[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S1014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


        SENATE RESOLUTION 61--RELATIVE TO THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO

  Mr. SPECTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary:

                               S. Res. 61

       Whereas article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution 
     authorizes the President to veto bills passed by both Houses 
     of Congress;
       Whereas article I, section 7, clause 3 of the Constitution 
     authorizes the President to veto every ``Order, Resolution, 
     or Vote'' passed by both Houses of Congress;
       Whereas during the Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman 
     of Connecticut opined that article I, section 7, clause 3 was 
     ``unnecessary, except as to votes taking money out of the 
     Treasury'';
       Whereas the language of article I, section 7, clause 3 was 
     taken directly from the Constitution of the Commonwealth of 
     Massachusetts of 1780;
       Whereas the provision of the Massachusetts Constitution of 
     1780 that was included as article I, section 7, clause 3 of 
     the United States Constitution vested in the Governor of 
     Massachusetts the authority to veto individual items of 
     appropriation contained in omnibus appropriations bills 
     passed by the Massachusetts Legislature;
       Whereas the Governor of Massachusetts had enjoyed the 
     authority to veto individual items of appropriation passed by 
     the legislature since 1733;
       Whereas in explaining the purpose of the constitutional 
     veto power, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 69 
     that it ``tallies exactly with the revisionary authority of 
     the council of revision'' in the State of New York, which had 
     the authority to revise or strike out individual items of 
     appropriation contained in spending bills;
       Whereas shortly after the new Federal Constitution was 
     adopted, the States of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and 
     Kentucky adopted new Constitutions which included the 
     language of article I, section 7 of the Federal Constitution, 
     and allowed their Governors to veto individual items of 
     appropriation on the basis of these provisions;
       Whereas the contemporary practice in the States is 
     probative as to the understanding of the framers of the 
     Constitution as to the meaning of article I, section 7, 
     clause 3;
       Whereas President Washington, on a matter of presidential 
     authority, exercised the prerogative to shift appropriated 
     funds from one account to another, effectuating a line-item 
     veto;
       Whereas President Jefferson considered appropriations bills 
     to be permissive and refused on at least two occasions to 
     spend funds appropriated by the Congress: Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Constitution grants to the President the authority 
     to veto individual items of appropriation and
       (2) the President should exercise that constitutional 
     authority to veto individual items of appropriation without 
     awaiting the enactment of additional authorization.

                          ____________________