[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.
____________________