| Line-item
pork parer
By Paul
Ryan
Published June 22, 2006
Last month, the House passed
earmark reforms to shine sunlight and scrutiny on individual spending
provisions as they make their way through Congress. This week, when the
House votes on the legislative line-item veto, all who favor greater
transparency and accountability will have another chance to direct light
where it is particularly needed: at the end of the congressional spending
process.
As a member of Congress, there is nothing more
frustrating than working to restrain unnecessary spending throughout the
budget and appropriations cycle, only to see pork projects inserted into
conference reports during final negotiations, when there's no opportunity
to remove these boondoggles by amendment.
If the choice is between voting "aye" or
"nay" on legislation that mainly funds priorities such as
equipment for our troops but includes a few questionable projects, most
will grit their teeth and vote to pass the measure. The president faces
the same choice when a bill arrives on his desk for signature.
That's when having an extra layer of
accountability -- and a mechanism for removing wasteful projects from
finished bills -- can save taxpayer dollars. The version of the line-item
veto we're pushing for will achieve this, while preserving Congress'
constitutional powers and responsibilities. Simply put, our proposal would
enable the president to put a temporary hold on wasteful items or targeted
tax pork in bills he signs into law and send these line items back to
Congress for an up-or-down vote.
For the president's rescissions to take effect,
both the House and Senate must vote to approve his request. This is
fundamentally different than the line-item veto that the Supreme Court
struck down in 1998, which provided that presidential rescissions would
become law by default unless Congress passed a motion of disapproval.
While the earlier version violated constitutional
principles and shifted the balance of power from Congress to the
president, today's variation on the line-item veto ensures that Congress
remains the final arbiter of the contents of legislation. In fact, Charles
Cooper, an attorney who argued before the Supreme Court against the
previous line-item veto, has testified to the constitutionality of our
legislative line-item veto at three congressional hearings this year.
The current approach keeps the power of the purse
in Congress -- right where it should be -- and fixes the primary problem
with the president's existing rescission authority. Though the president
today can propose the rescission of wasteful spending items, there's
nothing to guarantee Congress ever votes on such requests. During
President Reagan's administration, Congress failed to act on more than $25
billion in rescission requests, and the historical ineffectiveness of the
present system has deterred presidents from using it to rein in excess
spending.
In contrast, our legislative line-item veto bill
(H.R. 4890) requires Congress to vote on presidential rescission requests
on an expedited time frame. Under this plan, the president would have a
limited time after signing a bill to request that Congress rescind a
particular piece of tax pork, a specific spending item or a package of
spending items within that law. After receiving the president's request,
the House and Senate would be required to have a clean, up-or-down vote
with no amendments within 14 legislative days on whether to rescind the
funding.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of this exercise is
preventive: if a member of Congress knows he could be called to the floor
of the House or Senate to defend spending on a project, apart from the
cover of larger legislation, he's likely to become more discriminating
about the items he proposes in the first place. At the same time, those
who make legitimate spending requests should have no trouble defending
them in front of their colleagues. By making ourselves more accountable
and using this tool to combat wasteful spending, we can help restore
Americans' faith in Congress, which has been shaken by earmark abuse. We
must live up to the trust our constituents place in us and exercise
extreme care with their tax dollars.
The legislative line-item veto is one part of a
broader drive to bring greater transparency, accountability and fiscal
discipline to Congress and change the culture in Washington from one that
is institutionally biased toward spending to one that looks for every
chance to save.
This spring the House has already passed earmark
reform and a budget resolution that takes important steps to control
spending, such as better budgeting for emergencies through a rainy day
fund. This week we will vote on the legislative line-item veto, and we
expect a vote in the near future to establish a sunset commission to
review the effectiveness of federal programs and make recommendations
about those that no longer fulfill their mission or are redundant.
By moving forward with these and other reforms, we
can give Congress and the president the necessary tools to zero in on
wasteful spending and infuse the budget process in Washington with
opportunities to save money instead of loopholes that leave the system
open to abuse.
Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, is a member of
the U.S. House of Representatives. |
