11:58 AM 28 Mar 1996
| from: |
Charles S. Konigsberg |
| to: |
LAWRENCE J. HAAS HAAS L, Alice M. Rivlin, Barbara Chow, Charles E. Kieffer, Charles S. Konigsberg, Elena Kagan, Jacob J. Lew, James C. Murr, James J. Jukes, John C. Angell, Joseph Minarik, Lisa M. Kountoupes, Martha Foley, Paul J., Paul J. Weinstein Jr., Robert G. |
PRINTER FONT 12 POINT COURIER
3/28/96
From: Chuck Konigsberg
Following is a REVUSED draft" response to Sen. Byrd for a 3/21
item veto letter to POTUS. Byrd's letter to POTUS states that he
is "unalterably opposed to giving any President" enhanced
rescission authority; he also states that the delegation would
do "great harm to the constitutional balance." Much of the
letter pertains to Byrd's concern that the 1997 effective date is
"blatantly partisan". The revision, in bold, is a point
suggested by DOJ. (I've also updated the letter to reflect
Senate and likely House action.) Let me know by COB Thursday if
you have any revisions to the attached draft. Otherwise, I will
pass along to WH/LA at end of the day. Thanks.
DRAFT-
o
-NOT FOR RELEASE
Dear Senator Byrd:
I appreciated receiving your letter of March 21, 1996
expressing concerns about the conference agreement on the
line
o
-item veto.
I am mindful of your strong, and deeply held convictions on
this issue. However, as you know, the line
o
-item veto is
something I have consistently supported over the years. I had
the authority as a Governor and found it to be a useful tool for
controlling the budget. I am pleased that the House and Senate
have approved the conference report on S. 4 which delegates
authority to cancel certain discretionary and direct spending, as
well as limited tax benefits. [fyi-
o
-the House will be voting
early Thursday afternoon)
I must respectfully disagree with your concerns about the
effect of this legislation on the constitutional balance of
powers. While the conference agreement delegates to the
President a useful measure of cancellation authority, that
delegation has been carefully limited by the very specific
definitions of spending and tax benefits, as well as expedited
procedures for consideration of disapproval legislation.
Moreover, the carefully defined cancellation authority is a
practical and principled means of serving the constitutional
balance of powers, by redressing the modern practice of
presenting the President with omnibus legislation.
Regarding the effective date of the new authority, I would,
of course, have preferred that the new authority be effective
upon enactment. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the House and
Senate have overcome their differences and produced a conference
agreement which delegates effective cancellation authority.
Thank you again for expressing your concerns to me about
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
BC
11:58 AM 28 Mar 1996
| from: |
Charles S. Konigsberg |
| to: |
LAWRENCE J. HAAS, Alice M., Barbara Chow, Charles E. Kieffer, Charles S. Konigsberg, Elena Kagan, Jacob J. Lew, James C. Murr, James J. Jukes, John C. Angell, Joseph, Lisa, Martha, Paul J., Paul J. Weinstein Jr., Robert G. |
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_COURIER
3/28/96
From: Chuck Konigsberg
Following is a REVUSED draft response to Sen. Byrd for a 3/21
item veto letter to POTUS. Byrd's letter to POTUS states that he
is "unalterably opposed to giving any President" enhanced
rescission authority; he also states that the delegation would
do "great harm to the constitutional balance." Much of the
letter pertains to Byrd's concern that the 1997 effective date is
"blatantly partisan". The revision, in bold, is a point
suggested by DOJ. (I've also updated the letter to reflect
Senate and likely House action.) Let me know by COB Thursday if
you have any revisions to the attached draft. Otherwise, I will
pass along to WH/LA at end of the day. Thanks.
DRAFT-
o
-NOT FOR RELEASE
Dear Senator Byrd:
I appreciated receiving your letter of March 21, 1996
expressing concerns about the conference agreement on the
line
o
-item veto.
I am mindful of your strong, and deeply held convictions on
this issue. However, as you know, the line
o
-item veto is
something I have consistently supported over the years. I had
the authority as a Governor and found it to be a useful tool for
controlling the budget. I am pleased that the House and Senate
have approved the conference report on S. 4 which delegates
authority to cancel certain discretionary and direct spending, as
well as limited tax benefits. [fyi-
o
-the House will be voting
early Thursday afternoon]
I must respectfully disagree with your concerns about the
effect of this legislation on the constitutional balance of
powers. While the conference agreement detegates to the
President a useful measure of cancellation authority, that
delegation has been carefully limited by the very specific
definitions of spending and tax benefits, as well as expedited
procedures for consideration of disapproval legislation.
Moreover, the carefully defined cancellation authority is a
practical and principled means of serving the constitutional
balance of powers, by redressing the modern practice of
presenting the President with omnibus legislation.
Regarding the effective date of the new authority, I would,
of course, have preferred that the new authority be effective
upon enactment. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the House and
Senate have overcome their differences and produced a conference
agreement which delegates,effective cancellation authority.
Thank you again for expressing your concerns to me about
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
BC
