Senate Journal: Page 1416: Tuesday, April 25, 1995

         The third thing we are doing that we have not finished yet,
    although both Houses have approved a version of it, is the line-item
    veto.  Almost every governor has it.  I dont want to embarrass anybody
    here, but I dont know how many times I had a legislature say, now,
    Governor, Im going to slip this in this bill because Ive got to do it,
    and then you can scratch it out for me. And it was fine.  We did it. Now
    if they slip it in a bill, I have to decide what to do or not.  I have
    to decide.

         When the farmers in Iowa desperately needed the restoration of the
    tax deduction for health insurance, the 25 percent tax deduction that
    self-employed farmers and others get for health insurance, there was a
    provision of that bill I didnt like very much.  I had to decide, am I
    going to give this back to 3.3 million employed Americans and their
    families, to lower the cost of health care by tax day, or not?  But when
    we have the line-item veto, it wont be that way.  And we need it.

         Here are the hard ones.  Number one, the farm bill.  Should we
    reduce farm supports?  Yes, we should, as required by GATT.  I worked
    hard to get the Europeans to the table in agriculture in this trade
    agreement.  A lot of you understand that.  The deal was, they would
    reduce their subsidies more than we would reduce ours, so we would at
    least move toward some parity, so that our farmers would get a fair
    break for a change.  Now some say, lets just get rid of all these farm
    support programs.

         Well, if we do it now, we give our competitors the advantage we
    worked for eitht years to take away.  We put family farms more at risk.
    Now if anybodys got better ideas about what should be in the Farm Bill,
    thats fine.  If anybodys got a better idea about how to save the family
    farmers, lets do it.  If anybody has new ideas about what should be put
    in for rural development, fine.  But let us do no harm.  Let us not
    labor under the illusion that having fought so hard to have a
    competitive agricultural playing field throughout the world, having
    achieved a $20 billion surplus in agriculture, we can turn and walk away
    from the farmers of the country in the name of cutting spending.  That
    is not the way to cut the federal deficit.

         Ill give you another example.  Some believe that we should flat
    fund the school lunch program.  And then theres a big argument in
    Washington, is it a cut or not.  Let me tell you something, all these
    block grants are designed not only to give you more flexibility, but to
    save the federal government money.  Now it may be a good deal, or it may
    not.  You have to decide.  But when we wanted to cut the Agriculture
    Department budget -- were closing nearly 1,200 offices, were reducing
    employment by 13,000, we eliminated 14 divisions in the Department of
    Agriculture -- my own view is, that is better than putting an arbitrary
    cap on the school lunch program, which will be terribly unfair to the
    number -- to the numerous school districts in this country that have
    increasing burdens from low income children.  There are a lot of kids in
    this country -- a lot of kids -- the only decent meal they get every day
    is the meal they get at school.  This program  works.  If its not broke,
    we shouldnt fix it.  So I dont agree with that. But you have to decide.

Iowa General Assembly

Index: Senate Journal (76th General Assembly: Session 1)

© 1995 Cornell College and League of Women Voters of Iowa

Comments? sjourn@legis.iowa.gov.

Last update: Sun Jan 14 23:40:00 CST 1996
URL: /DOCS/GA/76GA/Session.1/SJournal/01400/01416.html
jhf