On the recordMarch 28, 1996
I rise to speak against H.R. 3136. My opposition stems not from a desire to prevent the needed increase in the debt limit, nor do I oppose the increase in the Social Security earnings limit contained in section 4, a proposition I supported with my vote in favor of H.R. 2684 last December. Rather, my objection, Mr. Speaker, is to the measure before us, which rests on my adamant opposition to the line-item veto provisions of section 3. The line-item veto is not about money as such. It is about power, specifically the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government. This has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. It has nothing to do with the contract except the contract we should be keeping with history that provided for our constitutional democracy to be able to sustain a balance between the executive and the legislative. It assumes that the executive branch, compared to the legislature, is inherently inclined to restrain spending. In fact, however, congressional appropriations have been lower than the amounts requested by the past three Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike. In denying Congress the authority to single out proposed rescissions for individual consideration, H.R. 3136 denies to the Congress an authority it grants to the President. If the President can unilaterally veto individual items in a single bill, why is Congress required to sustain or override those vetoes as an indivisible package?
Source
govinfo.gov




