Mr. Chairman, I am sure my friend and colleague would not want to misspeak or misrepresent the facts. In fact, discretionary spending for transportation programs includes the contract authority spending. It does come under the 602(b) allocations. It is all part of discretionary spending, only this part would not be subject to the veto. That is the difference. I would also suggest to the gentleman that under the current language of the line-item veto, H.R. 2, any amount which is vetoed by the President goes back into the appropriation cycle to be reallocated among other programs. Without a deficit reduction trust fund, it does not lower the deficit either.
William Orton: “Mr. Chairman, I am sure my friend and colleague would not want to misspeak or misrepresent the facts. In fact…”
Editor's note · Context
Responding to a colleague's statement regarding discretionary spending and the line-item veto.
Share
More from William Orton
CBO has it wrong, but under the gentleman's proposal CBO would have it even more wrong and we would have even higher deficits.
I think it will remove criticism from the amendment and in fact eliminate one of the objections that many people have had to this particular bill.
In closing let me just say we do not want to make this a partisan fight. This motion to recommit is not partisan. This motion to recommit does nothing to the bill which we are adopting except one thing: making the line-item veto effective…
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is my concern, because as the gentleman will recall, during the debate of the line-item veto bill I rose to propose an amendment to the line-item veto bill, to apply the line-item veto to contract authority as…





