[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H686-H687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE LINE-ITEM VETO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gekas). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] 
is recognized for 15 minutes.
  (Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House and I 
welcome my new colleagues on the other side of aisle who are here 
tonight and I ask them to stay so perhaps we can listen to some of the 
comments I want to make on the important issue that we are going to be 
facing in the next two weeks, which is the line item veto.
  I am a supporter, Mr. Speaker, of the line item veto, because I think 
it is an important tool that the President should have to help us 
control the runaway spending that we have seen in this country over the 
last 30 years.
  But I am very troubled by what I have seen in the committee that I 
serve on, the Government Reform Committee, by what is occurring there, 
because I think that the Government Reform Committee, under the new 
leadership of the Republican party, is only dealing with half the 
problem.
  The problem that the new leadership is dealing with is the problem of 
spending, pork barrel spending in appropriations bills that I believe 
should be taken out.
  I think that the President should have the authority with the line 
item veto to remove pork barrel spending from appropriation items.
  I also feel very strongly, though, Mr. Speaker, that the President 
should, in addition to having the power to remove pork barrel spending, 
that the President should have the additional power to remove tax 
expenditures or special tax breaks that are given through our Tax Code 
as well.
  This is not a new concept. In fact, because I am relatively new in 
the House, I thought it would be smart for me to draw on some expertise 
of far more learned Members of this House to try to come up with the 
language to make sure that the people in this body do not use our Tax 
Code to create what are in essence tax expenditures and lowering the 
amount of money we have in our treasury and increasing the size of our 
national deficit and our national debt through the Tax Code.
  So the perfect person to call on in order to come up with the exact 
language is the former minority leader, Mr. Michel, a person who was 
very well respected throughout this institution, who also was very 
concerned with this issue.
  He raised this issue last year in the expedited rescissions bill that 
we considered. Actually it was in 1993, as I recall, but he was 
concerned with this provision as well, this issue as well. So he 
created an amendment that he offered to the House that made it possible 
for the President of the United States to also use his line item 
authority to get rid of targeted tax breaks.
  I would like to spend several minutes, if I could, reading from his 
testimony or his colloquy on the floor because I think it was very 
powerful, and unfortunately, I think that the Members of his own party 
today in our committee ignored his very own advice, even though the 
Republican Members of this House unanimously supported his amendment 
when he offered it just a short time ago.
  Now I am reading verbatim from Mr. Michel's statements which were 
given on this floor not long ago.

       Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment to the 
     real legislative line item veto proposal offered by my 
     colleagues. My amendment adds an additional dimension to the 
     debate. Should the President be allowed to strike special 
     interest tax provisions from tax bills in addition to 
     appropriations from appropriation bills? I believe
      that the President should be given this additional 
     authority.
       I am amazed and obviously very gratified that this issue 
     has gained so much momentum. I began the drumbeat earlier 
     this year after seeing the number of special interest tax 
     provisions contained in last years's tax bill, H.R. 11. That 
     bill was vetoed by President Bush due to the sheer weight 
     that it gained through the legislative process here in 
     Congress.
       As you know, that bill initially was the vehicle for the 
     enterprise zone provisions in response to the Los Angeles 
     riots.
       By the time it was on the President's desk, it was a huge 
     bill containing over 50 special interest provisions. My 
     understanding is that the cost of the special interest 
     provisions exceeded the cost of the supposed cornerstone of 
     that bill, the enterprise zone provisions that we all thought 
     was the real reason for our having considered that particular 
     tax bill.
       Several weeks ago during initial consideration of this 
     matter, a group of freshman Members on the Democratic side of 
     aisle asked that an amendment be made in order to the base 
     bill that included presidential authority to repeal tax 
     expenditures. There was also an effort by members of the 
     Committee on Appropriations to give the President such 
     authority. They, like myself, have been precluded from 
     raising the tax issue in the base bill.
       Now, you are going to hear several arguments why you should 
     not vote for this amendment. You will hear that it is 
     uncertain what I mean by the term `targeted tax benefits.' 
     Well, I can assure you I know one when I see one, and so do 
     you. I am talking about special interest tax items, tax pork, 
     tax loopholes, tax carve-outs, Members' projects, special tax 
     exemptions, et cetera, et cetera.
       I am talking about tax goodies, the kind of things that 
     insiders get in abundance and the regular taxpayers get in 
     the neck.
       I am talking about a wind and a nod and a nudge and all the 
     other political insider body language that says, give me a 
     break because I am somebody special.
       There are big, big bucks associated with these sweetheart 
     tax provisions, believe me. If you agree that the President 
     should not be held hostage to special interests and tax bills 
     as well as appropriation bills, then support 
     [[Page H687]] my amendment today. When we see that whopping 
     big tax bill coming down the pike later this year, you better 
     believe that it is going to be loaded with lots of tax 
     goodies, if it is going to get any mileage in either one of 
     the bodies of the Congress.
       In order to get the votes to pass it, I can assure you, as 
     I said, that members of the committee, particularly the 
     chairman, are going to be under immense pressure to do just 
     these kind of things that ought not to be done. My amendment 
     would add some accountability in the tax area as is provided 
     in the appropriation area.
       The second argument that you will hear against my amendment 
     is that it raises constitutional questions. Well, when these 
     constitutional questions arose during my testimony before the 
     Government Operations Committee, I contacted a well-regarded 
     constitutional expert, Mr. Bruce Fein, for his opinion on the 
     matter.
                              {time}  1050

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a March 16 letter that I have 
received from him relative to the bill that I introduced. This is what 
he said:

       The purpose of the President's targeted tax authority is 
     unquestionably legitimate, to assist in attacking ballooning 
     budget deficits. The method is plainly adapted to that end, 
     enabling the President to veto only the mischievous portions 
     of a revenue bill that he might otherwise sign because of 
     offsetting attractions.
       The authority does not usurp legislative power. Congress 
     may override a targeted veto. Further, at any time it may, by 
     legislation, rescind the President's targeted veto power. 
     Moreover, insofar as the bill delegates legislative revenue 
     power to the President, it contains sufficient standards to 
     guide the exercise of delegation to pass constitutional 
     muster.

  Now on these grounds, I believe that I have a legitimate legal and 
constitutional basis upon which to offer my amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate once more that I believe the 
President of either party should have the option to get at special 
interest provisions in both appropriations and tax bills. It is a good 
management tool, both on the appropriations side and on the tax side.
  It is not one of those issues, quite frankly, that divides along 
political lines. I have heard Members in the earlier debate mentioning, 
conservative Members on my side who have an absolute opposition to a 
line item veto, and I respect them for their feelings on that score
  People ask me, ``Bob, why would you give up your legislative 
authority to an all-powerful Chief Executive?'' I will say, ``Because 
we have loused it up here in the Congress. That is why.'' If 43 
Governors have the power to use to good advantage, then why should we 
not give it to the President of the United States?
  When Jimmy Carter was President I said, ``If you don't want to give 
him authority for a complete line item veto, give him at least 
authority to reduce items by some arbitrary figure--10, 15, 50 
percent--if you want to hold on jealously to your power.''
  But it is a management tool to try and save some bucks around here, 
and I am willing to give that to President Clinton, President Carter, 
as I proposed earlier, and yes, certainly my own President. I do not 
want to hamstring any President to the degree that they would not have 
their kind of ability to use a good management tool that 43 of our 
Governors are currently using to their advantage.
  Again, I continue to read from Mr. Michel's statement, and I think 
the next paragraph is important:

       Quite frankly, if you are for special interests, then vote 
     against my amendment. If you are for a more complex tax code, 
     then vote against my amendment. Now, if you believe that the 
     President should not be held hostage to special interests, 
     then I say vote for my amendment today. It will make a better 
     piece of legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, I read this to you because I think it is very important 
as we prepare for the debate on the line item veto that we do not 
forget the problem of tax expenditures. Quite frankly, the bill that is 
moving through this House at lightning speed does not deal sufficiently 
with the issue of tax expenditures.
  Let me tell you how the bill deals with it. As originally drafted, it 
said the President would have the authority to line item a tax 
expenditure if the number of people who benefitted from it were fewer 
than five.
  That is ridiculous, because many of these tax expenditures apply to 
corporations, apply to individuals, and with 260-plus million people in 
this country, you are not going to have a tax provision that is going 
to only apply to fewer than five people. In committee today we raised 
that to 100, which I still think is woefully inadequate.
  In fact, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who is the 
chairman of our committee, last year testified or spoke on the floor in 
support of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], 
and he said:

       I agree with the Minority Leader that it is important that 
     the President be able to single out both excessive and 
     unnecessary spending, and special sweetheart tax provisions, 
     for an individual vote. Often such provisions are buried in 
     large bills and Members may not even be aware of each of 
     these individual provisions when they vote on a 
     nonmiscellaneous bill.
       The American people hear of these special tax giveaways 
     only after they take effect, and they are outraged at the 
     arrogance of Congress to give special deals to special 
     friends. A meaningful way to strike these provisions from 
     omnibus tax bills is one way for the government to reclaim 
     the respect of the American people.

  That is what he said last session, in support of this very amendment 
that today was voted down in the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  So what is going on here? Why do we have this sudden change in the 
treatment of tax expenditures, now that the Republicans are in the 
majority?
  I hope I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope I am wrong, but my 
fear is that although the Republicans are quick to say ``Let's get rid 
of the pork barrel spending projects in Members' districts,'' which I 
agree with, and that is why I support the line item veto, that they are 
very hesitant to say, ``Let's get rid of special tax breaks for wealthy 
individuals.''
   I think if we are going to have a complete bill, an honest bill, a 
bill that we can all be proud of to take home to our constituents, that 
it is imperative that we follow what the Members of the now Majority 
party were pushing two years ago: that we include in this bill real 
power for the President to get rid of these special tax breaks.
  To do so I think is going to require some courage on the part of 
Members of the other side of the aisle, who thus far this session have 
not shown any willingness to vote independently from the leadership. 
However, I think they can do it.
  I think if we are serious about the deficit, and we just heard four 
or five Members talking about the deficit and the debt, that this is 
another tool that we have to have, so I would ask the Members of this 
body, and in particular those who look at this issue, to reconsider 
their assistance.
  I will be presenting this, along with other Members, to the Committee 
on Rules, and ironically, looking at the Committee on Rules, the makeup 
of the Committee on Rules, 9 of the 12 members on the Committee on 
Rules voted for this amendment last year. As the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Michel], indicated, it crossed party lines. This is not a 
partisan issue, it is a bipartisan issue, and it should have bipartisan 
support.


                          ____________________