[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1507-H1508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   LINE-ITEM VETO IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciated very much the remarks made by 
the previous speaker regarding Jackie Robinson. I think it would be 
interesting to note that the great achievement of Jackie Robinson all 
occurred prior to affirmative action, and I think that should be noted.
  Today, though, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the 
courts. I have been a strong critic of the courts, especially the 
Federal courts, because so often the Federal courts seem to be 
unconcerned about the Constitution, and so often they do a lot more 
legislation than they should.
  Last week there was a court ruling that I was very pleased with, and 
I believe they deserve a compliment. There was a Federal court judge by 
the name of Thomas Jackson last week in the district court who ruled 
that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. Simply put, he said, it 
was unconstitutional because it delegated too much powers to the 
President. It was clear in the Constitution that the powers to 
legislate are given to the Congress. So I am very pleased to see this 
ruling and to compliment him on this.
  To me, it was an astounding event really to see so many a few years 
back pass the legislation that gave us the line-item veto, and so often 
the proponents of the line-item veto was made by individuals who 
claimed they were for limited government. But this item, the line-item 
veto really delegates way too much power to the President, is 
unconstitutional, and if we believe in limited government, we ought to 
believe

[[Page H1508]]

in maintaining this power in the House of Representatives and in the 
Senate.
  The court ruled that it just is not constitutional for a President to 
be able to rescind an appropriation or specific tax or a specific tax 
benefit, or for even that matter, a regulation. This is far and beyond 
anything intended by the writers of the Constitution. I am convinced 
the founders of this country, the writers of our Constitution, would 
have been proud of this ruling.
  The line-item veto gives too much power to the President. It gives 
the President political power. It gives him the chance to lobby for his 
particular piece of legislation with the threat that if you do not vote 
for what I want, I can line-item veto that special thing that you like 
for your district.
  Having been in the Congress prior to this term for several years, I 
had been lobbied on a few occasions by conservative Presidents, and the 
only time they ever called was for me to vote for more spending, never 
less spending. So I see the line-item veto as something a President can 
use actually to enhance or increase spending, not to reduce spending, 
which is the intent.
  The line-item veto will still be ruled on again in the Supreme Court. 
I am sure it will be appealed. I will be anxiously awaiting to find out 
exactly what occurs there, but already in the corridors I hear a fair 
amount of grumbling among our fellow Members, Members who are saying, I 
wonder what the President is going to do. Is he going to take his veto 
pen out and line-item out a special project. I think that is a 
justifiable concern.
  I think it is important that we concern ourselves about these issues 
because the main goal that we ought to have is to follow our oath of 
office, which is to obey the Constitution, and we should not be passing 
legislation that disregards the Constitution.
  When the judge ruled, he had a statement that was somewhat out of the 
ordinary, but to me rather profound. He said that it is critical that 
we maintain the separations of powers in order to preserve liberty. 
That is the purpose of the separation of powers. It is to preserve 
liberties. It was designed deliberately, specifically, and we must 
cherish it.
  I have to compliment those individuals from the other side of the 
aisle who brought suit, took it to court, and insisted that this be 
ruled on with the sincere belief that it is unconstitutional to have a 
line-item veto. I appreciate that very much.

                          ____________________