Cord Byrd: “Let us speak plainly. This bill changes the existing process the President uses to rescind, or terminate, appropriated…”

“Let us speak plainly. This bill changes the existing process the President uses to rescind, or terminate, appropriated funds. That process takes place after the President signs a bill into law. It does not operate when he is signing a bill, as is the case with the real item veto used by governors. It is a misnomer to call this bill an item veto. Why do we not talk straight to the American people? Do we think they are unable to understand what we do in Washington, DC? How can we justify using false language and false concepts? This bill has nothing to do with an item veto. It is a change in the rescission process. This executive attitude of 'We know best' persists from decade to decade. The President's Economic Report for 1985 includes a discussion about the pros and cons of the item veto. It admits that there is little basis to conclude from the State experience that an item veto would have a substantial effect on Federal expenditures. In fact, it says that 'per capita spending is somewhat higher in States where the Governor has the authority for a line-item veto, even corrected for the major conditions that affect the distribution of spending among States.' There are other constitutional problems with this bill. First, this bill will have a serious impact on the independence of the Federal judiciary. With enhanced rescission authority the President can delete judicial items, perhaps for punitive reasons. He has no such authority now.”