Hearings of the
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process
The Rescissions Process After the Line Item Veto: Tools for Controlling Spending
Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process
GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AND BUDGET PROCESS HEARING ON "THE RESCISSIONS PROCESS AFTER THE LINE ITEM VETO: TOOLS FOR CONTROLLING SPENDING."
THIS HEARING FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF PROMISES MADE AND KEPT. AS MOST PEOPLE KNOW, MANY OF US LABORED LONG AND HARD TO ENACT THE HISTORIC LINE ITEM VETO ACT. THE SUPREME COURT, IN ITS WISDOM, DISAGREED WITH OUR VIEW THAT THE NEW LAW MET THE NECESSARY CONSTITUTIONAL TEST, AND LAST SUMMER THE COURT STRUCK THE LAW DOWN. WHILE SMART LEGAL MINDS CAN AND DO DISAGREE ON THE WEIGHTY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AT PLAY IN THE COURT'S RULING – THE MIRACLE OF OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCED AMONG THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT PROVIDES THAT THE COURT SHALL BE THE FINAL ARBITER ON SUCH QUESTIONS.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE COURT'S RULING, I JOINED WITH MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES IN PLEDGING TO "GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD" TO FIND A WAY TO MEET THE TWO PRIMARY GOALS OF THE LINE ITEM VETO ACT, BUT STILL REMAIN WITHIN THE PARAMETERS SET FOR US BY THE HIGH COURT.
I NOTE THAT ONE OF OUR WITNESSES TODAY REFERRED TO THE LINE ITEM VETO AS A "ONE YEAR BLIP ON THE FEDERAL BUDGETING RADAR SCREEN." WHILE THE LAW WAS FOUND INVALID BY THE COURT, I BELIEVE THAT THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION AND THE MAJORITIES OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS STILL FIND VALIDITY IN THE GOALS OF THE ACT. AND SO I HOPE THAT BLIP WILL ULTIMATELY PROVE TO HAVE BEEN WORTH THE EFFORT.
THE GOALS OF LINE ITEM VETO – FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND ACCOUNTABILITY – ARE STILL WORTHY OF OUR ATTENTION, EVEN IN THE CURRENT, HAPPY CIRCUMSTANCE OF BUDGET SURPLUS.
SO TODAY, ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE FOCUSING ON THE RESCISSIONS PROCESS AS ESTABLISHED IN 1974 BY THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT. WE HAVE ASKED OUR WITNESSES TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE PRESIDENT MAY PROPOSE TO CANCEL BUDGET AUTHORITY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED. HOW DOES THE EXISTING PROCESS WORK? HOW WELL DOES IT FUNCTION WHEN MEASURED BY THE TWIN TESTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND FISCAL DISCIPLINE? SHOULD CONGRESS CONSIDER WAYS TO STRENGTHEN THE PROCESS? WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR DOING SO AND WHAT ARE THEIR PROS AND CONS? WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS WE MUST LIVE WITHIN AFTER THE COURT'S RULING ON LINE ITEM VETO?
WHEN WE WERE CONSIDERING THE LINE ITEM VETO STATUTE, SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES BROUGHT FORWARD PROPOSALS TO TIGHTEN UP THE EXISTING RESCISSIONS PROCESS WITHOUT GOING THE WHOLE WAY TO THE DISAPPROVAL MODEL ENVISIONED BY THE STATUTORY LINE ITEM VETO. OUR VIEW AT THE TIME WAS TO FIRST ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE THE "WHOLE LOAF" AND IMPLEMENT A LINE ITEM VETO THAT TRULY SHIFTED THE BIAS AWAY FROM SPENDING. EVERYONE KNEW THAT THE MATTER WOULD ULTIMATELY FIND ITS WAY TO THE COURTS, AND NOW THAT THE COURT HAS SPOKEN ON THAT SUBJECT, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO GO BACK AND CONSIDER WHAT INTERMEDIATE STEPS WE CAN AND SHOULD TAKE TO USE THE LAW TO STRENGTHEN THE LAW.
FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, IT IS MY VIEW THAT WE WERE VERY MUCH ON THE RIGHT TRACK WHEN WE FOUGHT FOR AND WON FOR THE PRESIDENT TOUGH LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY -- AND I STILL BELIEVE WE SHOULD IMPLEMENT IT, ALTHOUGH WE NOW HAVE TO EXPLORE DOING IT THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. BUT THAT IS A SUBJECT FOR ANOTHER DAY AND ANOTHER VENUE.
WITH THAT AS INTRODUCTION, LET ME NOW INTRODUCE OUR WITNESSES.
WE WILL HEAR FIRST FROM A PANEL OF DISTINGUISHED EXPERTS: SYLVIA MATHEWS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OMB; DAN CRIPPEN, DIRECTOR OF THE CBO; AND GARY KEPPLINGER, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL OF GAO. THE SECOND PANEL WILL INCLUDE LOU FISHER, SCHOLAR FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE; PHIL JOYCE, PROFESSOR AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY; AND ALLEN SCHICK, VISITING FELLOW AT BROOKINGS INSTITUTION AND PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. MEMBERS HAVE DETAILED BIOGRAPHIES FOR EACH OF OUR GUESTS.
WITH THAT, MS. MATHEWS, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
