Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. All right.

Mr. STEVENS. Do you want to yield on that?

Mr. STEVENS. But I will be happy to wait for someone on the other side.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I have finished my comments. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Did the Senator want to ask a question?

Mr. STEVENS. I will have 5 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. I am perfectly willing to wait for the Senator from Iowa, if he wants to use some of the time.

Mr. STEVENS. Beyond that, I wonder how many people drive to work in the Senate in 30-year-old vehicles. The people who are flying our planes are flying planes made 30 years ago. By the turn of the century, every plane we have in the inventory will be 30 years old, except for the B-2 and F-117.

Mr. STEVENS. I have no time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a chart here that shows the situation in the last 10 years. We have three basic types of spending: Defense discretionary, domestic discretionary, mandatory spending. In 1987, in terms of 1997 dollars, we had almost $375 billion in defense money. The discretionary spending was considerably less than that, and this the entitlement, the mandatory spending in this year. In our budget it is down 34 percent from 1987 for defense. It is up 31 percent in terms of discretionary spending, domestic discretionary. And it is up 41 percent in terms of mandatory spending. We have, in fact, as the Senator from Iowa demanded, reduced spending. We have reduced spending by 71 percent in terms of procurement in defense. Our money for defense is 71 percent less than it was before. We have reduced manpower down. Even though it is voluntary, we still have reduced manpower by 33 percent. I have the same comment that the Senator from Maine has made. I have here the list of last year, the requests from Members that came to the defense appropriations subcommittee, for Members' add-ons. About 20 percent of them were actually mentioned in the President's budget, but even those, most of them, the request was to increase the President's budget. This is the book of all the letters that we received from Members. We accommodated, as the Senator from Maine said, approximately 60 percent, almost every request we got from Members and, I might say, about 60 percent to the Armed Services or the Appropriations Committee were added on. There you are, the Members who want to see how they succeeded last year in adding money to the budget, there it is. The reason we are able to do that is because we won the battle with the President. We added money last year. This time the President has come down from even the amount that he agreed to for 1995. In any event, we are going to be cutting from the 1995 level for next year. I agree with the Senator from Maine, there is no way that we can accept the concept of having people vote to cut the money and then come in and tell us their State absolutely needs additions to even the budget prepared by the Budget Committee. We did that. We even added to the levels of the Armed Services Committee in the appropriations process, and Members will remember that argument on the floor. But this is unconscionable. When you look at it--just take the C-17. Right after the turn of the century the only airlift we will have to take our Armed Forces overseas will be the C-17. We originally were going to order 240 of them. The President's request comes down to 120. Mind you, that will be the only transport beyond the year 2006. I do not understand people when they say you have to cut that even further. The President's level will take it to 120. There is no way we can project our capability to defend this country with these continued changes. The Senator from Virginia was here. He mentioned to us about the time four of us here, Senator Inouye, myself, Senator Warner, and Senator Nunn, sat in Israel when we awaited the incoming Scud, the missile that was shot at Tel Aviv while we were there. Thank God there was a Patriot there and thank God it did glance off that Scud and the four of us are here because of that. But the President's budget cuts missile defense and 77 percent of the people think we now have the capability of defending this country against missiles, which is not true. Not unless we spend some of the money that is absolutely necessary.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is with a sad heart that I join these comments about the majority leader. I have known Senator Dole for a long time and I have known him as a man whose is unquestionably a leader. There are people who have mannerisms that come from various experiences in their lives. Whenever I think of Bob Dole, I think of a great many men I have known in my life who were tested in war. He not only was tested but he was severely injured and really came back in a miraculous way, through the support that he got from his own townspeople in Kansas, through, really, the skill of a great surgeon in Chicago. But he came back and decided that the country that had given him that opportunity to recover from the effects of war was a country that he owed something to, and he has committed his life, really, to trying to make America a better place. I really do not--it is not too often when I sort of puddle-up in public. When I think about Bob Dole, I do, particularly after this decision today. I remember being with Bob Dole when we met with people who were disabled. Everyone knows that Bob was disabled coming out of the war. But he has, because of his own experience in coming back, committed himself to help those, not only get a chance for recovery, but help those who did not have the same miracle of recovery that he had. And the disabilities laws we have now are laws that, as the preceding speaker said, future generations will look to. They will look to what we did during our watch here in the Senate and they are going to find a great many marks made by Senator Bob Dole, even beyond being a leader. The work that he did, along with others, in saving the Social Security System involving a bipartisan solution, although it is not totally permanent, was historic. What Senator Dole did, working on the Finance Committee, and what that law did, in fact, preserved the Social Security system. But Senator Dole goes beyond that, in my mind, because I see him with the Secretary of Transportation, when she came to Alaska, standing on the back of a railroad car, the type of railroad car that former Presidents have used, or Presidents or candidates have used, as they made whistle-stop campaigns through the country. I hope Bob Dole does that as a candidate. Clearly, I saw the way that he met with our Alaska Native people, with Alaskans, and the way he enjoyed the outdoors and really has been quite supportive of those of us who represent our State. The Bob Dole I know is a man who you never have to ask him twice where he stands. You can take his word to the bank. And the decision he made today literally brings tears to my eyes, because I know that he has committed himself to service in the Congress and distinguished himself here. He has been willing to set that aside and to tell the country, as he did, that he has two destinations after he leaves here on or before June 11: either to the White House or back to Kansas. I think that took great courage and real determination and commitment, the kind of commitment that other people may not understand, but we understand what it means to us. I have been here when several people ran for the Presidency. They did not resign. They left their seat vacant and missed vote after vote, and there were decisions made here that should not have been reached if they had been here. I was thinking back to President Kennedy and his campaign. He was gone a long time. Lyndon Johnson was gone a long time. Many others had been out campaigning, and they had been gone and missed votes. This candidate, as leader, has not missed many votes. But now he has decided he must commit his full time to his quest for the Presidency. He has made a very courageous decision. I salute him. I will say other things later after he does leave. Unfortunately, we sometimes wait too long to say them. But I think that Bob Dole has a love for the Senate and the Senate has shown its love for him in responding to his leadership. We are going to miss that leadership, and I hope that those who follow him understand the Senate the way Bob Dole does. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 1996 at 6 p.m., to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to speak briefly in support of S. 1735, a bill that will establish an independent U.S. Tourism Organization. I am supportive, particularly, of the structure of the bill that Senator Pressler has put together. I want to commend him and the staff of the Commerce Committee for their hard work. They have fashioned a bill that has gotten strong bipartisan support here in the Senate. We used the 1950 act that incorporates the U.S. Olympic Committee [USOC] as a model for this bill. That act was greatly expanded upon by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 [ASA], and the concepts in S. 1735 draw much from the ASA. The primary goal of the ASA was to create a strong, central authority to serve amateur athletics. We are now creating a strong, central authority for the tourism industry, which will be called the U.S. Tourism Organization [USTO]. The USTO would have many of the same duties and powers as provided in the Amateur Sports Act for the U.S. Olympic Committee, including the authority to represent the United States internationally with respect to tourism and to adopt a constitution and bylaws. Like the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. Tourism Organization would be required to be nonpolitical. S. 1735 would specify the founding members of a board of directors for the U.S. Tourism Organization. As with the ASA, S. 1735 would grant the USTO the authority to design appropriate symbols, emblems, trademarks, and names, and would make it a violation of the Trademark Act of 1946 for any person to use these without the consent of the USTO. The Olympic Committee's ability to raise funds for its operations is almost entirely related to its exclusive rights under the ASA to Olympic symbols, and we hope the exclusive use of these will work as for the new USTO. Significantly, as with the U.S. Olympic Committee, no Federal funding is associated with this legislation. This is an industry-funded and industry-directed initiative. Supporting over 14 million jobs directly and indirectly, the travel and tourism industry is America's second largest employer. It is the third largest retail industry, generating an estimated $430 billion in expenditures. And it is good for State, local, and Federal Government, generating almost $60 billion a year in Federal, State, and local taxes. Tourism is extremely important to my State of Alaska. Over 1 million people will visit Alaska this year; that's more visitors than there are State residents. Tourists, both domestic and international, support 22,000 jobs in Alaska and $523 million in payroll. This year, tourists will spend $1.2 billion in my State. I support this legislation, which would create the foundations of a strong, independent entity to promote travel and tourism in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private bill for a young Alaskan, Jeff Stewart. Jeff's father, Charles Stewart was a staff sergeant stationed in Germany in 1992. Jeff and his brother were playing when Jeff fell and fractured his hip. Jeff was taken to the Langstuhl Army Hospital's emergency room where an Army physician failed to diagnose his fractured hip. Jeff was sent home for bed rest. Two days later Jeff's mother took Jeff to the Air Force clinic at Ramstein Air Base because Jeff was still in intense pain. At Ramstein, Jeff was seen by an Air Force physician who also failed to diagnose his fractured hip and sent Jeff home for bed rest. Six days later Jeff's parents took him back to Ramstein where an Air Force nurse diagnosed his fractured hip. Unfortunately, this diagnosis was too late to prevent permanent injury to Jeff. Jeff must now face a painful hip replacement operation every 7 to 10 years for the rest of his life. My bill will not automatically compensate Jeff and his family; rather, it will allow them to bring suit in a U.S. court as they would have had a right to do if the treatment had occurred in the United States. Nor is this bill meant to infer negligence on the part of the United States or the military doctors that treated Jeff Stewart; rather it will give Jeff and his family the opportunity to explain their case to a judge who can make the final decision as to whether or not Jeff should be compensated.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to speak briefly in support of S. 1735, a bill that will establish an independent U.S. Tourism Organization. I am supportive, particularly, of the structure of the bill that Senator Pressler has put together. I want to commend him and the staff of the Commerce Committee for their hard work. They have fashioned a bill that has gotten strong bipartisan support here in the Senate. We used the 1950 act that incorporates the U.S. Olympic Committee [USOC] as a model for this bill. That act was greatly expanded upon by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 [ASA], and the concepts in S. 1735 draw much from the ASA. The primary goal of the ASA was to create a strong, central authority to serve amateur athletics. We are now creating a strong, central authority for the tourism industry, which will be called the U.S. Tourism Organization [USTO]. The USTO would have many of the same duties and powers as provided in the Amateur Sports Act for the U.S. Olympic Committee, including the authority to represent the United States internationally with respect to tourism and to adopt a constitution and bylaws. Like the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. Tourism Organization would be required to be nonpolitical. S. 1735 would specify the founding members of a board of directors for the U.S. Tourism Organization. As with the ASA, S. 1735 would grant the USTO the authority to design appropriate symbols, emblems, trademarks, and names, and would make it a violation of the Trademark Act of 1946 for any person to use these without the consent of the USTO. The Olympic Committee's ability to raise funds for its operations is almost entirely related to its exclusive rights under the ASA to Olympic symbols, and we hope the exclusive use of these will work as for the new USTO. Significantly, as with the U.S. Olympic Committee, no Federal funding is associated with this legislation. This is an industry-funded and industry-directed initiative. Supporting over 14 million jobs directly and indirectly, the travel and tourism industry is America's second largest employer. It is the third largest retail industry, generating an estimated $430 billion in expenditures. And it is good for State, local, and Federal Government, generating almost $60 billion a year in Federal, State, and local taxes. Tourism is extremely important to my State of Alaska. Over 1 million people will visit Alaska this year; that's more visitors than there are State residents. Tourists, both domestic and international, support 22,000 jobs in Alaska and $523 million in payroll. This year, tourists will spend $1.2 billion in my State. I support this legislation, which would create the foundations of a strong, independent entity to promote travel and tourism in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private bill for a young Alaskan, Jeff Stewart. Jeff's father, Charles Stewart was a staff sergeant stationed in Germany in 1992. Jeff and his brother were playing when Jeff fell and fractured his hip. Jeff was taken to the Langstuhl Army Hospital's emergency room where an Army physician failed to diagnose his fractured hip. Jeff was sent home for bed rest. Two days later Jeff's mother took Jeff to the Air Force clinic at Ramstein Air Base because Jeff was still in intense pain. At Ramstein, Jeff was seen by an Air Force physician who also failed to diagnose his fractured hip and sent Jeff home for bed rest. Six days later Jeff's parents took him back to Ramstein where an Air Force nurse diagnosed his fractured hip. Unfortunately, this diagnosis was too late to prevent permanent injury to Jeff. Jeff must now face a painful hip replacement operation every 7 to 10 years for the rest of his life. My bill will not automatically compensate Jeff and his family; rather, it will allow them to bring suit in a U.S. court as they would have had a right to do if the treatment had occurred in the United States. Nor is this bill meant to infer negligence on the part of the United States or the military doctors that treated Jeff Stewart; rather it will give Jeff and his family the opportunity to explain their case to a judge who can make the final decision as to whether or not Jeff should be compensated.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings regarding Russian organized crime in the United States. This hearing will take place on Wednesday, May 15, 1996, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Harold Damelin or Daniel S. Gelber of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia, the current occupant of the chair for his courtesy. I am very privileged to join this group that is talking today about the economics, and particularly about taxes. Mr. President, yesterday, May 2, was Tax Freedom Day in Alaska. Next Tuesday will be the National Tax Freedom Day. That is the day we quit working for governments--whether it is Federal, State, or local government--and start working for our children, for ourselves, for our families. For the period from January 1 to May 2, in Alaska we have to take what we earn, literally, and pay it to one of those governments. I think it was especially difficult for middle-income Americans to make their checks out to the Internal Revenue Service this year because the tax cut that Congress approved to reduce taxes for families was vetoed by President Clinton. The Balanced Budget Act that Congress passed cut taxes for low- and middle-income taxpayers. It would have reduced the tax burden on married couples and allowed homemakers to save for their retirement with an individual retirement account. Congress also provided a $500- per-child tax credit. If President Clinton had signed our bill into law, many Americans who had filed their tax returns on April 15 would be getting a tax refund now, instead of having to have made the payment they did make on April 15. Three years ago, President Clinton demanded and obtained approval of the Congress of the largest tax increase in history. That was a bill that I opposed. I want to point out not one Republican voted for it. What really made Alaskans mad, when that was passed, was that it was a retroactive tax. I am pleased to see the Senator from Georgia in the chair at this particular time, when it is announced that the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair, will mark up his legislation to ban unfair retroactive tax increases the next time we meet in markup. Our Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs has oversight over all governmental agencies, and I want to share some observations about that jurisdiction. We have some difficult problems with the IRS. They are taxpayer problems, not our committee's problems, but we have been reviewing them. The problems are literally horror stories, situations that terrorize Americans who work hard and try to abide by the laws that we pass. Among the horror stories I have heard recently include the IRS repeatedly levying against the property of a widow in Anchorage, AK. That widow did nothing improper. She filed a joint return for the year of her husband's death in 1993 and later applied to use the credit from their overpayment in 1993 to pay her own tax bill as a widow in 1994. The IRS has stopped processing the 1993 return, so when the 1994 tax return was reviewed, the credit could not be used. Her first notice of the situation was a notice of the levy on her property, which she received in the fall of 1995; that notice of levy was for underpayment of her 1994 taxes, notwithstanding the fact she had overpaid taxes in 1993. Now, that is an impossible situation. Why should a taxpayer be called to task before the Internal Revenue Service checks its own records as to whether or not there is a prior year overpayment? Another case is the levy and sale of State fishing permits by the Internal Revenue Service. We have in the State of Alaska a number of hard-working individuals who have developed a tax compliance program to try and help rural Alaskan Native fishermen who are now starting to earn money through the management of our fisheries. Many of them do not have English as a first language, Mr. President. The Tax Code can be a difficult thing for them. In Alaska, our State will actually loan money to fishermen to pay their Federal taxes if they get behind because of the economy--the fishing prices change, their costs are difficult, and many of them look to their current income to pay taxes when they are due. It can be difficult to save in the prior year, and they are not subject to withholding. They are self-employed. The IRS recently went ahead and seized and auctioned permits belonging to Alaskan Native fisherman. That sent a very negative message to these people who were just coming forward to work with our State and the group that joined together to help them understand the tax laws. The State had already committed funds to help with regard to such taxes. If they had had proper notice of IRS intentions with respect to these cases, they would have loaned money to these people. I must say, just parenthetically, that Commissioner Margaret Richardson showed genuine concern for the Native people. She went to Alaska with me. She visited some of the people involved, and I think she is going to try and help work out some solutions to the problems. I am sure that every Member of Congress hears routinely the kind of complaints and horror stories from constituents as I hear from Alaskans. These are stories regarding lost records, missing notices, computer errors, and just the all-around hardness of some people in the IRS, who have the job of collection. In my judgment, there are a great many mistakes in the IRS that cost taxpayers dearly. Each time they get in one of these problems, they have to hire an attorney, take time off from work, or try to get an accountant to help them solve their problems. The real difficulty is, when we think about when I was talking about Tax Freedom Day, Alaskans work all those first 4 months of the year to pay the people who bring these problems to their doors. We have a lack of understanding too many times by Government employees about who is really paying their salaries. Many of the problems I find in our oversight of the IRS by the Governmental Affairs Committee results from the IRS's 10-year attempt to modernize its computers. The IRS goal in this regard to centralize the data base and make taxpayer data immediately accessible when a taxpayer calls to resolve a problem is a good goal. But the IRS computer system currently cannot interface. These computers do not talk to each other, Mr. President. When taxpayers call to resolve a computer error, they can find themselves talking to a computer, not an individual that can analyze their problem. Furthermore, IRS financial management system is in disarray. Millions in taxpayers' money has been spent on modernization, with very little results. The General Accounting Office recently reported to our committee that the IRS cannot account for $10.4 billion in taxes that its records show it collected. In addition, taxpayer privacy is now at risk. Federal standards for information systems are not being followed by the IRS. The National Research Council, which again has helped our committee analyze this problem, stated to us, ``the gap between the current tax system modernization security posture and the minimum security acceptable will continue to widen, thus, virtually assuring massive security breaches in coming years.'' That is a warning to our committee that if the IRS continues on the path it is on now, the security of taxpayer information is going to become worse, despite the fact that we are spending millions trying to improve the computer system. Computers cannot replace human beings, Mr. President. The IRS must administer the tax system with the precision it demands of taxpayers. The Tax Code is too complex. The Internal Revenue Service reported to us that it takes, they believe, an average of 12 hours for a taxpayer to complete a standard 1040 form. The Schedule C, small business people will need an average of 22 hours, they say, to fill out the 1040. I am advised that Money Magazine ran a little experiment. They hired 50 professional tax preparers--professionals--each to complete a tax return for the same hypothetical taxpayer. The result was 50 different tax bills. Americans should not have to play Russian roulette with the IRS. Recently, our Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held an oversight hearing on the IRS. As I say, these problems are significant. I have come to the floor today to announce to the Senate that we will hold four more hearings on the IRS. The hearings will provide the Senate with information about steps that the Congress and the administration must take to bring the IRS into the 21st century, with fairness and protection for taxpayers. I will close with what I said earlier, Mr. President. Congress must demand that the Internal Revenue Service administer our tax system with the same precision it demands of the taxpayers themselves. Thank you very much. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Darryl Roberson, who is temporarily a member of my staff, and this privilege extend for the month of May 1996.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation at the request of the Department of Defense [DOD] to amend the act to prevent pollution from ships to bring Navy operations in line with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships--the MARPOL Convention. I ask for unanimous consent that the following summary of the bill and background information provided by the DOD be printed in the Record. I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation at the request of the Department of Defense [DOD] to amend the act to prevent pollution from ships to bring Navy operations in line with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships--the MARPOL Convention. I ask for unanimous consent that the following summary of the bill and background information provided by the DOD be printed in the Record. I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who, as I understand it, is going to manage some time here under the agreement we have with the distinguished majority leader so that we can make the comments we would have made before the passage of the omnibus bill at this time.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as the Senator from New Mexico, Pete Domenici, said earlier today, this has been a difficult conference. Senator Domenici and his staff worked tirelessly on this conference report and deserve much of the credit for it. Let me review just briefly some of the differences that had to be resolved. In the House bill, there was an enhanced rescissions approach, while the Senate bill that went to conference used separate enrollment. The House bill applied only to appropriations and targeted taxes, while the Senate bill applied to appropriations, any tax that favored any one group, and new entitlement programs as well. The House bill made the President's line item veto of a program effective after a congressional review period, while the Senate used a constitutional veto that was effective immediately. The Senate bill contained a mandatory lockbox for deficit reduction. The House bill did not. The Senate bill contained a sunset, and the House bill did not. The list can go on and on, but foremost among all of these issues were real questions about just what it was that we were delegating to the President, and if that delegation would be found constitutional. After many long days and nights, and not a few testy meetings--and I must say, these conferences were the most acrimonious I have faced in 28 years--I believe that we have taken the best elements of both bills and created something that will work as Congress intends. I think it may be too narrow, rather than too broad, before we are through. More importantly, I think we have a clear delegation of authority to the President for a specific purpose, and it is for the purpose of deficit reduction. That is what will pass constitutional muster, and I urge Members to remember that. This is a bill for deficit reduction that goes hand-in-hand with the concept of a balanced budget bill, a bill to require the elimination of a deficit. It is a mechanism to assist in congressional discipline to ensure that the Congress and the executive branch exercise the discipline that is necessary to bring about an elimination of the deficit that so plagues our future. It is not something that is a permanent change in constitutional power. If it is to be continued, that is for someone who comes to this body after most of us will have left. But, as a practical matter, I think it is a step that must be taken if we are to demonstrate our complete commitment to the concept of eliminating a deficit and bringing about a balanced budget. I want to congratulate the members of the conference. In particular, I want to point to the chairman of the Budget Committee, who was a cochairman of the Senate portion of the conference, and I point to Senators McCain and Coats, who brought the original concept to the floor, and Chairmen Clinger and Solomon on the House side. Their hard work helped to bring this bill together and bring it before the two bodies now. We are all indebted to our majority leader, Senator Dole. He really held our noses--and sometimes other things--to the grindstone. I thank the current occupant of the chair, Senator Lott, for his role as the assistant majority leader. Mr. President, this bill is really a significant bill. Anyone who thinks it is something that should be passed over lightly is wrong. It is a major change in the balance of Government power. It is really a check on the check of the checks and balances, as far as I am concerned. We are indebted to the staff who worked out many of the problems which we encountered with this bill. We would point them in the general direction, and they came back with language and concepts that would fulfill our goal. Earl Comstock, who is here with me now, on my personal staff; Christine Ciccone, who helped from the Governmental Affairs Committee; Austin Smythe, Bill Hoagland, Beth Felder, and Jennifer Smith on the Budget Committee; Mark Busey with Senator McCain; Sharon Soderstrom and Megan Gilly with Senator Coats; John Schall with Senator Dole; Monty Tripp with Chairman Clinger; Eric Pelliter with Chairman Solomon; and Wendy Selig with Congressman Goss. We got to know them pretty well, Mr. President. Unfortunately, they got to know us too well. I think this is truly a momentous piece of legislation. I regret deeply that I disagree with my good friend from West Virginia and my chairman of the Appropriations Committee now. In my judgment, if it is my watch between the years 1997 and 2000, I intend to see to it that the Appropriations Committee heeds this warning. If we take action which might lead to increases in the deficit, if we allow funds to be spent which are not necessary, I hope the President will use this authority. If he uses his pen, as my good friend from West Virginia suggests, in a political fashion--if any President does that, he or she--during this period we are dealing with, then I think this is a powerful tool that will go away. The Congress will not allow the executive branch to have a power such as this to be exercised frivolously or politically. This is a change in the Government structure we are suggesting. We are suggesting that the President hold the pen which allows the Congress to carry out the discipline that it imposed on itself. Gramm- Rudman-Hollings started this, Mr. President, and this bill that is before us today will continue the mechanisms of discipline to bring about elimination of the deficit. I pray to the good Lord that we will succeed this time. Thank you, Mr. President. I have asked that one page from this report be printed after my remarks. I call the Senate's attention to it. I do hope every Senator will read it. It is on page 20, section 1021, line-item veto authority. That is what this bill is, not what it is not, but that is what it is. I think Senators should realize that.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senate to the very basic provision in this bill. It says in section 1021(a), ``Notwithstanding the provisions of part A and B, and subject to this part, the President may, with respect to any bill or joint resolution that has been signed into law pursuant to article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the United States * * *'' take the action under this bill. What we in fact under this bill are doing is giving the President the authority, in effect, to impound moneys that we have given him authority to spend. And we have the right to take that notification of any cancellation that he sends to us and send him, in effect, another bill saying we intend for you to spend those moneys. He may veto that second bill if he wants. But in the first instance, we are not giving the President any authority to change the law. We are telling him he can cancel funds provided only if the cancellation would reduce the Federal budget deficit, not impair essential Government functions, and not harm the national interest. The issue here is whether the Congress has the right to delegate to the President the authority to not spend money. This is not a violation of separation of powers or a violation of the presentation clause of the Constitution. We have given the President, under this bill, limited authority to cancel--that is, to not spend--certain moneys Congress otherwise would have directed the President to spend. I want to make sure people understand the way this works. A bill is sent to the President, which the President may sign, reject, or let it take effect without his signature under article I, section 7, of the Constitution. If, and only if, the President signs the bill into law, then under this bill the President is given the delegated authority from Congress not to spend certain portions of the money that he cancels according to the provisions of the bill. I have heard the concept of many of the Senators, but I want to make sure that we all understand this is no different from giving the President the discretion not to enforce a particular law under certain circumstances or to decide, when based on specific criteria, to impose or to lift an import duty. We have done that. This conference report has no Chadha problems, based on the Supreme Court decision in the Chadha case. Congress is not going to be given the power to legislatively overturn a Presidential decision with regard to a veto or implementation of a law. We have the power to take action for the second time after the President uses his authority under this bill to impound or cancel moneys and, in effect, put them into the track where they will reduce the deficit. We can pass a second bill. The President would veto that. He has no authority under this bill to deal with that second proposal. If we pass such a bill and direct the President to spend money he otherwise thought he should cancel, he has the authority to veto that bill, and we have the authority to override his veto; in effect, to mandate him to spend the money as we have said to do so on two occasions. But I urge Senators not to refer to this as some action to give the President the authority to change a bill before it becomes law or to change in any way legislation that does not affect dollars. He only has the authority to, in effect, cancel the spending of dollars under specific circumstances that, while the circumstances are clearly limited, the scope of the authority is very broad.