[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c24_txt-20]                         

[Page 4935-4937]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 19. Proposals for Item Veto

    There is no express authority under the Constitution for the 
President to approve part of a bill and disapprove another part of the 
same measure. However, agitation for such authority occasionally has 
arisen when measures have been presented to the President for his 
approval which included unrelated provisions, some of which did not 
have the President's endorsement or support. Members have offered 
amendments attempting to include a clause in a bill granting the 
President a veto power with respect to an item in that 
bill,<SUP>(19)</SUP> though the constitutionality of such a proposal 
has not been determined, but general executive authority to disapprove 
only part of a bill does not exist. Numerous constitutional amendments 
have been introduced in the past to grant the President item veto 
authority, but these proposals have not been adopted.<SUP>(20)</SUP> 
Suggestions have also been made that the Congress address, 
legislatively, the definition of the term ``bill'' as used in the 
Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 19.1, 19.2, infra.
20. Charles J. Zinn, The Veto Power of the President, House Committee 
        on the Judiciary, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. (Committee Print 1951), p. 
        34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item Veto and Executive Authority

Sec. 19.1 To an authorization bill for public works, an amend

[[Page 4936]]

    ment vesting item veto power in the President was held to be 
    germane and in order.

    On Mar. 11, 1958,<SUP>(1)</SUP> Mr. Donald E. Tewes, of Wisconsin, 
offered an amendment to the bill (S. 497) authorizing certain public 
works on rivers and harbors for purposes of navigation. The amendment 
gave the President authority to veto certain items provided for in the 
bill, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 104 Cong. Rec. 4020, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 211. For the purpose of disapproval by the President, each 
    paragraph of each of the preceding sections, shall be considered a 
    bill within the meaning of article I, section 7, of the 
    Constitution of the United States, and each such paragraph which is 
    disapproved shall not become law unless repassed in accordance with 
    the provisions of section 7, article I, of the Constitution 
    relating to the repassage of a bill disapproved by the President.

    Mr. Frank E. Smith, of Mississippi, raised a point of order against 
the amendment on the ground that such language is entirely out of order 
on any type of legislation since there is no provision in the 
Constitution for an item veto. The Chair <SUP>(2)</SUP> responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . The Chair does not pass upon constitutional questions. 
    The amendment seems to be pertinent to the bill and relates to the 
    bill. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 19.2 To an appropriation bill, an amendment proposing to give the 
    President item veto power was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On May 14, 1953 <SUP>(3)</SUP> Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., of 
New York, proposed an amendment to the Treasury and Post Office 
Appropriation Act of 1954 (H.R. 5174) giving the President item veto 
power over each separate appropriation in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 99 Cong. Rec. 4939, 4940, 83d Cong. Ist Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Gordon Canfield, of New Jersey, raised the point of order 
against the amendment that it was legislation on an appropriation bill.
    The Chairman <SUP>(4)</SUP> sustained the point of order on the 
grounds that the amendment was legislation upon an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Roosevelt then offered an amendment stating that each section 
or item of appropriation in the bill shall be deemed a separate bill 
for purposes of approval or disapproval by the President.
    Mr. Canfield then raised the same point of order that this point of 
order that this amendment was legislation on appropriation bill.

[[Page 4937]]

    The Chairman sustained the point of order for that same reason.