[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 21 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1148-H1149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  2110

                       THE LINE-ITEM VETO DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak tonight on the item that 
has been under discussion so much today, which is the line-item veto 
debate, and I want to say starting out that I have consistently 
supported for a number of years a modified line-item veto.
  I voted on it at least twice in this House; I voted for it. This 
House passed a modified line-item veto twice last session of Congress. 
It died in the other body.
  I will be offering, along with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a substitute to 
the bill that is here before the committee, a substitute to the 
Republican version of a modified line-item veto.
  Let us make clear what the goals are for all of us in dealing with a 
line-item veto discussion. The goals are twofold. First of all, the 
President be able to veto items in an appropriation bill that he or she 
thinks are unacceptable and send them back to the Congress for a vote 
up or down.
  The second goal is that all Members be held accountable and must be 
forced to vote upon this veto.
  The present system says that the President can rescind an item, that 
is, he can line-item it out, but that in order for it to go into 
effect, the Congress must act affirmatively. It must, both Houses, must 
act and vote ``yes'' in order for that to be preserved. The reality is 
that the Congress rarely takes a rescission up that the President sends 
in that vein, and it dies for failure of the Congress to act.
  In both cases, the Republican version and the substitute that we will 
be offering, the Congress will be forced to vote upon this within a 
certain time limit. I think it is important to note that there are some 
letters flying around and discussion, is on an enhanced rescission, is 
on an expedited rescission. The fact of the matter is that whatever the 
policy wonks may call it, in both cases, the Republican version and our 
version, you are talking about a modified line-item veto, not a 
constitutional amendment, but a change in the statute.
  Now, where are the differences? The differences are very clear. The 
difference is that at the end of the day after you go through the 
procedural hoops that each bill has, or the procedural requirements 
would be better stated, at the end of the day the Republican version 
requires two-thirds majority in order to overturn a rescission; in 
other words, it takes two-thirds of the Congress to say to the 
President, ``We do not agree, and you cannot take that item out.''
  What that effectively does is to give control of the Congress to one-
third-plus-one, a minority.
  My version, the Spratt-Stenholm-Wise version, takes the other tack, 
which is to say it requires only a simply majority in order to defeat a 
rescission, and so the Congress must vote, but the majority rule is 
preserved, and a minority does not control the appropriations process.
  Now, some argue that this really does not make any sense, that since 
a half of the Congress already voted for the total appropriations bill 
in which the offensive item was included, that, therefore, why should 
anyone expect that the Congress would reverse itself, that that 
majority would reverse itself? The answer is very clear: An 
appropriations bill that
 leaves here, a total appropriations bill, is a large package. It has 
many separate items in it, and sometimes you will vote for the entire 
package, because overall it is desirable even though there are 
individual items you disagree with.

  What we are saying is that now when it comes back and the President 
has line-itemed out that offensive item, that now you can expect the 
Congress to take a fresh look at it, particularly since the Congress 
knows, every Member here knows, that their constituents at home are 
looking to see how they voted on this specific chance to cut the 
deficit and to cut the budget.
  What is the significance of the difference between the Republican 
version and our version in terms of the two-thirds required to overturn 
versus 
[[Page H1149]] the majority? It is very simple. It is one-third-plus-
one. You believe that one-third-plus-one, a minority, ought to be able 
to control whether or not an item is preserved or not. I think that is 
too great a shift. The reality is almost no rescission by the President 
will be overturned.
  Some may say, ``Bob, you may be concerned about an item in West 
Virginia that would be line-itemed out.'' Certainly. But I think that 
if I can come to the floor and convince the majority of Members, the 
simple majority, that it is in the country's interest and it is a valid 
item, that it should be preserved.
  Today it may be my problem. Tomorrow it may be somebody else's 
problem. Those of you from defense industry States, for instance, may 
feel some concern about what happens to military installations and 
defense projects that are so important, knowing that one-third-plus-one 
and an unsympathetic President, whoever, whenever that could be, could 
completely play havoc with your particular concerns.
  This is a majority-rule country, 50 percent, and so I would simply 
ask Members to look closely at the Spratt-Stenholm-Wise substitute that 
will be offered, and I might add as well, that the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] will 
be offering an additional amendment should our substitute fail. We will 
be offering an additional amendment that would simply add the 
provisions of this legislation to the existing Republican version in 
case the provisions of the Republican version are struck down as 
unconstitutional or should the President choose to follow the process 
that we have outlined versus the one that the Republican version 
outlines.
  Let me also, as I finish up, reassure everyone in both cases you are 
guaranteed a vote in this Congress. You do not get away from that, and 
no Member gets away from having to go on the record, and in our case, 
it is usually 10 days from the time that the President submits that 
rescission to Congress.
  I urge Members to take a close look and to vote for majority rule in 
this process.


                          ____________________