|
|
| STRIKE OUT
AUGUST 11, 1997TRANSCRIPT |
|---|
President Clinton used his line-item veto power to strike out three provisions of the balanced budget agreement. Presidents since Ulysses S. Grant have been calling for a line-item veto, but President Clinton is the first executive to have such power. If some lawmakers have their way, he may also be the last. After this background report, The Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot and the Boston Globe's Tom Oliphant analyze the President's moves.
KWAME HOLMAN: President Clinton took the balanced budget agreement he signed last week and today tried to shape it a little bit more to his liking. He did so by using the line item veto--a new executive power granted by the legislative branch but certain to face a judicial challenge.
A RealAudio version of this segment is available.
August 11, 1997:
Gigot and Oliphant analyze how the line-item veto will change the rules Washington plays by.
August 8, 1997:
Gigot and Oliphant discuss the line-item veto in the weekly, Political Wrap.
August 6, 1997:
President Clinton's latest press conference.
August 5, 1997:
Background on the budget deal.
June 20, 1997:
The Online NewsHour Freshmen debate the line item veto.
April 11, 1997:
Shields & Gigot discuss discuss the Federal Court ruling striking down the Presidential line-item veto.
April 9, 1996:
The history of the line item veto.
Browse the Online NewsHour's campaign finance and Congressional coverage.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: In the past, good legislation could be cluttered up with unjustifiable or wasteful spending or tax provisions, leaving the president no choice but to sign or veto the overall legislation. With the line-item veto, the president can sign an overall bill into law, but cancel a particular spending project or a particular tax break that benefits only a handful of individuals or companies.
KWAME HOLMAN: The president said he asked members of his administration to find specific items in the budget agreement that were inconsistent with good public policy, benefited a few at the expense of many, and weren't part of the good faith budget negotiations with the Congress.
Three provisions knocked out
PRESIDENT CLINTON: After careful scrutiny, and numerous meetings with my staff and cabinet members, we have found three provisions that meet those criteria. In a few moments, I will use the power of the line-item veto to cancel a provision that would allow financial service companies to shelter income, in foreign tax havens, to avoid all U.S. taxation.
I will also cancel a provision that singles out New York, by allowing it to tap into the federal Treasury to reduce its state expenditures through the use of health-provider tax to match federal Medicaid dollars, that are impermissible in every other state in the country and actually in existence now in several other states. No other state in the nation would be given this provision, and it is unfair to the rest of our nation's taxpayers to ask them to subsidize it.
Finally, I will cancel a provision that, though well-intended, is poorly designed. This provision would have allowed a very limited number of agri-businesses to avoid paying capital gains taxes, possibly forever, on the sales of certain assets to farmers cooperatives. And it could have benefited not only traditional farm coops but giant organizations which do not need and should not trigger the law's benefits.
KWAME HOLMAN: In exercising the line item veto Mr. Clinton fulfilled the wish of every President dating back to Ulysses S. Grant--the ability to delete specific spending items from a piece of legislation without having to veto the entire bill. Presidents Reagan and Bush renewed the call for the line item veto during the 1980's. But it wasn't until last year-- under the guidance of the first Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years--that the line item veto finally became law. And it could change the rules by which spending decisions are made.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: The actions I take today will save the American people hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10 years and send a signal that the Washington rules have changed for good and for the good of the American people. From now on presidents will be able to say no to wasteful spending or tax loopholes, even as they say yes to vital legislation. Special interests will not be able to play the old game of slipping a provision into a massive bill in the hope that no one will notice. For the first time the President is exercising the power to prevent that from happening
KWAME HOLMAN: However there is a process by which the Congress can override the action taken by the President today. It can approve each of those three items individually with a simple majority vote in both houses taken within 30 days. he president, in turn, can veto them again, in which case the Congress then needs a two-thirds vote in both houses to override those vetoes.
But is it constitutional?
KWAME HOLMAN: A spokesperson for House Speaker Newt Gingrich today called the President' s actions "petty politics," while Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said he isn't sure he'll try to challenge the vetoes. But several other members of Congress are expected to challenge them in court. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia long has held the line item veto is unconstitutional.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Will be used as a club to be held over the head of every member of the United States Senate and every member of the House of Representatives by power hungry presidents who will seek to impose their will over the legislative process to the detriment of the American people whose elected representatives in Congress can no longer be free to exercise their judgment as to what matters are in the best interests of the United States, and the people whom they serve.
KWAME HOLMAN: Last April, federal district court Judge Thomas Pennfield Jackson sided with Senator Byrd when he ruled the line item veto was unconstitutional.
Jackson wrote: "Where the president signs a bill but then purports to cancel parts of it, he exceeds his constitutional authority and prevents both houses of Congress from participating in the exercise of lawmaking authority. But in June, the Supreme Court let the line item veto stand, at least temporarily. The justices decided that no legal challenge to the law could take place until the law was put into use. And that’s what happened today.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: The power is given by legislation. The real question is does the Constitution permit or forbid the Congress to give the president this kind of power? I believe that, since if you look at the fact that 43 states have this--the power for the governor--and it has been upheld in state after state after state, the provisions of most state constitutions are similar to the provisions of the federal constitution in the general allocation of executive authority and legislative authority. So I think it is an implicit thing, as long as the legislature has the right to override the executive, than for the legislature to allow the executive to make reasoned judgments about particular items in these omnibus bills I do not believe is an unconstitutional delegation of the legislature's authority to the president.
KWAME HOLMAN: But until the court rules, President Clinton says he plans to exercise his newfound powers on items contained in 13 appropriations bills expected to come to his desk this fall.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, when you get to the appropriations process, it will be somewhat more straightforward, you know, should this be built or not, should this vote be built or not, should this money be given to this agency or not for this program, and I think that those are the things where typically in use at the state level. But in the context of taxes and the entitlements, I thought each of these three things presented a representative case where the veto was intended to be used. Thank you.
 |
   
|
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
