Line item veto proposal

[Dr. J. Michael Bitzer]

Mark, 
  
Below are some comments from the President's Message about the proposed legislation, as well as responses to questions from OMB Director Bolten.  I'd be interest to know what others think about the fact that Bolten stresses the point that the returned measure would be a straight up-or-down vote with no amendments and a simple majority (pertaining to a prospective filibuster threat in the Senate?)?  Does this really get around the USSC's ruling in Clinton to ensure the presentation of a rejected line item of a spending bill?  Michael 
  
---------------------------------- 
>From the President's Message, found on the White House's website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060306-5.html): 
  
My proposed legislation, the "Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006," would provide a fast-track procedure to require the Congress to vote up-or-down on rescissions proposed by the President. There has been broad bipartisan support for similar proposals in the past. Under this proposal, the President could propose legislation to rescind wasteful spending, and the Congress would be obligated to vote quickly on that package of rescissions, without amendment. The same procedure would apply to new mandatory spending and to special interest tax breaks given to small numbers of individuals. 
  
Also, comments by Budget Director Bolten (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060306-6.html): 
  
Introductory remarks: 
Most of you are aware that the Congress did enact a line-item veto which was available to the President in 1996, but the Supreme Court struck that law down as unconstitutional as drafted. Since 1996, when the law was struck down, earmarks have increased dramatically, and that's part of the reason why the President has decided to send forward specific legislation now to restore a line-item veto authority and, in particular, restore one that passes constitutional muster. 
  
What this legislation does -- by the way, the title is the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 2006. It provides the President the authority to single out wasteful discretionary or mandatory spending, or special interest tax breaks given to a small number of individuals and to put them on hold. During the time that the spending line-item is on hold, the President can send legislation to Congress to rescind the line-item. The legislation under the statute would be considered within 10 days of introduction on an up or down basis without amendments and could be passed by a simple majority and could not be filibustered. 
  
Q But why hasn't Bush been more active in using his existing rescission authority? Given the fact that both Houses of Congress are of the same party, couldn't you shame them into delivering votes under existing authority? 
  
DIRECTOR BOLTEN: Well, there is existing authority to send up rescission packages, but they -- and I think there's been something in the Impoundment Act for the last 30 years. But we've been unable to find any instances in which a President has successfully been able to use that authority. I think the principal defect of the authority that exists now is that there is no particular guarantee that a provision can or will be brought to a vote, or that a bill would not be amended once it hit the floor. And so that makes it very difficult to move a vehicle like that, even if everybody was agreed that on a particular appropriations bill, almost everyone was agreed, except for the sponsor, that this provision ought to come out, it would be very hard to control that vehicle if it were amendable on the floor once it got to the floor. The current authority is a very difficult and awkward way to do business. I think the legislation that the President is sending forward today cures that problem. 

Q But can you just go over one last time some layman's terms, and I know McClellan had talked about it before, and I'm sure you probably talked about it at the top of the call, just more about the language or the difference from the ruling, the Supreme Court eight years ago? 
  
DIRECTOR BOLTEN: The key difference is that the proposal that the President is making today would give him the authority to line out individual elements of spending -- but, unlike the provision that was found unconstitutional a decade ago, it would not give him the unilateral authority to cancel spending. The President would send forward a legislative package with the rescissions proposed in that package, then available for an up or down vote in both Houses of Congress within 10 days. 
  
------------------------- 
  
"The liberally educated person is one who is able to resist the easy and preferred answers, not because he is obstinate but because he knows others worthy of consideration." 
Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (1987) 
  
J. Michael Bitzer, Ph.D. 
Assistant Professor of Political Science 
Catawba College 
2300 W. Innes Street 
Salisbury, NC 28144 
Office Phone: 704.637.4117 
faculty.catawba.edu/jmbitzer/index.html 

  
  
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mark Tushnet 
Sent: Mon Mar 6 19:04:28 EST 2006 
To: ConLaw Prof 
Subject: Line item veto proposal
  
  
Could someone with better Web skills than I post the current 
proposal for a line item veto, with whatever explanations are 
availablle (from a list member or from the administration) of why 
this proposal differs from the statute held unconstitutional in 
Clinton v. NewYork?  TIA.