[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1269-H1270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       DISENFRANCHISING CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, during the debate earlier today on the line-
item veto, Members were not permitted to strike the requisite number of 
words and speak before the vote. And therefore I want to take this 
opportunity to put my thoughts out in terms of the vote that just 
happened.
  I voted against the line-item veto. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I 
believe we in this Congress are going to rue the day that we voted for 
the line-item veto, and as was said many times by many colleagues, this 
line-item veto, in my opinion, is nothing more than an unconstitutional 
ceding of power to the executive branch.
  I believe that in order for a line-item veto to be put forward we 
need a constitutional change, and therefore, a constitutional 
amendment, and surely when there is a legal challenge to the line-item 
veto I believe it will ultimately be declared unconstitutional without 
a constitutional amendment.
  Congress is granted the power of the purse. I do not believe Congress 
has the right to cede that power to the Executive.
  This to me has nothing to do with partisan politics, it has nothing 
to do with Congress being controlled by the Democrats or the 
Republicans or the President being a Democrat or a Republican. It 
simply to me reflects the very serious nature that I feel about our 
Constitution. I feel it is a very sacred document and I do not think 
any vote of Congress ought to be allowed to alter that.
  Much is said today about this being President Reagan's birthday and 
the gesture of passing this on his birthday, but I must say with all 
due respect to President Reagan, he was President for 8 years, and 
while he talked about the importance of a line-item veto in terms of 
bringing the budget deficit down, he never once in his 8 years as 
President submitted a balanced budget to Congress. President Bush in 4 
years in the Presidency never submitted a balanced budget to Congress.
  So I think this fervor that people are rushing toward in terms of 
both the balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto is a bit 
misplaced.
  What also scares me, Mr. Speaker, is that now if this becomes law, 
and the Senate concurs, two-thirds will have to pass something to 
override the President's veto.
  I think that is very, very dangerous. It means simply that the 
President, plus one-third, plus one, of either House, would have 
control not just over entire spending bills, but each detail within 
them. To me that is a huge increase in Presidential power, and an 
increase in Presidential power, I might add, not just to affect the 
composition of spending, but also to punish and reward.
  Simply put, the President might send to the Senate certain nominees 
to be confirmed and might make it very, very clear that unless his 
putting forth the line-item veto was sustained, that Congress would be 
in big trouble in terms of the confirmation. In other words, unless the 
Senate confirmed the Presidential appointments, the President might 
line-item veto certain appropriations.
  So the President could use the line-item veto not only to stop 
spending, but can use it as a wedge over the heads of Congress to say 
if you do not do what I want, I am going to line-item veto what you 
want.
  When there are negotiations between the executive
   branch and the legislative branch, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows how 
negotiations go, be they labor-management negotiations or any other 
kind. Baseball is now on strike and owners and players in negotiations 
whenever there is a settlement there is give and take on each side, 
each side gives a little, each side accepts a little bit of the other 
person's side, and they come out with a final document that may not be 
to everyone's liking, but it is a compromise document.

  Now if the President has a line-item veto, what will happen I fear is 
when Congress and the President sit down and each gives a little, the 
little that the Congress gives to the President will be sustained, and 
the little that the President gives to the Congress will be line-item 
vetoed, altering the balance.
  I want to just read in conclusion the first paragraph from the 
editorial of the Washington Post last week entitled ``Disenfranchising 
Congress,'' and I will put the entire editorial in the Record, but I 
want to just conclude by reading this first paragraph. It says,

       The version of the line-item veto now on the floor of the 
     House is dangerous legislation. Too little attention has been 
     paid to what it would do. It would likely do very little to 
     reduce unnecessary spending and the deficit, the stated 
     purpose. It would, however, transfer an enormous amount of 
     power from Congress to the President, which the President 
     could use for other purposes. It would also greatly 
     strengthen congressional minorities at the expense of 
     majority rule. That threatens to become a pattern; the 
     balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that the House 
     approved last week would also disenfranchise the majority.

  I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker I think with the passage of this, it 
is a very sad day for out country and I believe that those of us who 
voted no will be proven right in the future.
  The text of the article referred to is as follows:

                       Disenfranchising Congress

       The version of the line-item veto now on the floor of the 
     House is dangerous legislation. Too little attention has been 
     paid to what it would do. It would likely do very little to 
     reduce unnecessary spending and the deficit, the stated 
     purpose. It would, however, transfer an enormous amount of 
     power from Congress to the president, which the president 
     could use for other purposes. It would also greatly 
     strengthen congressional minorities at the expense of 
     majority rule. That threatens to become a pattern; the 
     balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that the House 
     approved last week would also disenfranchise the majority.
       There's a better way to give the president line-item veto 
     authority, which Reps. Bob Wise, Charles Stenholm and John 
     Spratt are offering as an amendment, and which Budget 
     Committee Chairman Pete Domenici supports in the Senate. The 
     House should adopt this benign version.
       [[Page H1270]] A president now can't choose among the items 
     in an appropriations bill. He must sign or veto the whole 
     thing; then he can ask Congress to rescind the items he 
     regards as ill-advised; but Congress is free to ignore him. A 
     line-item veto would let him pluck out offending items and 
     force separate votes on them. But there are different ways of 
     doing that.
       The proposal on the House floor would give him what is 
     known as enhanced rescission authority. He'd sign an 
     appropriations bill, then announce his intention not to 
     spend--in effect to impound--some of the money in it. The 
     money couldn't be spent unless Congress next passed a 
     separate bill within a set time ordering him to do so, and he 
     could veto the bill. Two-thirds votes of both houses would be 
     required to override the veto; the president plus one-third 
     plus one of either house would thus have control over not 
     just entire bills but each detail within them. That's a huge 
     increase in presidential power not just to affect the 
     composition and level of spending but to punish and reward.
       The alternative, called expedited rescission authority, 
     would not upset the present balance of powers to the same 
     degree. It's the same system as now, except that Congress 
     couldn't ignore a rescission request but would have to vote 
     on it within a certain time. If it passed, the money wouldn't 
     be spent; if it failed, that would be the end of it. The 
     president's only new power would be to turn a spotlight on a 
     disputed item and force Congress to cast an explicit majority 
     vote to adopt it. That's fair enough, and all you need.
       In purely fiscal terms, the line-item veto is more a symbol 
     than anything else. Presidents Reagan and Bush both suggested 
     they could reduce the deficit significantly if given the 
     power to cut the pork out of spending bills, and President 
     Clinton has asked for the power as well. But domestic 
     appropriations are only a sixth of the budget and already 
     under tight control; the pork in the budget amounts to much 
     less than the mythology surrounding federal spending would 
     suggest. Congress makes a huge mistake if on the basis of 
     mythology it disturbs the traditional balance of power 
     between the elected branches to the extent that this bill 
     would do.
     

                          ____________________