[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H1285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           LINE-ITEM VETO ACT

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, February 6, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2), to give 
     the President line-item veto authority over appropriation 
     Acts and targeted tax benefits in revenue Acts:

  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that we must build on the 
progress we have made in getting the deficit under control. The line-
item veto will help us do this by highlighting and eliminating wasteful 
and unnecessary spending. It will enable us to spotlight narrow 
interest items and make it difficult for them to be camouflaged in 
large, omnibus spending bills.
  However, I have several serious concerns about the version of the 
line-item veto that is proposed in H.R. 2. H.R. 2 is not the solution 
to our problem. Although the underlying concept is sound, the process 
yields disturbing results.
  First, H.R. 2 drastically skews the balance of power in favor of the 
executive branch of Government. It transfers the most important power 
that our Constitution gives Congress--the power of the purse--to the 
President and could result in just substituting Presidential spending 
priorities for congressional ones.This shift in power raises the 
question of the degree to which we want to let a President use a 
punitive approach to force Members to vote for things they would 
otherwise oppose. The President could use these new powers to force 
Congress to increase spending on Presidential priorities. This could 
undermine the original purpose of the line-item veto, possibly 
resulting in more--not less--spending.
  If the intent of this bill is to rein in congressional spending even 
more, it is important to realize that Congress has more than lived up 
to its responsibility to contain Federal spending. Over the last 15 
years, Congress has appropriated less money than the President has 
proposed. Furthermore, over the past 20 years in which the President 
has had authority to rescind appropriations, Presidents have proposed 
$72 billion in rescissions. During that same time, Congress has passed 
rescissions of $92 billion--$20 billion more than Presidents have 
requested.
  Lastly, the bill's supermajority requirements are dangerous. If H.R. 
2 is enacted as written, a President, along with a very small 
minority--only 34 Senators or 146 Representatives--would be able to 
override the decisions of elected majorities in the House of 
Representatives and Senate. Additionally, supermajorities tend to 
create gridlock. I can well remember the 1992 California State budget 
crisis when our State legislature and Governor were held hostage 
because a two-thirds majority was needed to approve budget changes made 
by the Governor. The gridlock that this created demonstrates the need 
for a majority, not two-thirds, vote on a President's ability to change 
Congress' spending priorities. If we are serious about keeping gridlock 
out of Congress, we must support giving Congress an opportunity to 
overturn a President's decision by majority alone.
  It is for these reasons that I support the alternative proposed by my 
colleagues Mr. Wise of West Virginia, Mr. Stenholm of Texas and Mr. 
Spratt of South Carolina. Their version of the line-item veto is 
identical to a bill that passed the House last year by a vote of 342-
69. It requires a vote in the House--under accelerated procedures--on 
rescissions and vetoed tax benefits proposed by the President. Under 
the Wise-Stenholm-Spratt substitute, the President's rescission package 
becomes effective only if it is approved by the House and Senate. It 
therefore forces Members of Congress to be accountable for their votes 
on crucial budget issues. Yet, it preserves the constitutional balance 
of power and upholds the principle of majority rule.
  There is still a great deal of work to be done if we are to continue 
our efforts to reduce Government spending and bring the deficit under 
control. We must continue to make sizeable reductions in Federal 
spending in order to sustain the economic growth of the past 2 years. 
That is why I support the goals of H.R. 2--uncovering and eliminating 
unwarranted, wasteful, and special-interest spending and tax breaks. 
But we need to do so without an extreme--and possibly 
counterproductive--shift in legislative power. In order to be 
effective, we must approach this honestly, fairly, and responsibly.
Vol. 141


WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1995

No. 24


House of Representatives