The gentleman's position is certainly understandable. The concern, however, is that it certainly was a major platform in the Contract With America. It passed this body with overwhelming support. The President supports it, yet the 1996 appropriation process is virtually through, and the line-item veto does not apply to it. So we would like to develop a way to get it applicable to the 1996 process, and that is the purpose for trying to put it on the appropriations bills or continuing resolutions so that we could involve the President, give this President the authority now to start cutting that kind of pork-barrel spending.
William Orton: “The gentleman's position is certainly understandable. The concern, however, is that it certainly was a major platform in…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for a line-item veto in the 1996 appropriation process.
Share
More from William Orton
There is a question whether the current law does apply to contract authority, which is the issue I am raising, and that is why I wish for the chairman to be on record.
Just in response to my friend who just mentioned that it was the President who asked for this, yes, the President asked for line-item veto. The President did not ask for line-item veto to be until after the new year of 1997. It was offered…
That is the point I wish to make. And if, in fact, as the gentleman has indicated, Mr. Chairman, that the line-item veto would, not only under current law but under his amendment, apply line-item veto to all contract authority, then I…
CBO has it wrong, but under the gentleman's proposal CBO would have it even more wrong and we would have even higher deficits.





