any item in it. Congress would then have to pass a second bill to block such a proposal, and that could be vetoed, so that two-thirds votes of both houses would be required to sustain even the smallest spending detail to which a president might object. Some Senators of both parties rightly thought that was too great a cession of power. They proposed instead a system in which Congress would have to reaffirm its support for line items to which a president objected, but majority votes would be enough to prevail. But the Republicans in this group came under party pressure to back off and support the present ``compromise'' instead. Congress would pass appropriations and other money bills as now, then split them into line items or other designated parts--perhaps thousands per bill--and send each part to the president to be signed or vetoed separately. It's a recipe for writer's cramp. The president plus a minority of one- third plus one of either house would be enough to govern. The rule would also apply to any increase in entitlements and any revenue-losing tax provision ``having the practical effect of providing more favorable tax treatment to a particular taxpayer or limited group of taxpayers when compared with other similary situated taxpayers.'' To what might that not apply? The line-item veto has become a political symbol. The members of both parties who are so blithely supporting it, including Bill Clinton, need to ask themselves what it means. If the next president doesn't like a particular program for whatever reason--it needn't be the cost--he and a minority of either house can flick it out of the budget and out of existence. It could happen as easily to a new weapons system as it could to the likes of the national service corps. For lack of political will, the legislative branch votes to make itself that much weaker. Who wins from that?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, for 45 years the Reverend Marian Curtis Bascom, Sr., has, as pastor of the Douglas Memorial Community Church in Baltimore, been a leading force for fairness, opportunity, growth, and advancement, not only for the many devoted members of his congregation, but for all the people of Baltimore. His leadership, vision and commitment have made Reverend Bascom, and the members of his congregation truly a visible, viable, and compassionate force in Baltimore. This month Reverend Bascom will officially retire as pastor of Douglas Memorial Community Church, but his influence will continue to grow not only by his continued presence and leadership in our community, but also through the lives and works of the countless people he has led, inspired, and challenged to achieve the highest levels of dedication and commitment of which they are capable. Born in Florida and educated there and in Chicago, Reverend Bascom holds an honorary doctor of divinity degree from Florida Memorial College, and has completed advanced studies at Wesley Seminary and Howard University in Washington, having served as president of Howard's alumni association. Memorial Community Church, Reverend Bascom has held leadership posts in a broad range of institutions critical to our community's growth and vitality. He has twice served as president of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, and with his fellow clergy in this wide ranging institution, Marian Bascom has been a force for economic, social, and civic progress leading the way to opening up access to our institutions to all people. His inspired and committed leadership in the community has made him a leader in many ways--the first black commissioner of the Baltimore City Fire Department, first black to serve on the board of Baltimore City Hospitals, past president of the National Council of Community Churches, leader in support of working men and women, and vice president of Associated Black Charities. Under his inspired leadership, Douglas Memorial Community Church has played a critical role in reaching out to the people of Baltimore and into the world. Under Reverend Bascom's pastorate, Douglas has developed and implemented programs which focus on youth, our senior citizens, and the homeless. There are camps for the youth, a Meals-on- Wheels service, apartments, a vibrant Sunday school and youth fellowship, and a ministry that touches people of all races and creeds throughout the community. Mr. President, it has been my special honor and privilege to work with Rev. Marian C. Bascom over the years. I have found him to be an inspired leader, committed servant of his faith and tireless advocate for fairness and opportunity. His retirement will be only the next phase of involvement for this dedicated and inspiring clergyman, and I ask that all our colleagues join with me in wishing him every happiness. I also ask that a brief biography of the Reverend Marian Curtis Bascom, Sr., be printed in the Record. The biography follows: Marion Curtis Bascom, Sr.: Preacher, Teacher, and Innovator The growth of Douglas Memorial Community Church as a visible, viable compassionate force in the city of Baltimore is inextricably woven in the leadership of and by its minister, Rev. Marion Curtis Bascom, Sr. Marion Curtis Bascom, Sr. was born in Pensacola, Florida and was blessed by the early influence of a religious life with his parents and grandparents. He soon became active as a child-preacher at the Mt. Olive Baptist church in Pensacola. As a young boy, he also lived in Chicago, Illinois, where he acquired his early education. Later he returned to Pensacola, and was graduated from High School. In 1970 his Alma Mater, Florida Memorial College bestowed upon him the honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree. He also completed additional studies at the Wesley Seminary, Washington, D.C. In 1976, Dr. Bascom was selected to receive Howard University's coveted Distinguished Alumni Award at the 111th Anniversary of the founding of the institution. He has served the University frequently as a resource person for the School. Dr. Bascom has been president of the Alumni Association. Before coming to assume the pastorate of Douglas Memorial Community Church, he had served as pastor at Mt. Zion Baptist Church, Pensacola, Florida; Shiloh Baptist Church, St. Augustine, Florida; and the First Baptist Church, St. Augustine, Florida. In July, 1949, he accepted the invitation to become the pastor of Douglas Memorial Community Church in Baltimore, Maryland. Under the astute leadership of Dr. Marion Curtis Bascom, Douglas Memorial Community Church has become known as the church whose people have an acute awareness of the religious, social and political problems inherent of the city of Baltimore and which extend into the world. His leadership in connection with outreach programs focused on youth, the aged and homeless has brought recognition to him as one who believes that ``Love for one's fellowman reaches the highest pinnacle when we render service to others.'' Since 1949, Dr. Bascom has attained innumerable religious and civil heights, attesting to his stature as an inspired and committed leader in the Baltimore community. His prodigious list of credits include: twice president of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance; first Black Commissioner of the Baltimore City Fire Department; a former chairman of the Task Force for Welfare Rights; and the first Black to serve on the Board of Baltimore City Hospitals. In addition, he is a Past President of the National Council of Community Churches; and a former member of the Board of Directors of the Baltimore Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He has actively supported the local labor movement, and participated fully in the political life of Baltimore City. He was also a trustee of the Roseland Gardens Culture Center. Community concern has been maintained and Dr. Bascom serves as Vice President of Associated Black Charities. Dr. Bascom has constantly admonished the Douglas Congregation that instead of doing ``church work'' it should ``do the work of the church.'' As a consequence with his foresight and guidance, Douglas has developed an enviable succession of outreach programs with four of its more prominent being: Camp Farthest Out, Inc., located in Barrett, Maryland, and serving four hundred under-privileged children for two-week periods throughout each summer; the Douglas Memorial Federal Credit Union, with assets over $1,000,000; a Meals-on-Wheels Kitchen serving all creeds and Douglas Village, with 49 apartments, occupying the entire 1300 block of Madison Avenue. He was responsible for leading the church into sponsorship of a Headstart program and also for establishing the ``Seeker's House,'' a coffee house on Pennsylvania Avenue for area residents. Dr. Bascom was a local leader and activist during the civil rights movement, and marched in Selma with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Poverty marchers enroute to Washington were housed and fed at Douglas Memorial, as a small part of its awareness of the social problems of the day. His battle for economic equality erupted in the development of a business thereby opening the entrepreneurial door in the minority community to the sale of fine papers--an arena previously closed in the Baltimore community. Always available to growth prospects, the last five years have seen major efforts to renovate the Church House come to fruition. An elevator, long needed to care for more maturing congregants, has been installed to serve both the church and church house. Plans to install a new organ are evident and growing. The intrinsic, incalcuable effects of his forty years at Douglas are reflected in a vibrant Sunday Church School, an active Youth Fellowship, an outstanding musical aggregation, responsible and committed circles and spiritual group fellowships--all hallmarks of the blessings visited upon the Douglas Family through the untiring efforts of its pastor, Marion Curtis Bascom, Sr. In addition to his wife, Dorothy, immediate family members include their children, Bernadette M. Miller, Marion Jr., Peter and Singleton Bascom and Yiviane B. Yeadon and their grandchildren; Chokise L. Miller, Ellis and Gillian Yeadon. While his beloved mother, the late Mary A. Knutt, has joined his sainted grandmothers, Marion Bascom senses a welcoming bonding with his maternal heritage--the Andersons--Uncle Tom, Victoria, Thomas Jr., Corine and Harry--with Aunt Dorothy, Barbara and Meta. Dr. Bascom's favorite scriptual passage, the 139th Psalm, embraces his most fervent prayer: ``Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts . . .''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the time is long overdue for the Federal Government to establish a realistic wage standard for the American worker. The real value of the minimum wage has deteriorated markedly since 1979. At its current level of $4.25 per hour, the minimum wage will fall to its lowest real value in 40 years if Congress fails to take action. In the late 1950's the real value of the minimum wage was worth more than $5 per hour by today's standards and in the mid-1960's it peaked at $6.28. However, because Congress has failed to respond to inflation over the last 20 years, the real value of the minimum wage is now 27 percent lower than it was in 1979, and has fallen by almost 50 cents since 1991. The decrease in the value of the minimum wage has widened the gulf between rich and poor, making it even more difficult for hard-working families to make ends meet. In 1993, I strongly supported President Clinton's expansion of the earned income tax credit [EITC] which raised the income of 15 million households--helping many families rise above the poverty line. Today a family of four with one worker working year round, full-time at the current minimum wage would earn $8,500 and receive a tax credit of $3,400 for a total annual income of approximately $14,700. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimates that in 1996 the poverty line for a family of four will be $16,092. Therefore, under the current minimum wage, workers can work full-time for an entire year and still fall $1,300 below the poverty line. One of the most common arguments put forth by opponents of the minimum wage is that an increase would ultimately rob the economy of jobs and income. The idea is that by increasing the minimum wage, businesses will have to pay fewer workers more, resulting in lower employment rates. Recent evidence has indicated that this argument is seriously flawed. A 1992 study by Princeton economists David Card and Alan Kruger in New Jersey found ``no evidence'' that a rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment. In fact, just the opposite was true. Card and Krueger's research indicates that ``the increase in the minimum wage increased employment.'' These findings were echoed by Nobel Prize winning Economics Professor Robert Solow of MIT when he stated, ``The main thing about minimum wage research is that the evidence of job loss is weak.'' Mr. President, it is clear that the American economy can afford a reasonable increase in the minimum wage. In fact, it stands to reason that more money in the pocket of the American workers means that more money is being spent and purchasing power is increased. As Henry Ford so aptly stated, ``If you cut wages, you just cut the number of your customers.'' In debating the economic value of this important policy decision, we must be careful not to overlook what I believe to be the heart of the matter--the American worker. Historically, Congress has acted to ensure minimum standards of decency for working Americans. Measures to protect workers from unsafe and unfair working conditions were enacted under the belief that, as a society, we should support a basic standard of living for all Americans. It is in this spirit that minimum wage laws have been updated through the years. It is my strongly held view that these actions appropriately reflect the values and beliefs at the very core of our society--the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you deserve the opportunity to get ahead. As long as we fail to act, we send the message to working families across the country that hard work and sound living is not enough. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, two-thirds of all minimum wage earners are adults who are struggling to achieve a decent standard of living for themselves and their families. The objective of the minimum wage is to make work pay well enough to keep families out of poverty and off Government assistance. An hourly rate of $4.25 is not enough to cover the average living expenses of a family of four. It is unthinkable to me that in what is arguably the wealthiest Nation in the world, there are families out there right now trying to choose between buying groceries for their children or heating their homes. As the Senate prepares to take up the debate on welfare reform, it is important to note that the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that three out of every five workers earning the minimum wage or below are women--and the current minimum wage falls significantly short of enabling single mothers to achieve self-sufficiency. How can a single mother be expected to be able to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and child care on $4.25 an hour? In my view, instead of maintaining barriers to work, we should be helping to tear them down. Mr. President, Americans want to work. They want to be able to adequately provide for themselves and their families. But they are working for less and are becoming increasingly frustrated in the process. It is critical that we recognize the reality of minimum wage earners and take steps to help them rise above poverty. President Roosevelt once called for ``a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.'' The American worker deserves no less, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting efforts to increase the Federal minimum wage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to call the attention of our colleagues to a very moving poem by my good friend Peter Torrieri of Baltimore. ``To My Father'' is a tribute not only to those of Italian- American heritage, but also to all of those who crossed the seas to establish families in this great Nation of ours. The immigrant legacy, deeply rooted in our history as Americans, is a facet of our society that should inspire pride and honor. Peter Torrieri's father, Domenico, came to America during the wave of immigration in the early 1900's. His dream of a better life for himself, his wife, and their children was one that he would see slowly come to fruition. The sacrifices made by the entire Torrieri family illustrate both the strong work ethic displayed by so many immigrant families and the bonds of love and devotion that connect their family. Domenico Torrieri, then a young man far from his home of Abruzzo, labored day in and day out all for the benefit of his family. Peter's poem shows the highest respect and esteem for his father and for all of the fathers and mothers who made this pilgrimage to the New World, hopeful that their journey would lead them to a bright future. Peter and his wife Mary are leaders in Maryland's Italian-American community, playing important roles in preserving and passing on their heritage to the next generation as well as working tirelessly on behalf of community, health and civic organizations. As the son of immigrants and as an American who remains deeply devoted to my ethnic heritage, I invite all of our colleagues to read Peter's poem, which pays homage to his father and to all those who sailed the seas in search of a new life in America. I ask unanimous consent the poem be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I know time has expired. I asked for 30 seconds to express my very profound gratitude to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his powerful statement on behalf of the Constitution. I know of no Member of the Congress who has a deeper, more enduring dedication to the Constitution than does the Senator from West Virginia. I take his wise and moving words to heart. I am privileged to serve with him. I want to thank him for standing resolutely on this floor day in and day out and eloquently championing the basic, fundamental document of our Republic--the Constitution--which has served us so well for 206 years. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.