[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3150-S3151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LINE ITEM VETO CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my opposition to 
this so-called line-item veto conference report, which passed on March 
27. I have been a strong supporter of a line item veto and feel that 
such legislation would provide the President with an effective weapon 
to fight wasteful spending. I have voted for several line item veto 
bills that I felt were constitutional. However, I did not support this

[[Page S3151]]

legislation, as it violates the plain reading of the Constitution.
  In Article I, section 7, the Constitution sets out fundamental 
procedures for the enactment of a law. It states that every bill should 
be passed by both houses and then presented to the President to either 
sign or veto. If the bill is vetoed each house may override such a veto 
by two-thirds vote. The bill then becomes law once it is signed or a 
veto is overridden by each house of Congress.
  This conference report allows the President, after a bill has become 
a law, to go back and review that law and to pick and choose what 
portions of the law he desires to repeal, and to do so in an 
unconstitutional manner. This flies in the face of the fundamental 
principal of ``separation of powers'' and the ``checks and balances'' 
of our government. Article I, section 1, of the Constitution states 
that ``[a]ll legislation Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
Congress of the United States.
  The Supreme Court in INS versus Chadha discussed the importance of 
the ``separation of powers'' provisions in Article I, section 1. The 
court stated that

       [t]hese provisions of Art. I are integral parts of the 
     constitutional design for the separation of powers. We have 
     recently noted that ``[t]he principle of separation of powers 
     was not simply an abstract generalization in the minds of the 
     Framers: it was woven into the document that they drafted in 
     Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.''

  The Court further expressed that,

       [i]t emerges clearly that the prescription for legislative 
     action in Art. I, sections 1, 7, represents the Framers' 
     decisions that the legislative power of the Federal 
     Government be exercised in accord with a singe, finely 
     wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.

  This conference report would allow the President, in effect, to 
repeal an existing law; thereby violating the provisions of Article I. 
The Court in Chadha held that ``[a]mendment and repeal of statutes, no 
less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.'' The Court went further 
by stating that

       [t]he bicameral requirement, the Presentment Clauses, the 
     President's veto, and Congress' power to override a veto were 
     intended to erect enduring checks on each Branch and to 
     protect the people from the improvident exercise of power by 
     mandating certain prescribed steps. To preserve those checks, 
     and maintain the separation of powers, the carefully defined 
     limits on the power of each Branch must not be eroded.

This highlights the importance of maintaining the legislative 
procedures set out by the Constitution and the separate powers the 
Constitution has bestowed upon the three branches of our government.
  Mr. President, this bill chips away at the constitutionally 
prescribed ``checks and balances'' set forth by our Founding Fathers. I 
believe that a line-item veto can be a useful weapon against wasteful 
spending if drafted so as to protect the fundamental procedures set out 
by our Constitution; however, this bill as presented cannot sustain 
constitutional muster.

                          ____________________