[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E396-E397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           THE LINE-ITEM VETO

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 22, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, February 22, 1995 into the Congressional Record.
                           The Line-Item Veto

       Hoosiers often express their frustration with unnecessary 
     federal spending--especially for the ``pork-barrel'' projects 
     that seem to be funded year after year. I share this 
     frustration, and have worked for years to curtail the 
     practice of omnibus spending bills that include thousands of 
     individual programs. Members of Congress do not have an 
     opportunity to vote on these programs individually.
       The House recently passed a measure to curb wasteful 
     spending by giving the President ``line-item veto'' 
     authority. It would allow the President to veto a specific 
     item in a spending bill rather than be forced to veto the 
     entire bill. A line-item veto is worthwhile, but I have 
     concerns about the specific version passed by the House.


                            various versions

       Under current law, the President has authority to submit a 
     request to Congress to defer or rescind specific, line-item 
     appropriations. These requests are known as ``rescissions''. 
     Yet the law is not very tough. Congress needs to approve the 
     rescissions for them to take effect, but there is no 
     requirement that Congress ever consider the President's 
     request.
       In recent years, many have argued for a system that 
     requires Congress to take an immediate vote on the 
     President's line-item rescissions package. No longer able to 
     ignore the President's requests, Members would be forced to 
     take a stand on individual spending items. This enhanced 
     rescission proposal is one form of a line-item veto. With my 
     support, the House has passed such legislation several times. 
     However, the measure has never come to a vote in the Senate.
       The House has considered many different versions of the 
     line-item veto over the years. I have supported some and 
     opposed others. The key points for me are that they be tough 
     on exposing unnecessary spending and preserve the 
     constitutional balance of powers.


                               House bill

       In early February, the House passed a version of a line-
     item veto. It would give the President 10 days after signing 
     a spending or revenue bill to submit a package of spending 
     cuts or targeted tax benefits to be eliminated. These 
     recommendations would go into effect unless Congress rejected 
     the package by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the 
     Senate.
       This version went too far in some ways and not far enough 
     in others. I continue to support a line-item veto. But the 
     final version that passed the House shifts far too much power 
     to the President, threatens the constitutional separation of 
     powers, and is not tough enough on tax loopholes and deficit 
     spending. There is a better alternative.
       The version I favored would allow the President to use the 
     line-item veto at any time--not just within 10 days--and 
     would permit the President to force Congress to use the 
     savings for deficit reduction instead of for other programs. 
     It would require Congress to take an immediate vote on the 
     President's package, which could be enacted with majority 
     approval. Under this system, the President could turn the 
     national spotlight on an item of unnecessary spending and 
     force Congress to cast an explicit and immediate vote on it. 
     The President would win most of these votes. The approach 
     achieves the purpose of a line-item veto without a dangerous 
     shift of power to the President. The House did not approve 
     this version, but passed another version.
       My key concern with the version that passed the House is 
     that it would shift enormous power to the President. It would 
     allow him and 146 Members of the House or 34 Senators--
     representing as little as 7% of the population--to control 
     the fiscal policy of the entire federal government. In 
     addition, this version would allow the President to cut all 
     or part of any program--a power few governors have. It would 
     permit a President basically to rewrite an entire spending 
     bill. Congress should not surrender the budget- 
      [[Page E397]] making power to the President as this version 
     would certainly do. The founding fathers considered that 
     approach and wisely rejected it. We should stick to the 
     constitutional balance and division of powers which has 
     served us so well for so long. The concern is not only about 
     what a President would cut, but also what a President could 
     threaten to cut to force Members to vote for a particular 
     bill. Presidents make mistakes: we should be careful about 
     giving them too much power. In recent years, presidential 
     power has grown at the expense of congressional authority.
       The version that passed the House is also weak on 
     controlling wasteful tax loopholes. It defines ``targeted tax 
     benefits'' as tax loopholes that benefit 100 or fewer 
     taxpayers. Tax benefits cost us as much as $400 billion per 
     year, but this definition of tax benefits does not even begin 
     to scratch the surface of the problem. I voted for a broader 
     definition which would have allowed targeting any tax 
     provision giving ``different treatment to a particular 
     taxpayer or limited class of taxpayers''. This was the 
     definition contained in the GOP's ``Contract With America.'' 
     Most tax benefits are worthy, but some can be wasteful and 
     costly.
       This bill now goes to the Senate for consideration, where 
     Senators of both parties have expressed reservations about 
     its constitutionality, as well as its limited effect on tax 
     loopholes and deficit reduction. These concerns may be 
     addressed in the Senate. I want to vote for a tough line-item 
     veto that will stand the test of time.


                              Limitations

       A line-item veto can help eliminate government waste, but 
     it is easy to overestimate its effectiveness. The only kind 
     of spending a line-item veto applies to is discretionary 
     spending, not those parts of the budget that have increased 
     most dramatically--entitlements and interest on the debt. 
     Discretionary spending is the area of the budget that has 
     been held most in check. As a share of total federal spending 
     it has fallen from 44% in 1985 to 36% this year. The line-
     item veto is less about deficit reduction than responsible 
     spending policy.


                               Conclusion

       Depsite its drawbacks, a line-item veto can be a useful 
     tool in eliminating wasteful spending and tax loopholes. The 
     tough version I have supported would achieve this without 
     resulting in a dangerous shift of power to the President.
     

                          ____________________