|
|
| Line Item Veto Debate Reps. Solomon and Skaggs June 20, 1997 |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
Should the Court even rule on this case? What is the experience in the states with L.I.V.s? Why do we need a line item veto now? Would the LIV have helped pass the disaster relief bill? Wasn't it Congress' deicision to give the President this veto? Isn't this an example of Congress not taking responsibility for its own duties?
April 11, 1997:
Shields & Gigot discuss the striking down of the line item veto.
April 9, 1996:
Kwame Holman reports on the historical struggle over the line item veto.
April 9, 1996:
President Clinton's remarks at the line item veto signing ceremony.
General information, schedules and past Freshmen Forums.
Return to @the Capitol.
Scrutinize the work of several major Congressional committees in online forums with the chairs and ranking members.
Follow the first year in Congress of Freshmen Reps. Kay Granger (R-TX) and Jay Johnson (D-WI)
The ongoing battle over the federal line item veto law reached a new stage last month when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the lawsuit brought by Congressional opponents of the measure. Signed into law in April 1996, the line item veto gives the President the ability to veto individual items of spending bills. The law took affect on January 20, 1997, but has yet to be used.
In the past, Presidents were required to veto or approve entire spending bills. This gave Congress the ability to shape legislation by including unrelated provisions and amendments known as riders. Under the old system, the only way for a President to veto these provisions was to strike the entire bill. The line item veto law, however, gives the President five days after the signing of a bill to cancel specific items, eliminate tax breaks covering 100 or fewer people, or prohibit the expansion of a federal entitlement program. The law allows Congress to exempt individual items from the line item veto, which could then be subject to the traditional veto. Congress would retain the authority to reinstate specific items vetoed by the President with a two-thirds vote of both Houses.
Supporters of the fine-item veto include Representative Benjamin Solomon (R-NY) and 231 other House members who voted for the measure. They argue that the line item veto will help to balance the budget and eliminate wasteful spending. In signing the bill, President Clinton agreed with the House saying it would allow the President to reduce pork and close tax loopholes. Some proponents also claim that since a veto of individual "pork-barrel" provisions would focus unwelcome attention on the legislators responsible, the line item veto would reduce the number of special interest riders by deterring members of Congress from even proposing them.
Proponents cite the record of the line item veto on the state level as evidence of its usefulness. In the 44 states where governors have line item veto power, they claim, the veto has been used selectively, and has successfully helped to balance state budgets and reduce the influence of special interest groups in the legislative process.
Representative David Skaggs (D-CO) and other opponents of the line item veto argue that it is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of the separation of powers and shifts power excessively from the legislative to the executive branch. Some have raised the specter of the President using the line item veto to manipulate legislators, rewarding or punishing lawmakers by approving certain items in their districts in return for support of measures favored by the President. Skeptics have also noted that tax breaks and "pork" account for only a small portion of overall federal spending which may prevent the use of the line item veto from having a significant impact on the deficit.
On January 20, 1997, a lawsuit challenging the line item veto law was filed by Sens. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Mark Hatfield (R-OR), Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), and Carl Levin (D-MD), and Reps. Skaggs and Henry Waxman (D-CA). On April 10, 1997, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson declared the law unconstitutional, and the Clinton administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Alan Morrison, the attorney for the six lawmakers, argued in from of the high court that the line item veto bill "fundamentally alters the federal lawmaking process," and the threat of a line item veto changes the "meaning and effect" of every individual vote. Representing the Clinton Administration, acting Solicitor General Walter E. Dellinger has called for the dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that the lawmakers have no legal standing to bring a lawsuit because the line item veto has not yet been employed. He has also argued that because the law enables Congress to exempt items from the line item veto, it makes no changes in the legislative process. A decision on the case is expected no later than July.
Issues Addressed in this Forum Include: Does the line item veto give the President too much power? Is this more rhetoric then governmental responsibility? Or will this be a tool for reducing government waste?
Questions asked in this forum:
Should the Court even rule on this case? What is the experience in the states with L.I.V.s? Why do we need a line item veto now? Would the LIV have helped pass the disaster relief bill? Wasn't it Congress' deicision to give the President this veto? Isn't this an example of Congress not taking responsibility for its own duties?
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
