[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1225-H1236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           LINE-ITEM VETO ACT
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 55 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2.

                              {time}  1445


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2), to give the President line-item veto authority over 
appropriation Acts and targeted tax benefits in revenue Acts, with Mr. 
Hobson (chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Friday, February 3, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] had been disposed of and the bill was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, February 3, 1995, only 
the following further amendments, if offered, will be considered:
  An amendment by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] debatable for 1 
hour;
  An amendment by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] 
debatable for 30 minutes;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] debatable 
for 30 minutes;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] debatable for 
30 minutes;
  An amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Slaughter] debatable for 1 hour; and
  An amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm] debatable for 1 hour.
  No amendment to the specified amendments are in order. Debate on each 
amendment will be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
an opponent of the amendment.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not 
be less than 15 minutes.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] rise?


                     amendment offered by mr. orton

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Orton: At the end of section 4, 
     add the following new paragraph:
       (5) The term ``discretionary budget authority'' includes 
     authority to enter into contracts under which the United 
     States is obligated to make outlays, the budget authority for 
     which is not provided in advance by appropriations Acts.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the unanimous consent request, 
the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] will be recognized for 30 minutes 
and a Member opposed will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman please state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that we understood 
the rule the Chair read in its entirety. It was also our understanding, 
I believe the gentleman would agree, there would be no secondary 
amendments offered on votes that were going to be held and amendments 
that were going to be held for rolling; is that a correct assumption?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, no secondary amendments are 
in order.
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a Member who has supported the line-item veto 
since before being elected to Congress. This is not a partisan issue, 
and the line-item veto did not begin with the Contract With America. 
Many Members on both sides of the aisle support the line-item veto and 
many new Members have come to the floor of the House today to support 
the line-item veto.
  I would ask those new Members especially to carefully consider the 
amendment which I now offer. It will be very difficult to explain a 
``no'' vote against this amendment which does not weaken but 
strengthens the President's line-item veto.
  The purpose of H.R. 2, the line-item veto, is to single out specific 
projects of pork barrel spending which are tacked on to larger 
billions. In fact, last Friday Chairman Clinger, in accepting the Obey 
amendment said that the purpose of the bill was to ``get at pork 
wherever and whenever it may occur.'' My amendment does that in a very 
simple and straightforward manner. It states, ``the term discretionary 
budget authority includes authority to enter into contracts under which 
the United States is obligated to make outlays, the budget authority 
for which is not provided in advance by appropriations Acts.''
                              {time}  1450

  The most visible type of pork-barrel spending are the earmarked 
projects tucked neatly into large appropriation bills. H.R. 2 will 
subject this type of pork to line-item veto.
  We are also aware of targeted tax expenditures wherein a limited 
group of taxpayers get a special deduction or credit. H.R. 2 will 
subject some of this pork to line-item veto.
  However, there is a third type of pork which H.R. 2 does not reach 
without my amendment. It is direct spending which is not appropriated 
in advance but, rather, is obligated under contract authority. The most 
common types of contract authority spending are transportation projects 
authorized by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee which are 
not appropriated but, rather, spent directly from the trust funds.
  Most funding under the Federal Aid Highways Program goes out to the 
States by formula based upon total highway miles, transportation tax 
revenues, et cetera. This spending is included in the annual 602(b) 
caps, and the Appropriation Committee limits the total amount which can 
be expended under such contract authority.
  However, the Transportation Committee also earmarks certain 
demonstration projects. Demonstration projects are not subject to 
appropriations limitations but are subject to the 
 [[Page H1226]] spending caps. Therefore, and this is critical, any 
dollar spent on a demonstration project is a dollar which cannot be 
given to the States under the general formula law. Demonstration 
projects are priorities set by Washington, DC, while projects funded 
under the general formula are priorities set by State and local 
governments.
  In a ``Dear Colleague'' letter opposing my amendment, last Friday it 
was suggested that contract authority is spent from trust funds and 
does not contribute to the deficit. Therefore, it should not be subject 
to the line-item veto. I would suggest this is ridiculous.
  Should we be any less concerned over wasteful spending from the trust 
funds than we are wasteful spending from the general Treasury? Cutting 
wasteful spending could result in better spending or reducing taxes.
  H.R. 2 was designed for precisely this sort of spending. There were 
hundreds of demonstration projects in the 1991 ISTEA bill which totaled 
over $6 billion. Here is what President Bush said about it:

       The authorization levels in the bill are excessive. H.R. 
     3566 earmarks $1.2 billion for 27 projects on 20 priority 
     corridors and $3.8 billion for 460 other highway 
     demonstration projects which could ultimately cost over $23 
     billion. Many of them are not the highest State priorities 
     and would not survive the normal process of selection on 
     their merits. More than three-quarters of the mass transit 
     new start projects earmarked by the bill either failed to 
     meet basic cost-effectiveness criteria or lack sufficient 
     information for meaningful evaluation.

  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], known for his work on the 
pork busters coalition, said,

       I cannot support this version of reauthorization, because 
     it contains 455 highway demonstration projects totaling $5 
     billion. These projects are given contractual authority for 
     the next six years creating what amounts to a pork 
     entitlement program. Secretary of Transportation Samuel 
     Skinner has recommended a veto of the bill because of these 
     demonstration projects.

  The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], said that 
this bill again spends, first, on where it is needed in the parochial 
interest, special interests, in the local interest, what they call 
pork-barrel spending.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich], filed an amendment to H.R. 2 in the Record which would do 
the same thing as my amendment, extend line-item veto to contract 
authority. I am not aware whether or not he will offer his amendment. I 
hope he will. I would support it.
  Of the 1991 ISTEA bill, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] said, 
``This bill includes $4.9 billion in demonstration projects that I feel 
should not be included in this bill.''
  Mr. Chairman, the American people are sick and tired of this place. 
They are sick and tired of perks. They are sick and tired of 
demonstration projects. They are tired of pork, and we have got to 
clean it up.
  The other people that are getting the shaft in this bill are the 
American taxpayers who are sick and tired of pork.
  The gentlemen from Indiana [Mr. Burton] listed project after project 
which he suggested were ridiculous saying, ``The fact of the matter is 
there are 455 pet projects in this bill. Now, not all of them could be 
considered pork-barrel projects, but much of it, much of it is.''
  Mr. Chairman I wish to speak just for a moment about a matter of 
great concern. It is very sensitive and I raise it for only one 
purpose, to demonstrate why this amendment should be adopted.
  I want to share with my colleagues a telephone call which I received 
from a mayor in my district last Friday. The mayor called to question 
my amendment and expressed concern over funding for a highway project 
in the city. The mayor states that the staff of the chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], had let it be known that 
they are looking at transportation projects in my district, and if I 
offered this amendment, there will be retaliation. It was suggested 
that we would neither get any further contract authority nor 
authorization for appropriations for future funding of projects in my 
district.
  The only difference between appropriated spending, which H.R. 2 
covers, and contract authority, which H.R. 2 does not cover, is the 
committee which hands our the pork.
  I understand why members of the Committee on Appropriations would 
oppose line-item veto, and I understand why members of the Committee on 
Transportation would oppose my amendment.
  Contract authority for direct spending which can be given to Members 
to reward proper voting or taken away to punish Members is exactly the 
kind of spending the line-item veto is designed to cover, and I urge 
adoption of my amendment.
  The Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment should be overwhelmingly 
defeated for four reasons. First of all, it is very poorly drafted. 
There are unintended consequences which could flow from this if it were 
to be adopted. This amendment does not simply reach to projects. 
Rather, entire highway programs could be canceled by any President. A 
President could decide to wipe out a rural highway program, not a 
particular project, but an entire program. He could decide to wipe out 
an entire urban funding program, not a specific urban project, but a 
whole urban program. So it is poorly drafted and it should be defeated 
for that reason alone.
  Further, it should be defeated, second, because highway and aviation 
programs already have spending controls. They are among the few 
programs around this place which are deficit proof. In fact, the 
Secretary of the Treasury must certify every year that the money is 
going to be there to pay for the programs or the money cannot be spent. 
That is the second reason why this should be defeated.
  And, third, this amendment should be defeated because it saves no 
money. The law clearly says that the money from those trust funds not 
spent will remain in the trust funds. So the only thing that can be 
done is it can be reallocated by some faceless, nameless bureaucrats or 
it can be left in the trust fund to build up a surplus, and then the 
American people, who paid their gas tax and paid in their airline 
ticket tax, will not get the benefit of those trust funds.
  And, fourth, rather than targeting this kind of a spending program 
which is a pay-as-you-go program, we should be working to have more 
programs like this in the House.
  My good friend mentions projects in his own district and a mayor 
calling him. Well, I am a little surprised. I am told the gentleman has 
five projects which were in ISTEA, and if he is so opposed to projects, 
then I would think that he would not want his community to benefit from 
these projects. If these projects are terrible pork-barrel projects, 
then I think he would step forward and say, ``They should not be in my 
district.''
  So for all of these reasons, we should overwhelmingly defeat this 
amendment.
  And, finally, let me point out that this amendment does not touch any 
of the projects to which the gentleman referred to. It only will touch 
the future, and as I have said before, and I will emphasize again, any 
Member of Congress who comes before our committee with a project, a 
high-priority project for his State or his district, must have a letter 
from the Secretary of Transportation of his State endorsing the 
project.
  These projects must be worthwhile projects, and if they are not, we 
will not permit them to go forward.
  So for all of those reasons, for the protection we have provided and 
for the overwhelming reason that this amendment goes far beyond 
individual projects, for all of those reasons, this amendment should be 
overwhelmingly defeated.
                              {time}  1500

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] has expired.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to ask the gentleman 
a question.
  [[Page H1227]] Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
yield, I would be happy to respond.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman tell me from which 
funding the Bud Shuster Highway in Pennsylvania, which runs parallel 
to----
  Mr. SHUSTER. I am delighted; yes, I will be happy to answer.
  Mr. ORTON. It is my time--which runs parallel to the Pennsylvania 
Turnpike, and runs a four-lane highway through a town of 1,700 people; 
is that from contract authority? Was that from the general formula 
funding that the State determined? Or where did that funding come from?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for an answer?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I presume he is referring to Route 220. 
That came from contract authority as a high-priority project. It has 
been in operation for 5 years, and in the past the old highway 
experienced six fatalities a year, and since that new highway has been 
built, there have been zero fatalities.
  On top of that, 53 businesses have been located, and 4,000 jobs have 
been created. These are the kinds of projects we need in this country; 
more of them, not less of them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 
expired.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this Member, nor other 
Members I know supporting this amendment, do not question whether the 
projects which are funded are valid projects, good safety projects, or 
et cetera. The question is:
  This is authority which a chairman, or a ranking member or members of 
one committee, can choose where to spend this money in their own 
districts or in other districts, and it is not being selected by the 
States. It is not subjects to the same criteria----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 
expired.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah for a variety of reasons.
  First, the amendment includes contract authority within the 
definition of ``discretionary budget authority.'' In a letter to 
Members of the House, Mr. Orton has cited only spending from the 
aviation and highway trust funds as examples of programs his amendment 
would cover. But what other programs might be affected? We really do 
not know what the effect of this amendment might be.
  Second, it is important to note that rescinding aviation or highway 
trust fund dollars does not result in any real savings. Instead, these 
funds would simply languish in the trust funds since, by law, these 
funds which have been collected from the users of our highway and 
aviation systems may not be used for any purpose other than 
transportation. In addition, these programs are deficit-proof since 
outlays are restricted to the amount of receipts taken in. Those 
interested in deficit reduction should look elsewhere in our budget.
  Third, Members should be aware that this amendment does not simply 
affect highway projects--in fact, entire highway programs where funds 
are provided in multi-billion-dollar lump sums and distributed to 
States by formula would be subject to rescission. One of the major 
purposes in establishing the highway trust fund almost 40 years ago, 
was to provided to the States assurances that they could rely with some 
certainty on the level of Federal highway funding which would be 
received over the years. This is essential for administering an 
efficient highway program where each project involves literally years 
of study, planning, design, engineering and construction. If States 
could never be certain which programs might be rescinded at any given 
time in the future--perhaps interstate maintenance or the National 
Highway System Program or others--the effect on State programs would be 
devastating.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the chairman and ranking 
Democrat of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee as well the 
chairman of the Rules Committee are all opposed to this amendment. The 
rest of the membership should be as well, and I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the Orton amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], my 
friend, would not want to misstate the facts. The facts are, when he 
says that a chairman and a ranking member can do this, that is baloney. 
A ranking member and a chairman first must get it through the 
subcommittee, must get it through the full committee; our committee, 61 
members, the largest committee in the House; and then must come to the 
floor, and this Congress must vote in favor of that legislation, or it 
will not pass.
  So, it is very misleading, and I am sure my good friend does not 
intentionally mean to do that, to suggest that two Members can make 
this happen.
  Mr. ORTON. They, however, cannot vote item by item.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed. Just 4 days ago, the House 
Republican leadership effectively killed the Skelton amendment which 
would have exempted major national defense programs from the line-item 
veto. By opposing the Skelton amendment just last Thursday and opposing 
the Orton amendment today, Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership of 
this House and everyone who follows it is saying this: ``It's OK for a 
President to be able to veto strategic missile defense, and the B-2 
bomber, and the F-22, the C-17, the V-22 helicopter. It's OK to veto 
military pay increases. But it's not OK to be able to veto a bridge, or 
a road, or pork-barrel highway projects if you call them demonstration 
projects.''
  The Republican leadership is saying, ``We won't fight to protect 
major defense programs, but we will go the wall to protect pork-barrel 
projects and highways if you just call them demonstration programs.''
  Mr. Chairman, any Member who voted against the Skelton amendment on 
Thursday, an amendment that would have protected national defense, 
should think twice before opposing this amendment today.
  I say to my colleagues, ``If you believe in a strong national 
defense, if you have a military base in your district or defense jobs 
in your district, I wish you good luck in trying to explain to your 
constituents why you voted today to protect bridges and roads but voted 
just last Thursday, 4 days ago, not to protect national defense from 
the line-item veto.''
  Mr. Chairman, I think most Americans will be shocked to find out that 
the Contract of America now says that highway pork is more important 
than national defense. Our motto ``Don't Tread on Me'' has taken on a 
new meaning. It means now a President can veto defense, but cannot veto 
highway pork. For years, for years, my Republican colleagues have 
attacked Democratic pork. Now, less than 30 days into this new session, 
are we seeing the beginning of new Republican pork? It might have a 
different label on it, but it has got the same fat level as the old 
pork, and it surely is just as well going to clog the arteries of our 
taxpayers' pockets.
  When new Republican Members of Congress were elected by saying there 
would be no sacred cows in the Federal budget, surely the American 
people did not think sacred cows would be replaced by sacred pork. As 
one retired Republican Member said not too long ago, to paraphrase, 
``Members, you can't hate pork but keep protecting the bacon.''
  Vote no on pork. Vote ``yes'' on the Orton amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this amendment 
which would threaten our Nation's vital infrastructure programs. Our 
Nation's budget problems are not caused by excessive spending on 
highways, transportation, and airports. These programs, as has been 
stated, are financed through self-supporting trust funds and, by law, 
cannot spend more than they take in. If anything, we should spend more 
on our Nation's infrastructure needs, not less.
  The American people know the dismal state of our highways, subways, 
and bridges. They drive on them every day. Many of our bridges are more 
than 
 [[Page H1228]] 50 years old, and of course some have actually 
collapsed while motorists were driving on them.
  The greatest expansion on our Nation's road network was begun more 
than 40 years ago in one of the greatest demonstrations of Government 
working on behalf of the people and promoting the market and private 
sector through the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's, and delays 
due to our Nation's infrastructure problems cost American businesses 
more than $100 billion a year. We could help the working men and women 
of this country, and we can help our commerce by spending what is 
needed to make sure that our roads, our bridges, our highways, our 
transportation systems, our airports, meet the standards that are 
necessary to make this economy, a free market economy, grow.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, Members, I rise in support of this amendment, 
maybe for reasons different than others. I do it for the sake of 
consistency, not for the sake of pork versus goodness, or whatever else 
may be talked about today. But the reality is the base bill today 
transfers incredible power to the President to modify spending 
decisions by the Congress, and the President, with the support of one-
third of the Congress, can maintain those decisions. When the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] says that a President might be able to 
wipe out a highway program, he is right, but that also applies to a 
whole host of other worthwhile expenditures.
  Why have one covered and the other exempt? I know of no good reasons.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not one----
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. SABO. Let me finish a minute. I am not one who talks about pork. 
I think there is good cause at times for demo projects. I do not 
condemn them. I have been involved with them. Sometimes they are 
contract authority, sometimes they are authorized and appropriated 
money. I have got a couple right now that are partially one, partially 
the other. The authorized part would be subject to line-item veto; the 
contract authority would not. There is absolutely no reason for the 
distinction.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield on that point 
since he mentioned my name?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman because the gentleman is right in 
what he says in terms of the ability of the President with the support 
of one-third of the Congress to wipe out a whole program, but that 
would also include education programs, legal aid, a variety of other 
things.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman used my name.
  The difference is this is out of a trust fund. This is contract 
authority. There can be no deficit spending. That is the distinction 
here, and that is why this amendment should be overwhelmingly defeated.
  Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, all expenditures by the 
Federal Government go into making up what our outlays are each year.
                              {time}  1510

  We have hundreds of trust funds in the Federal budget. If we said 
every one of them was exempt, we would be talking about tiny portions 
of the budget. The reality is that if our judgment is to pass this base 
bill, it should apply to appropriated dollars, it should apply to 
contract authority, frankly it should apply to new or expanded 
entitlement authority, and it should also apply to tax expenditures and 
tax cuts.
  If we really wanted to have a fair bill, it would be in toto. There 
is no reason for the sake of consistency to say that it should apply to 
appropriated dollars which would be going to good programs, maybe bad 
programs, maybe some in between, and the same with the contract 
authority--lots of good programs, some maybe not so good--but what we 
are saying in this bill is we want to subject those kinds of 
expenditures to the scrutiny of the President, who can prevail if one-
third of the House or the Senate will stay with him.
  Mr. Chairman, for consistency's sake, let us have it apply uniformly.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], a member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Orton amendment to the Line-Item 
Veto Act.
  The line-item veto is, as many Members of this House have stated, an 
idea whose time has come. The American people have reached their 
boiling point over unnecessary and wasteful Federal spending; $10 
million here, $20 million there of special interest spending have added 
billions to our national debt over the years. No part of discretionary 
spending should be off-limits to the line-item veto.
  The Orton amendment, however, shoots at the wrong target. 
Discretionary transportation spending is already on the table and will 
be scrutinized under the line-item veto. The President will be able to 
wield his veto knife against special interest transportation spending 
that comes at the expense of veterans, children, the elderly, or other 
important highway projects.
  However, no money would be saved under the Orton proposal. Program 
transportation funding is allocated from money in the highway or 
aviation trust funds, and spending for these purposes is the only 
allowable purpose for these funds. Thus, a Presidential veto of 
contract authority spending would merely send money back to the trust 
funds.
  Rather than sending money back to the Treasury, these contract 
authority funds would continue to collect in the trust fund. Adding the 
Orton amendment to the line-item veto bill would be giving the 
President a deficit-masking tool, not a budget cutting tool.
  This amendment would move us in exactly the wrong direction. I know 
that my colleague from Utah has been an advocate for fiscal 
responsibility in this House, but this amendment is simply off-the-
mark. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Orton amendment and 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to speak in response 
to the gentleman's statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure my friend and colleague would not want to 
misspeak or misrepresent the facts. In fact, discretionary spending for 
transportation programs includes the contract authority spending. It 
does come under the 602(b) allocations. It is all part of discretionary 
spending, only this part would not be subject to the veto. That is the 
difference.
  I would also suggest to the gentleman that under the current language 
of the line-item veto, H.R. 2, any amount which is vetoed by the 
President goes back into the appropriation cycle to be reallocated 
among other programs. Without a deficit reduction trust fund, it does 
not lower the deficit either.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Orton amendment 
for the same reason that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] a 
moment ago did, and that is for the sake of consistency.
  Having been involved in the line-item veto and being opposed to 
giving any President one-third plus one minority override on any of the 
issues, and then working gradually to this point, I come to the 
expedited rescission process in which I am perfectly willing to give 
any President 50 percent plus one line-item veto over any project in 
the 17th District of Texas.
  Having listened to the arguments of the appropriators for years 
opposing either line-item veto or modified rescission for getting into 
the decisions that the appropriators make and then listening to the 
members of the Committee on Ways and Means make the various all-
substantial and very good arguments as to why the President should not 
get involved in tax matters, and now listening to the Public Works 
Committee giving all the very valid reasons why this should not be 
applied 
 [[Page H1229]] to public works, I come to the same basic conclusion, 
and that is why we will be offering our amendments later this afternoon 
to strengthen H.R. 2 to allow the President to go into any bill at any 
time, whether it is contract authority, tax authority, or spending 
authority, and to make an independent judgment as to whether or not 
that project is as good as we might have believed it to be when we came 
to the Public Works Committee and asked in this case for contract 
authority. I am perfectly willing to do that, and if we are going to do 
it for one, I think we should do it for all.
  We have heard the statement made that the trust funds are somehow 
different. They are not different, Mr. Chairman. Trust funds come from 
taxes that are in fact paid by the American people for the purposes for 
which we pay them into the trust fund.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend they are user fees. It 
is not a general tax paid by all Americans, but rather by the traveling 
public who buys a gallon of gasoline or pays a ticket tax. They are 
user fees, and, therefore, they are fundamentally different from other 
taxes.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and say they are not 
fundamentally different because they are user fees, because the users 
have the right to believe those funds are being expended in the most 
efficient way possible. Therefore, the argument we make, I think, is 
extremely valid.
  What we are saying today in H.R. 2, and hopefully as amended, with 
all the amendments added, is that we all agree the basic thrust we want 
to see is that the President of the United States have the right to go 
into appropriation bills, Ways and Means tax bills, and now Public 
Works bills, and if he has a different opinion, then we shall have to 
vote up or down on the floor on those individual projects.
  This is what the argument is about. As I say, in my particular 
feeling, I get nervous about one-third plus one, but I do not get 
nervous about a 50 percent plus one independent judgment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the former chairman and now 
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate our colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] leading the committee on this 
issue, as well as my very fine colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I rise in very, very strong opposition 
to the Orton amendment.
  I think there are two things that bother me about the discussion that 
is going on. One is that there is no recognition whatsoever about the 
user taxes that are being generated right now through a gasoline or a 
ticket tax, and they are treating those dollars the same as general tax 
revenues.
  There is no tax for a V-22, a C-17, or for defense in general, but 
there is a dedicated fund, a highway trust fund or an aviation fund 
that has revenue coming either from a ticket tax on passengers on 
airlines or on the gasoline and diesel tax from the users of the 
highway system.
  There is another thing that is starting to bother me, and that is 
that there is no distinction between a dollar spent for operations and 
a dollar spent on capital items. A dollar spent on capital items is an 
investment that brings back or generates economic growth and other 
kinds of activities.
  Those who have advocated a line-item veto have argued that if we are 
going to get serious about deficit spending, we have to have this 
tool--the line-item veto--to bring spending down.
  This amendment would extend the line-item veto to contract authority 
programs, which is to say the trust fund supported aspects of the 
highway, transit, and airport programs.
  But all this contract authority spending is fully supported by 
dedicated revenues into the trust funds. This is all spending which 
does not contribute one dime to the deficit. These are the ultimate in 
pay-as-you-go programs. This is what we want more of the Federal budget 
to look like.
  Whether you think the line-item veto is a good idea or not with 
respect to most Federal spending, it just makes no sense with regard to 
contract authority. Our contract authority programs already are 
prohibited by law from contributing to the deficit. That's iron-clad 
protection against deficit spending. You might say that with regard to 
the contract authority programs, we already have the balanced budget 
amendment in pace. A line-item veto on contract authority is not needed 
and makes no sense.
  If this amendment were adopted, entire programs could be reduce or 
eliminated, even though they are now entirely pay-as-you-to. The 
programs we are talking about are key to our States, our communities, 
and our businesses. I'm talking about programs like the interstate 
construction program, the interstate maintenance program, the National 
Highway System, the minimum allocation, the congestion mitigation 
program, and a variety of other highway, transit, airport, and safety 
programs, all of which are 100 percent fund supported. Any of these 
programs could be reduced or eliminated in their entirety by the line-
item veto, even though we were already taxing our constituents more 
than enough to fully fund these programs through the trust funds.
  This is ultimately an issue of truth in taxing. When we approved 
these trust fund taxes, and when most of our constituents agreed to 
support these trust fund taxes, it was the promise that these monies 
could and would be spent on needed transportation improvements. That's 
what the trust in trust funds is all about. If we now create a 
situation where the taxes will go on being collected, but the line-item 
veto can be used to block spending those taxes back out as promised, we 
will have fundamentally broken trust with our constituents, and that 
would be profoundly wrong.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revised and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton]. The measure we are 
debating today, the line-item veto, attempts to put some control over 
Federal spending. The line-item veto as drafted in H.R. 2 controls 
appropriation spending. The line-item veto as drafted in H.R. 2 applies 
to targeted tax benefits. The line-item veto as drafted in H.R. 2 does 
not apply to contract authority, that is, Federal trust funds such as 
the Federal highway and airport trust funds.
  Why should the line-item veto apply to appropriations funding and 
funding from the tax fund, but not apply to spending from the Federal 
trust fund? As the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], has already pointed 
out, the highway reauthorization bill, what we call ISTEA, contains 
numerous highway demonstration projects that were nothing but pork-
barrel projects in the districts of powerful Members.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are to have an effective line-item veto, it must 
apply to all forms of Federal spending. Without the Orton amendment, a 
good portion of Federal pork-barrel spending will be off limits. That 
is unfair and unwise and unworkable.
  We need to have this be applicable to all spending here. We need to 
make sure that we are able to scrutinize every bit of Federal spending, 
and the Orton amendment will ensure us we have the opportunity to do 
that.
  We have an obligation, if we are going to pass this line-item veto, 
to make sure it works and works in a fair fashion. I would urge all my 
colleagues, my colleagues on the Democratic side, my colleagues on the 
Republican side, who absolutely know that this is fair and right, You 
have been here before, even your own colleagues have proposed this, and 
it is a fair amendment, and we ought to pass it.

[[Page H1230]]

  Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2, I rise in strong 
support of the line-item veto.
  Since the early 1980's, our national debt has soared. The national 
debt expands by $1 trillion every 4 years. The debt has skyrocketed to 
such an extent that interest payments on the debt are one of the 
largest items in the Federal budget. Something must be done to change 
course.
  Before coming to the floor, I was up in my office watching the debate 
and I have to tell you that I have a hard time understanding what some 
have said about H.R. 2. Many of the opponents of the line-item veto 
have criticized this bill because they believe that it gives too much 
power to the President. Even though I disagree, I can understand this 
argument. But others have said
 that our Nation has survived tougher times than we find ourselves in 
today without having to upset the constitutional balance between the 
executive and the legislative branches. It is this argument that I do 
not understand. Do the Members of this body realize that we have a $4.6 
trillion debt? Do the Members of the body realize that we are getting 
closer and closer to financial insolvency every day? Do the Members of 
this body realize that future generations will have to pay 82 percent 
of their income in taxes because we have left them with this terrible 
debt? From the comments on the floor today I am not sure.

  I firmly believe that if we do not take decisive and dramatic action 
to reduce and eliminate our wasteful spending habits, we will condemn 
our children and grandchildren to pay for our excesses. As a father and 
a grandfather, I can tell you that this would be wrong and unfair.
  For these reasons, I am a strong supporter of a pure line-item veto. 
The current budget process is woefully inadequate in this regard. It is 
true that the President can propose budget rescissions. However, we in 
Congress can thwart the will of the President and allow pork barrel 
spending to be spent by simply ignoring the President's rescission 
requests.
  H.R. 2 will fundamentally change this process by requiring us to 
consider the President's rescissions. But most importantly, H.R. 2 will 
require us to muster a two-thirds vote to restore a spending program 
that the President has targeted for elimination. It is this two-thirds 
requirement that distinguishes H.R. 2 as the true line-item veto.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the line-item veto is a commonsense issue. 
President Clinton supports it. Forty-three State Governors have this 
authority. And most importantly, the American people believe that we 
should give it to the President.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 18 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton amendment. While I do 
not doubt the sincerity of the motives of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Orton], I know firsthand how harmful enactment of this amendment could 
be to a section of the country, southwestern Pennsylvania, struggling 
to overcome the economic upheavals of the 1980's and the early 1990's.
  For the past 25 years, citizens of my southwestern Pennsylvania 
district have struggled to win approval and funding for a road called 
the Mon-Fayette Expressway. Like the playing field in the movie ``Field 
of Dreams,'' they hope if this highway is built, businesses and jobs 
will follow.
udies all around the world have indicated a strong correlation between 
highway and infrastructure development and economic development. I 
served for 15 years as a member of the southwestern Pennsylvania 
Regional Planning Commission, where I served as chairman of the planned 
policy committee which had the responsibility of fulfilling the 
obligations under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the 1991 
  Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.Passage of the Orton 
amendment would allow this President or some other President to reach 
into a bill, and, with the stroke of a pen, wipe out this highway. I do 
not think that is right.
  While I support the concept of the line-item veto, I must say that 
the trust fund programs targeted by the Orton amendment are not part of 
the problem this legislation is trying to solve.
  The highway trust fund that will hopefully be used one day to fund 
the Mon-Fayette Expressway is totally financed, as some of my 
colleagues said earlier, by gasoline taxes, paid by motorists and 
truckers across this country. For every 1 penny, there is $1 billion 
going into that plan. So I ask Members on the Republican side and the 
Democratic side to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], a member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and ranking member on 
the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and 
appreciate his leadership, as well as the leadership of our Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and our ranking member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in opposition to the spending 
amendment. I could perhaps understand the rationale for its 
introduction if its author were a new Member of the majority party. But 
I am rather dumbfounded by the rationale of its current author, 
considering his background and his work in the past with our Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure. The gentleman certainly comes to 
this debate with no clean hands, protest notwithstanding.
  As most of us know, the airport, highway, and transit projects are 
financed through the trust funds supported by users fees, as has been 
repeated during this debate. This is entirely different from last 
week's debate on exempting defense from the line-item veto. Defense has 
no dedicated user financed trust fund.
  Expenditures from these highway trust funds are achieved through 
contract authority contained in authorizing bills under our 
jurisdiction on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Our 
highway and aviation programs are already covered by spending controls. 
I repeat, they are already covered by spending controls. Annually our 
appropriators impose obligation limitations on transportation contract 
authority which in turn controls outlays for these programs.
  Second, rescissions of highway and aviation contract authority will 
not save any money. By law the funds not expended from these trust 
funds remain in the trust fund and may not be used for any other 
purposes. These are dedicated funds, derived from user fees.
                              {time}  1530

  We ought to be putting more trust into these highway trust funds, not 
detracting from the trust in these highway trust funds
  This is about truth in taxing, Mr. Chairman, using the people's money 
for what they believe the money is going toward when they pay that fee 
at the gas pump or buy that airline ticket. It is what they truly 
believe their money is going for, improved airports and security at our 
airports, improved highways.
  This is about truth in taxing, putting trust back into these highway 
trust funds, being honest with the American taxpayer about where his or 
her money is going, not into some black hole in Washington known as 
deficit reduction, for which they may never see any positive results.
  These trust funds are deficit proof. By law, by the Byrd amendment, 
they cannot spend more money than they take in. They should not, 
therefore, be target for deficit reduction.
  Road building in our respective States is a jobs issue as well. When 
we build roads, we provide jobs in both the short term and in the long 
term.
  And finally, enactment of this amendment would cause havoc in our 
transportation programs. State and transportation contractors have no 
assurance that once a project is initiated, the funds necessary for its 
completion would be there. There would be no smooth flow of funds to 
our States to conduct transportation policy and build projects with any 
amount of certitude.
  Who can conduct a transportation and road building project like that? 
And talk about unfunded mandates. If 
 [[Page H1231]] the President vetoes an entire highway safety program 
or the national highway system program, who is going to build these 
projects in the States, these lifelines to many a community? Obviously 
States are going to have to pick up the tab themselves. Talk about 
unfunded mandates.
  This is not the type of way, this is not the manner in which we 
should be conducting transportation policy in this country, especially 
as we look into the 21st century and try to adopt a new and sound 
policy of intermodalism.
  I tell my colleagues that this vote will send an important message, 
not individually, I might add, but collectively, to this body and to 
the world as we begin writing a transportation policy this year.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], a very prominent member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and congratulate him 
on the dignified manner in which he has conducted the debate from his 
position as chairman.
  The Orton amendment strikes at two of the Federal programs that have 
been the most successful, the most universally accepted and which are 
deficit free and do not contribute to deficit and by their very 
constitution and establishment cannot run a deficit and never have and 
never will.
  Contract authority, which is the underlying principle of the aviation 
trust fund, and the highway trust fund were invented in 1956, with the 
establishment of the highway user tax because the founders of the 
interstate highway program realized that we needed a dedicated revenue 
stream, one that States could count upon year after year to build these 
projects that took years to design and engineer and years more to 
construct and to complete. We cannot complete a bridge or a highway 
from one day to the next, from one fiscal year to the next. It takes 
several, years and that is why they established the principle of 
contract authority to make sure that there would be this dedicated 
revenue stream to complete these projects after their initiation. And 
then the same concept was adopted in the 1970's with establishment of 
the aviation trust fund and the airline ticket tax which finances our 
airport improvement program.
  We specifically, in the airport improvement program, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and I worked together on this for years, kept 
individually designated projects out. But that did not stop States from 
designating one project having more significance than another. And the 
same with the highway program. States made choices as to where those 
dedicated revenues are going to go. They make choices of one project 
over another. State legislatures make those decisions. Governors make 
those decisions. We, too, are the people's elected representatives. And 
we have a responsibility to the people that elect us and who pay their 
taxes into the highway trust fund and who expect that dedicated revenue 
stream to operate.
  Now, under this amendment, the president would have the authority to 
abolish the contract authority itself. The money then could not be 
spent on any other purpose. It would not be spent on highways or 
airports. It would just sit there and build up surplus to offset the 
deficit and make the President's program, whichever President that 
happened to be, look better.
  I do not think we want that. I do not think our people sent us here 
to just be a rubber stamp for a President. We are not a rubber stamp 
Congress. We have the responsibility to represent, and that is to 
represent the people who sent us here, to stand for something, and that 
something is a highway trust fund that has built the finest system of 
highways that is the envy of other countries in the world and the 
finest network of airports that is the envy of other countries in the 
world. And we should not undermine it by adopting this provision, I 
hate to dignify it with that term, that would undermine the very 
purpose of building infrastructure, serving the economy of this 
country, serving the needs of transportation and movement of people and 
goods throughout America.
  Defeat the Orton amendment.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to suggest that 
the President, under H.R. 2, could also veto the entire funding for the 
Central Intelligence Agency. I do not know why he would do that, or the 
transportation funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding time to me.
  There is an old country song that goes, ``I was country when country 
wasn't cool.''
  I was for the line-item veto long before being for the line-item veto 
was cool, and those who support the line-item veto, who believe that it 
really ought to work in this country to enforce congressional will 
power, to stop deficit spending, and stop pork-barrel projects, ought 
to be for the line-item veto in its purest form, ought to make sure we 
exempt no discretionary spending that is deficit spending from this 
bill.
  I joined many of my colleagues in voting to make sure we did not 
exempt military spending, defense spending from this bill, and I am 
amazed today that we are debating whether to leave an exemption for 
highway funding in this bill. How can we be consistently for the line-
item veto and all it means for us to enforce the balanced budget and to 
end deficit spending, to stand up, as I did and others did, against 
exempting defense spending from this bill, and then be for exempting 
highways and bridges?
  Well, my colleagues know there is a little log-rolling goes on once 
in a while. I am not saying highways and bridges are not important, any 
more than I thought defense was not pretty important for our country. 
But when we start exempting things that are discretionary spending from 
the line-item veto, designed to stop deficit spending in our country, 
we are on a slippery slope, rather, that I think destroys the whole 
purpose of the line-item veto.
  Those in America who believed in that contract provision are going to 
be sadly surprised when they wake up tomorrow morning and find out we 
adopted a bill that leaves out highway funding as an item for the line-
item veto when we would not leave out defense spending. They are going 
to be sadly surprised that some Members who support the line-item veto 
do not really support it in all its purposes.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I again inquire as to the amount of 
time remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 8 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], a principal, prime cosponsor of this 
legislation and a member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton]. While I 
am sure that gentleman's intentions are of the highest order in 
offering his amendment, this is simply a bad idea which will have dire 
unintended consequences.
  The line-item veto is a tool that allows for the surgical removal of 
wasteful spending items from large spending and tax bills. The whole 
idea behind this device is to save money. However, the gentleman's 
amendment has zero potential to save even one dime.
  Contract authority allows for money to be spent from trust funds. If 
a contract authority item is vetoed out of an authorizing bill, the 
money would go back into the trust fund, where it would simply continue 
to sit. There would be no saving associated with such a move.
  The whole matter of trust funds has become the focus of much 
discussion and debate in the Congress. There is certainly no clear 
consensus on whether and how these funds should be spent down.
  There are two schools of thought. Some would like to see the trust 
funds stockpiled to match the size of our Federal deficit. Others feel 
these funds should be spent on the types of things for which they are 
intended.
  [[Page H1232]] Mr. Chairman, this is neither the time nor the place 
to conduct the next round in this debate. As we work to reduce our 
debt, we also have to make sure our transportation infrastructure is 
modernized through prudent investments.
  Thus, these expenditures are key to future economic growth, and thus 
key to future Government revenues. If Members want to see our debt 
explode, watch as our economy declines, as our transportation 
infrastructure declines, and we are unable to move goods and consumers 
in an effective way.
  Our goal with this legislation, Mr. Chairman, is to save money and to 
reduce the amount of waste that taxpayers have to pay for each year. 
This amendment does absolutely nothing toward that goal, Mr. Chairman. 
I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker], a very valued member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of 
protecting pork in highway infrastructure bills. This is a question of 
protecting the highway fund, paid for by motorists into a trust fund 
which cannot be overspent and which is earmarked for highway and rail 
projects. At last accounting, the highway trust fund had involuntarily 
loaned to the general fund $13 billion for cash flow for that $210 
billion deficit this year.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the line-item veto, bringing 
deficit spending in line, does not exist in the highway trust funds 
which are already in line. Indeed, both the Bush budget debacle of 1990 
and the Clinton tax increase of 1993 robbed the gas taxpayers of over 
an additional $6.5 billion a year, which will not build rail or road 
projects, which was, rather, sent to the Bermuda Triangle known as the 
general fund budget balancing act.
  No more transportation funds to the general fund. Vote no on this 
amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible opposition to the Orton 
amendment to H.R. 2. Although I support efforts to cut excessive 
Federal spending, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah 
could have a devastating effect on our Nation's transportation system.
  The Federal Government supports investment in our Nation's 
infrastructure because it is a critical need beyond the scope of any 
individual State. The aviation and highway trust funds are designed to 
ensure that transportation needs are consistently met throughout the 
country. The trust funds are simply the wrong target for this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, highway and aviation programs are already covered by 
spending controls. Each year, the Appropriations Committee sets 
obligation limitations on transportation contract authority. These 
limitations in turn control outlays from the programs. Contract 
authority, like any funding appropriated by Congress, is simply a piece 
of the pie--not a lifetime supply of pie.
  In addition, rescissions of highway and aviation contract authority 
will not actually save any money. Because of the importance of 
transportation funding, the law clearly establishes that funds from the 
transportation trust funds cannot be used for any other purpose--even 
deficit reduction.
  The transportation trust funds are the wrong target for deficit 
reduction. By law, they cannot spend more than they take in. Rather 
than trying to slash them, we should be looking to the aviation and 
highway trust funds as a model for other programs. Every Federal 
program should pay for itself as these trust funds do and not 
contribute to the deficit.
  Under this amendment, all the aviation and highway grant programs 
could be in jeopardy of rescission by the President. Nearly all high-
way and aviation funds are statutorily provided in multibillion dollar 
blocks of formula distributed funds. The President might only have the 
option of eliminating an entire program in order to reach a particular 
project. Surely we do not wish to advocate that. That would be cutting 
off your nose to spite your face.
  The bottom line is that this amendment is a really bad idea. Its 
impact would be devastating for transportation programs--as well as any 
nontransportation programs which use contract authority. We can cut 
spending and given the President a line-item veto today, but we cannot 
pass this amendment. Although it may be well-intentioned, the impact on 
the Nation's transportation system is intolerable. Vote ``no'' on the 
Orton amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would include under the definition of 
``discretionary budget authority'' in the bill the concept of 
``contract authority.''
  This runs contrary to all existing definitions under the Budget Act 
which clearly distinguishes between discretionary budget authority and 
contract authority.
  This exercise reminds me of a riddle Abraham Lincoln used to pose: If 
you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?
  While many would answer, five, Lincoln responded that the answer is 
still four because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
  By the same token, calling contract authority ``discretionary budget 
authority'' doesn't make it so. Contract authority is the authority 
given to agencies to enter into contracts. It does not obligate the 
money to be spent and therefore does not involve discretionary 
appropriations.
  If we begin to give the President the authority to selectively item 
veto what is in effect enacted, authorization language, we are raising 
serious constitutional questions, and we are going against the grain of 
this bill as it is currently drafted.
  We have already agreed by way of language in the bill and the report 
that we are talking about allowing the President to reduce or eliminate 
dollar amounts in appropriations bills. And we have explicitly adopted 
language to ensure that the President cannot eliminate legislative 
language.
  According to testimony last month of Walter Dellinger, Assistant 
Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of 
Justice, the pending line-item veto bill does not raise constitutional 
questions because, in his words, ``The President would merely be 
authorized to decline to expend certain appropriated funds, not alter 
or repeal an enacted law.''
  To permit the President to sign a law containing contractual 
authority, then turn around and propose to cancel it by way of the 
line-item veto process, goes contrary to the lawmaking process of the 
Constitution.
  In the words of the Department of Justice testimony, it violates the 
``specific textual requirement of Article I, section 7 of the 
Constitution governing the manner in which laws are made'' because it 
``amends a duly enacted law which is inconsistent with Article I, 
section 7.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have already adopted an amendment that provides for 
an expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of this act.
  I would hate to see us jeopardize the constitutionality of the bill 
as it now stands by inserting a clear red flag in the form of 
permitting the President to cancel duly enacted contractual, 
legislative language in a manner other than through the normal 
lawmaking-veto process established by the Constitution.
  I therefore urge rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], a long time sponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, I, too, rise in strong opposition to 
the Orton amendment.
  The amendment blurs the Budget Act's clear distinction between 
mandatory and discretionary funding. Proponents of the measure today 
have said we must be consistent, that we must vote for the line-item 
veto and not have any exceptions. The exceptions that we talk about 
this afternoon, however, make a clear distinction how that money is 
raised.
  This is a trust fund, a dedicated trust fund where residents and 
constituents that I represent do not want to see their money and their 
tax dollars go to Washington and be put in the rest of the black hole 
where their money goes, and never see a return. A dedicated trust fund 
like this gets a bang for their buck. They know it is going to be used 
for highway or aviation programs. That is certain. They know it will 
not be put in with all the rest of the money where those Washington 
tricks are played.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote no on the Orton amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 4 
 [[Page H1233]] minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Orton] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to point out that 
these user fees, as they are being called, just a couple of years ago 
in the President's budget when they raised gas taxes, were ranted and 
railed against as gasoline taxes against the people. Now they are user 
fees.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Orton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear from the start that the issue is 
not whether or not projects being built with contract authority are 
good ones or bad ones. That is beside the point. Some of them are good 
and some of them are bad, no doubt.
  The question simply, to me, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not we are 
going to treat all spending the same when it comes to making spending 
vulnerable to the President's ability to review it. Mr. Chairman, the 
issue is simply why should contract authority be exempt when money 
spent through direct appropriations is not exempt from the President's 
review?
  As the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, I stood 
on this floor last week and offered an amendment which was accepted by 
this committee which enabled the President to review every single 
project approved for fiscal 1995 in the appropriations process.
  I happen to think most of those projects are perfectly defensible. I 
happen to think that most of the projects that are financed by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under contract authority 
are perfectly defensible. However, that is not the question.
  I also think that we can make the same argument with respect to 
deficit reduction on appropriated earmarks that the gentleman has made 
with respect to contract authority. It is alleged that because we do 
not add to the deficit, because this represents trust fund spending, 
therefore, these projects ought to be exempt.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out not a single appropriation earmark 
adds to the deficit, either, because each of the appropriation 
subcommittees comes to the floor within a budget ceiling. They cannot 
exceed it. That means if we provide an earmark, those dollars come from 
other projects that would otherwise be funded.
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, in both cases the issue is not whether 
the spending adds to the deficit. The issue is whether or not, if an 
occasional project is acutely embarrassing, whether the President ought 
to have the right to reach that project or not.
  Mr. Chairman, I say if we are going to require each and every project 
in the appropriations process to be subject to presidential review, 
then we ought to do the same thing for contract authority.
  To me the issue is not whether these projects add to the economy or 
not. I suspect most of them do, just as most of the appropriated 
earmarks do. The issue is not whether or not these projects are useful. 
Most of them probably are.
  The issue is whether or not we are going to exempt one kind of 
spending from presidential review when we are subjecting all other 
kinds to that review. And it seems to me, especially when we recognize 
that in any fiscal year the amount of money being provided under 
contract authority is at least four to five times as large as that 
being provided under appropriations, that we ought not to exempt the 
kind of spending which is four and five times as large as the 
appropriated direct spending which was made subject to this review just 
last week. I would urge a vote for the Orton amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] a member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am probably one of the most fiscally 
conservative Members of this body. I am a strong supporter of the 
legislation before us to provide the President with a line-item veto 
authority. However, quite frankly, I do not think that this particular 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] really 
deserves our support at this point.
  The reason is, first of all, while his intent may be good and sound 
good, the policy, in fact, is bad policy. We could have some serious 
unintended consequences by instituting this legislation.
  Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, the rescission of highway and 
aviation contract authority will not save any money. By law, funds that 
are not expended from these trust funds remain in the trust fund, and 
may not be used for any other purpose, so we are not saving any money 
with adoption of this amendment.
  Therefore, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to also 
oppose it when it come before the House.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] have said it better than I could. 
This is not a question of pork. Any qualified projects will stand the 
scrutiny of the line-item veto and, in fact, will survive. The question 
is, why should we be treating spending under an appropriations bill any 
different than treating spending under a transportation bill? Should we 
be any less concerned about earmarked spending from gas tax trust funds 
than we are from general revenues?
  I would just suggest some quotes from some of my colleagues during 
this debate on H.R. 2. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] 
said that we have rejected the argument about whether to exempt 
spending from the judiciary and said that ``no program rose to this 
level where it should be exempted from consideration.''
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] said, ``And we should not 
exempt anybody.''
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] said, ``If there is belt 
tightening, it is everywhere.''
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] said, ``If we start 
exempting all of these areas, we are going to run into real problems.''
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] said, ``If we are going to 
exempt defense, then it is hypocritical not to exempt child issues. We 
do not need to be exempting any one program from another.''
  Mr. Chairman, the critical point: Money that is vetoed under 
appropriation bills does not reduce the deficit. It goes back and is 
subject to the same 602(b) allocations and is reallocated among other 
appropriated spending. Spending under contract authority which would be 
vetoed would not reduce the deficit. It would go back into the trust 
fund and would therefore be eligible to be spent through the general 
formula funding.
  In ISTEA we funded a little over $100 billion of spending from the 
trust funds under the general formula. We funded about $6 billion in 
demonstration programs. Those demonstration programs, some of them are 
very, very good. Some of them may not be so good.
  If we want to give the President the authority to look into 
appropriation bills, to circle out those items that are embarrassing, 
that are wasteful, that should not be spent, why on Earth should we not 
allow the President to look into contract authority authorized by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to do the same thing? To 
look at those projects, demonstration projects, most of which are good 
and valid projects, but to circle out those items which are 
embarrassing, which should not be spent, which cannot be justified.
  How can we say simply because this money is raised from a gasoline 
tax and is in a trust fund to be spent only for transportation projects 
that we do not have to be concerned about how wisely those 
transportation funds are spent?
  We are not trying to attack the transportation trust fund program or 
to stop funding for transportation programs. What we are saying is the 
President ought to be able to look at how wisely we are spending those 
transportation trust funds, and it is not any 
 [[Page H1234]] less responsible of us to look at appropriations versus 
transportation contract authority.
  I would urge adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] to respond.
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out, it is true I did say that 
if there is belt tightening, it should be shared by all. But I would 
like to point out, H.R. 2 talks about discretionary budget and talks 
about numbers. It does not talk about policy because as so many have 
articulately expressed, we are concerned about shifting the balance of 
power.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield briefly to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] to respond to another matter that was 
raised.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me the 
time.
  My friend from Utah made the allegation that a member of my staff 
called the mayor of Provo, UT, to pressure him to get him to withdraw 
this amendment.
  I have not only talked to my staff, I have just gotten off the phone 
from talking to the office of the mayor of Provo, UT. No one from my 
staff spoke to the mayor of Provo, UT.
  I am sure my good friend in the heat of the moment made an honest 
mistake, but I would simply like the record to reflect that.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me so that I can 
at least answer or respond?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. ORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not make an allegation that they called the mayor 
of Provo, UT. If you will read the Record, it is clear what I said, and 
the information came from various lobbying sources who lobbied this 
city in behalf of a mayor in my district, and the comments were made to 
the lobbyist.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe I am 
also speaking on behalf of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, in opposing this amendment.
  I think one of the things that has been sort of part of this whole 
debate is the suggestion at least that there are many, many projects 
out there that may not be worthy and that the President should be given 
an opportunity to look into those and deal with them in this veto. But 
I think it needs to be pointed out that when we are talking about trust 
funds here, 96 percent of those funds go to the States, directly to the 
States. They are distributed by formula, they are not earmarked, and 
that is the overwhelming amount of the money that is involved in these 
trust funds, come from us to the States. Only about 3 to 4 percent for 
very high-priority projects and ones that have been carefully vetted, 
all of which have been approved by the State departments of 
transportation, are approved by the State DOT's before they are 
approved, before they are funded. I think it is distorting the debate a 
bit to suggest that there are massive numbers of projects the President 
might want to reach.
  The other item I would just respond to is the transportation trust 
funds presently have or have had a cash surplus of $33 billion. One of 
the suggestions the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has 
had over the years is that that has been used to mask, to hide the 
deficit, to make the deficit look better, and to make the general fund 
look better. It has been a smoke-and-mirrors device that has been used 
over the years because the trust funds cannot spend more than they take 
in. I think we do not need to contribute to this problem by providing a 
veto of contract authority.
  Mr. Chairman, rescissions of highway and aviation trust authority are 
not going to save any money. I think that is the bottom line. This is a 
deficit reduction provision. The Orton amendment will do nothing to 
reduce the deficit. I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there is only one good reason to provide line-item veto 
authority to the President--to reduce the deficit. Providing a line-
item veto just for the sake or doing so would be an example of Congress 
cutting off our nose to spite our face. The amendment before us, while 
well-intentioned does exactly that.
  Contract authority comes out of trust funds which are fenced off for 
explicit transportation purposes. If the President were to line-item 
veto a highway project or an airport grant, it would have no impact on 
the deficit. It would merely require that a given amount of money sit 
unused in the trust fund until the next fiscal year.
  Our transportation trust funds represent a user fee to our highway 
and airway travelers. They pay for improvements to the Federal 
transportation infrastructure through taxes levied on fuel and airline 
tickets. The expenditure of this money is the Government fulfilling a 
contract with these travelers. If we instead use this money for deficit 
reduction, we will have turned an ostensible user fee into a tax, 
changing the rules in the middle of the game.
  As an aside, Mr. Chairman, I might point out that the language of the 
bill requires a Presidential finding that his veto of the line item 
would reduce the deficit. Although I am not an expert on this, I would 
wonder how the President could make such a finding when the line-item 
in question was contract authority.
  Mr. Chairman, a line-item veto for contract authority makes no sense. 
It doesn't save any money and it doesn't reduce the deficit. Let's 
defeat the Orton amendment and preserve the integrity of the 
transportation trust funds.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton amendment 
but in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 2.
  As I mentioned on the floor yesterday, I have introduced line-item 
veto legislation almost identical to H.R. 2 on the first day of every 
Congress since I was elected in 1988.
  I think it is fair to say that there are not many Members of this 
House who support giving the President true line-item veto authority 
more strongly than I do.
  But Mr. Chairman, this amendment is aimed very specifically at the 
aviation trust fund and the highway trust fund, which were created with 
the understanding that the money they contained would be used 
exclusively for aviation and highway projects.
  The ultimate goal of this amendment appears to be to get at the money 
in these trust funds so that it can be used for nontransportation 
purposes, which violates the very concept of a trust fund.
  I strongly believe that these funds should be off-budget and should 
be used for the purpose for which they were created, namely to fund 
various airport and highway improvement projects and to strengthen our 
overall transportation system.
  When these trust funds were originally established, it was made clear 
that the money they contained would be set aside for such projects.
  If we are going to turn around and violate that pledge, then we 
should just be honest and stop referring to them as trust funds at all.
  Mr. Chairman, the money that is in these trust funds comes from fees 
that are paid by the users of our Nation's airlines and highways.
  I believe that this money should continue to be used for the types of 
improvement projects that we have promised these users it will be used 
for.
  At a time when use of our airlines is increasing rapidly each year 
and use of our highways is at an all time high and still climbing, it 
does not make sense to make an end run around these funds.
  If this amendment is approved, we will end up hurting our 
transportation system at the very time that we should be doing 
everything we can to make it stronger.
  Mr. Chairman, there is almost no one in this House who is more 
fiscally conservative than I am or who has voted to cut spending more 
often than I have.
  But I must oppose this targeted attack on our aviation and highway 
trust funds and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Orton 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, February 
3, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton] will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?
             [[Page H1235]] amendment offered by ms. waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Waters: The first sentence of 
     paragraph (3) of section 4 is amended by inserting ``or which 
     the President determines would yield at least 20 percent of 
     its benefit to the top 1 percent of income earners'' before 
     the period.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a 
Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is about fairness. I 
am trying to bring a measure of accountability to this process.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know the impression of how law is made in 
Congress. Many people believe special interests have too much influence 
and that the rich are getting their way with too many politicians.
                              {time}  1600

  Unfortunately, this impression is often too close to reality. My 
amendment would give the President the authority to veto any provision 
which gives the lion's share of benefits to the rich.
  Make no mistake about it, my amendment makes this bill stronger. My 
amendment would increase the chance that H.R. 2 would reduce the 
deficit.
  Specifically, my amendment would change the definition of targeted 
tax benefit in the bill to include any tax benefit which would accrue 
more than 50 percent of its benefit to the top 10 percent of income 
earners. As I said, this is only fair and this is common sense.
  Anyone looking at this legislation, or listening to us debate it, may 
concede that a targeted tax benefit should include one that goes mainly 
to the wealthy. This amendment goes to the heart of the legislation. We 
know from the pollsters who have brought us all of this information 
about the Contract With America that a majority of Americans support 
the line-item veto, but the important question is why? The answer is 
because the American people believe that special interests and 
corporate America exert too much influence on our spending and revenue 
decisions.
  My amendment would merely bring any tax break which 
disproportionately benefits the rich under the provisions of the line-
item veto. It would not prohibit Congress from passing such a tax 
break, it would not require the President to veto such a tax break, it 
would simply give the President, Democrat or Republican, the option of 
striking such a regressive, narrow tax break from a bill.
  My amendment would not change the procedure of the bill in any way. 
The President, through the Office of Management and Budget, would make 
a determination of the beneficiaries of the tax legislation we send 
him. Under my amendment, if it is determined that any tax change would 
severely disproportionately benefit the rich, the President would be 
given the option of vetoing that portion of it.
  The majority of Americans are tired of struggling to make ends meet 
while they see the economic elite get more and more from Government. 
While economic factors in the past 20 years have exacerbated the trend 
toward inequality, tax policy has made matters worse.
  Since 1977, the effective tax rate for the top one-fifth of wage 
earners went from 27.2 to 26.8 percent, a net reduction of $450 in tax 
liability. For the top 5 percent, the effective tax rate has dropped 
from 30.6 to 28.3 percent, which translates into a $5,311 tax cut. 
Finally, the top 1 percent, those earning over $675,000 per year, have 
seen a reduction in their tax rate from 35.5 percent down to 29.3 
percent, the equivalent of nearly $42,000 in net tax reduction.
  Amazingly, in the same time period the after-tax income of the 
families in the top 1 percent of income has increased from 7.3 percent 
of all U.S. earnings to 12.3 percent. This has taken place at the same 
time as the income of the bottom four-fifths has declined. It is no 
wonder that despite the economic recovery, most Americans still feel 
quite insecure and they think the Government is not on their side. 
These trends have caused Americans to distrust Washington. The tax 
policies enacted here in the past 15 years are a direct contributor to 
this mistrust.
  The bill before us, as currently drafted, is just too narrow. The 
targeted tax benefit only includes those tax breaks which affect 100 or 
fewer entities. While I agree that any tax benefit which benefits as
few entities as this certainly qualifies as a targeted tax benefit, a 
broader definition better serves Congress, the President, and most 
  importantly, the American people.Words, symbols, and definitions are 
important when public officials communicate to the people. Any tax 
break in which half the revenue would go to the top 10 percent of 
income earners in this country is a targeted tax benefit. It only makes 
common sense.
  I do not know how many tax breaks would fall into the category I am 
proposing today, but that is not important. What is important is that 
we set a standard. It is important that American taxpayers know that 
any tax provision which benefits the rich, excessively, will be 
carefully--not carelessly--considered by the President and Congress. 
Without my amendment I am afraid we are not doing all that we can to 
protect American taxpayers from special breaks for the wealthy and 
well-connected.
  Let us send a powerful message to the American people today. Let us 
show them that the days of corporate influence, the days where rich 
people can pick the pockets of the Federal Treasury are over. Let us 
make it a little more difficult for the wealthy to get more than their 
fair share.
  In conclusion, I appeal to my colleagues who support the bill before 
us to adopt this amendment. It strengthens the underlying legislation. 
This amendment would help reduce the budget deficit. My amendment could 
save billions in taxpayer money.
  So please, before Members vote, think about the budgetary 
consequences of what I am proposing, and at the time that we do vote I 
am asking my colleagues for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from California because she 
is well known for the efforts that she has exerted over the years to 
bring greater equity, I think, to the Federal Government and deserves 
commendation for that. But I think I was a little surprised by this 
amendment which, in my view, would create some unexpected perhaps, and 
unnecessary tensions where none existed before. I think we have to 
focus on what the very limited provisions in this bill, in H.R. 2, is 
designed to get at.
  We have had in the past, we are all familiar with where there have 
been egregious examples of abuse in allowing certain tax advantages to 
be written into the legislation which benefit a very few, very few fat 
cats, if you will, or others, and this provision is designed to attack 
that very narrow problem. There should not be an effort, I think, in 
this bill to basically determine tax policy, and I think that is what 
the gentlewoman's amendment would do. It would really broaden very 
dramatically the scope of what we are proposing in this bill which is 
very narrowly to focus it, rifle shot it, I guess, instead of a shotgun 
approach to this issue saying yes, the President should be able to 
identify those outrageous examples of tax preferences that are given. 
Whether it is wine makers in California or whoever it might be, this is 
an effort to say the President should have an opportunity to deal with 
those kinds of examples, and eliminate them.
  But to broaden it to the extent that the gentlewoman has, and I 
understand what she is trying to do, but I think she is basically 
giving the President an ability to second-guess Congress on policy 
matters by vetoing out entire 
 [[Page H1236]] tax provisions out of the code. I think that goes 
beyond.
  So I think because the gentlewoman's amendment creates a previously 
unforeseen differential, and that is what is really involved, and 
because it obscures the purpose of H.R. 2, which is to ensure the 
ability to assure everyone pays his fair share, this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message from the President.

                          ____________________