Written Testimony of

The Honorable Phil English

United States Representative

21st District, Pennsylvania

Before

The Subcommittee on the Constitution,

of the House Judiciary Committee

Regarding

H.J.Res 9, A Proposed Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States to Allow a

Line Item Veto of Appropriation Bills

March 23, 2000

As Members of Congress, we need to look at real budgetary reform which will promote accountability in the appropriations process when we consider how to spend taxpayers’ money. Representative Baldacci and I have introduced H.J.Res 9, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would provide a line item veto to the President of the United States in his consideration of any appropriation in any bill.

For far too long, Presidents have had to adopt an "all or nothing" approach when considering action on bills containing appropriations. This presents a predicament for them when good policies are overloaded by unnecessary spending proposals. The case for this amendment was clearly demonstrated by the FY99 Omnibus Appropriations Act last October. Many provisions in this bill were last minute "pork" projects that should not have been included.

The first proposal for this measure was introduced in 1876. President Grant endorsed the mechanism in response to the common practice of Congress attaching "riders" to appropriations bills. In 1938, the House approved a line item veto amendment to the independent offices appropriations bill by voice vote, but the amendment was rejected by the Senate.

In the past, there have been several times when the line item veto has come close to passage. Recently, we have come much closer. On April 9, 1996, the Line Item Veto Act was signed into law by the President and became effective on January 1, 1997. The key provisions allowed the President to cancel discretionary budget authority provided in an appropriation or any item of new direct spending or even narrow tax provisions.

In August of 1997, the President first invoked this new authority and 81 more cancellations soon followed. The Supreme Court weighed the constitutionality of this law on June 25, 1998 when it considered the case Clinton vs. New York City. The high court upheld a district court ruling declaring the Line Item Veto Law unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the presentment Clause in the Constitution.

In order to enact line item veto legislation, a constitutional amendment must be passed, which is why I appear before you today. Our proposed amendment is more limited than the Line Item Veto Act, but effective in achieving this goal nonetheless. It corrects an imbalance in our budgetary process to permit an executive committed to cutting unnecessary spending the use a scalpel instead of a broad sword.

Currently, constitutions in 43 States provide for a line item veto, usually confined to appropriations bills, allowing the Governor the power to eliminate discrete provisions in legislation presented for signature. Governors have utilized this power to great success on the state level without any significant degradation of legislative prerogatives. It is now time to pass this bipartisan Constitutional amendment and empower the President with this crucial tool.

This amendment has already been endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens for a Sound Economy and Citizen’s Against Government Waste.

Mr. Chairman, this is good legislation that deserves your consideration and support. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee.