“This bill is constitutional,” Ryan said at the start of the debate. He said that the 1996 line-item veto was ultimately struck down as unconstitutional because it gave the President the authority to actually cut spending he opposed. This bill, Ryan explained, only gives the president the authority to recommend cuts.
{mosads}But in response, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said the Constitution gives the power of the purse only to Congress, and that the bill under debate would undermine that rule.
“The Line-Item Veto would weaken that power, shifting budgetary authority to the Executive Branch and giving the President a power that our Founding Fathers did not see fit to give him,” Rogers said. “The Framers would surely shake their heads at the idea of transferring this much authority to the Executive Branch.”
Rogers also argued that the bill would do little to save money, as former President Clinton used his line-item veto authority only to see Congress overturn it.
Rather than pass the bill, Rogers said the real problem with spending lies with the mandatory spending accounts, which Congress does not touch but continue to “blow up the nation’s deficits and debt at rapid rates.”
Another Appropriations Committee member, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), agreed that the bill hands too much authority to the executive branch.
“In this case, you’re going to have a bureaucrat at the third level within in the administration deciding, ‘Ah ha, there’s an item there that we don’t agree with in our bureaucracy, so let’s send it back for very special attention, taking up the time of the Congress, and essentially undermining the work of the Congress,’ ” he said.
Another Republican on the Budget Committee, Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), countered that the bill is needed because the control Congress is supposed to be exercising over spending has not been evident.
“Spending has run rampant in Washington, and it’s because ‘no’ is not a word that Congress is used to when it comes to spending,” Ribble said. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), also on Budget, agreed that the bill would be helpful because many of the bills Congress passes in haste could stand a second look.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) was one notable exception to the split between committees, as he serves on the Appropriations Committee but said he supports the bill nonetheless.
“I lose no sleep at night over whether a president of my party or the other party can take action to … send back some spending that we have done here and force Congress reaffirm it,” he said.
The House is expected to vote on the bill and two amendments later in the day.