[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1216-H1217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           THE LINE-ITEM VETO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 1995, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today we have before the House the issue of 
the line-time veto, or did we really have a viable form of the line-
item veto pending before this House? This could be a useful tool in the 
armamentarium of a President who is truly concerned about reducing the 
budget, a President who just does not want to use it in a political or 
punitive manner to go after a few programs, that he or she in the 
future could not convince the Congress to otherwise not fund.
  But the question is, is this a viable form, or is it a grandly 
symbolic gesture, a gesture intended for the 84th birthday of ex-
President Ronald 
 [[Page H1217]] Reagan? We have heard that a lot from the other side.
  Well, let us just recount a few of the Reagan years so we can get 
this in perspective. Remember, President Reagan promised the people of 
the United States of America that he would balance the budget by 1984. 
Instead, his administration worked hand in glove with Congress to pile 
up the greatest amount of debt ever seen for this Nation. It took us 
200 years to amass the first $900 billion of debt, but in a mere 8 
years, President Reagan's administration more than tripled the national 
debt to over $3 trillion. Yes, they talked a great game about reducing 
the deficit and balancing the budget, but they never ever submitted a 
balanced budget. They never ever even submitted a budget within $100 
billion of balance.
  And then finally in the twilight years, in the last year of the 
Reagan administration, Budget Director Miller submitted a list of what 
he said Ronald Reagan would have used the line-item veto on if only he 
had that power.
  The deficit in 1988 was $150 billion. After tremendous efforts 
downtown at the White House, President Reagan and Mr. Miller came up 
with a list of $1 billion in cuts that they would have made had they 
had the line-item veto. So instead of $150 billion deficit, it would 
have been $149 billion, and, of course, not a penny would have come 
from the Pentagon, the largest single source of general fund spending.
  Last year we passed a constitutional version of a line-item veto 
called an enhanced rescission. This year we have before us an empty 
gesture. Clearly, the bill that will be voted on finally today, the 
Stenholm amendment, the bill we passed last year having been defeated 
in a vote last Friday on the floor of this House, is unconstitutional, 
and will be thrown out by the courts.
  So if what we want is a grandly symbolic empty gesture, then vote 
``yes'' on final passage today.
  Happy birthday, of course, to the ex-President.
  His legacy of a $3 trillion will stand as a monument for generations 
of Americans to come. I would hope this House would begin to take real 
steps toward cutting the Federal deficit and the Federal debt and no 
more gestures. Do not vote today for this empty gesture.

                          ____________________