[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1257-H1264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LINE-ITEM VETO
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, in passing the balanced budget amendment by
an overwhelming margin, the House of Representatives took an historic
first step to finally controlling Federal spending. Now, for the second
time in the 104th Congress we have another opportunity to pass a
measure which will give us the tools needed to tackle the huge task of
balancing the budget. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving the
President of the United States the line-item veto that 43 of our
Governors already have.
Passing the line-item veto will better enable Congress and the
executive branch to do what we should have done a long time ago--cut
wasteful spending. The line-item veto will force Congress and the
President to be fiscally responsible and answerable to the American
people.
According to the General Accounting Office [GAO] a presidential line-
item veto could have cut $70.7 billion in needless spending from fiscal
years 1984-89. We need to learn from what has not worked in the past
and pass this bill that will help in the future.
The American people want us to cut unnecessary spending. Let us pass
this measure and continue our journey to a balanced budget.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House
Resolution 2, the Line-Item veto legislation.
I want to be clear about my intentions. I support giving the
President the authority to eliminate wasteful spending. For too long,
Government has spent more than it receives. In addition, projects have
been funded which are not merited. Both Congress and the President have
participated in this exercise.
However, this legislation is not the correct mechanism to reduce
Federal spending. As drafted, House Resolution 2 will disrupt the
balance of power between the legislative and executive branch and
concentrate too much power in the Executive. The President will dictate
the spending priorities to Congress that the founding fathers clearly
placed under the legislative branch.
I am committed to reducing our Federal deficit. However, I am
concerned that this legislation will not actually reduce spending.
Taxpayers should have full disclosure on how this legislation will
work. House Resolution 2 does not require Congress to reduce spending
caps, when it approves spending cuts. In effect, Congress could support
spending cuts, without applying the reductions to the federal deficit.
Today, we considered an amendment offered by Congressmen Stenholm and
Spratt that would have ensured that any generated savings from spending
cuts are applied directly to the deficit. This lock-box requirement is
critical to successful deficit reduction. House Resolution 2 does not
contain such a mechanism.
Another important feature of the Stenholm-Spratt amendment is a
provision that gives the President authority to submit rescissions for
projects within a larger program. If the President disapproves of a
certain project, the President could lower the budget authority for a
certain program without eliminating the entire program. For instance,
the President may wish to eliminate the Lawrence Welk Museum without
eliminating other agriculture programs.
House Resolution 2 is further flawed in that it does not cover all
Federal spending including contract authority for infrastructure, and
special tax breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations.
Finally, I am concerned about the provision in House Resolution 2
that would require a two-thirds vote to overturn the President's
package of rescissions. That concentration of power in the hands of a
minority of the Congress is contrary to our Constitution.
Congress must learn to review Federal spending more carefully each
year. We have the opportunity to vote upon each program during the
appropriations process. I strongly believe that we must exercise our
rights to kill inefficient, wasteful projects.
For all of the reasons outlined above, I cannot support House
Resolution 2 in its present form.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the American people have spoken and we in
return have proposed an aggressive agenda for the 104th Congress. We
made a promise that this new Congress would bring to the floor of the
House a true line-item veto bill. Today, Republicans will again hold
true to our promise in the Contract With America and we will vote on
the line-item veto, H.R. 2.
In the Fifth District of Indiana, whether it be Wabash, Kokomo,
Plymouth, or Crown Point, Hoosier families continue to be concerned
about wasteful Federal spending. They do not want their legacy to their
children to be one of saddling future generations with increasing debt.
They want Congress to pass a line-item veto.
The line-item veto will no longer allow useless projects to be funded
and buried in the budget without accountability. H.R. 2 forces the
President and Congress to be responsible. In essence, it makes Congress
stop its habitual practice of wasteful and excessive spending. This is
an opportunity we cannot let pass.
By giving President Clinton and those who follow him the same tools
for which 43 Governors currently use, we will take a giant step in
restoring fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget process.
We must answer the public's call for a leaner, more efficient, and
less costly effective Federal Government. I support passage of the
line-item veto as a necessary budget reform
[[Page H1258]] tool. We must restore our Nation's fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the
Line-Item Veto Act of 1995. While I am aware of the excitement in the
Congress to do anything perceived as promoting deficit reduction, I am
also mindful of my duty as a Member of Congress to act in the best
interest of the people I represent and in the best interest of the U.S.
Constitution I have sworn to uphold. We cannot and should not, in an
attempt to decrease the deficit or put an end to pork-barrel programs,
shirk our responsibility to act in the best interest of the American
people by disrespecting the founding document of this Nation--the U.S.
Constitution. This shortsighted and rushed legislation will not only
fail to put a dent in the deficit, but will endanger the delicate
balance of power so skillfully and wisely laid down in the U.S.
Constitution.
The bill before us today, the Line-Item Veto Act of 1995, will not
only attempt to curtail unwanted spending, but will also make it more
difficult to pass into law good legislation to which the President
alone may object. Such an abdication of congressional responsibility
will certainly undermine many of our most important efforts to improve
the quality of life for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, the stated purpose of the Line-Item Veto Act is to
provide a statutory item veto for both appropriations and targeted tax
benefits. The bill will permit the President to rummage through
legislation so that he can eliminate whatever he wants to of all or
part of any appropriation item or any targeted tax benefit. Under this
bill, Presidential line-item vetoes would take effect unless both
Houses obtain a two-thirds vote to override the veto.
This legislation to limit Congress' ability to fulfill the will of
the American people warps the constitution to such an extent that the
constitutionality of the Line-Item Veto Act is obviously in question.
While I agree that Congress should continue to make significant strides
to reduce the budget deficit, this proposed measure goes well beyond
the legitimate objective of balancing the budget. In fact, this bill is
specifically designed to inhibit the will of the people by transferring
congressional power to the President that has been granted exclusively
to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, transferring the power of the purse to the President is
clearly contrary to the explicit language in the Constitution. The
Constitution clearly places with the Congress the power to legislate
appropriations bills. The Line-Item Veto Act will transfer a
significant portion of this constitutional power to the President. The
great constitutional significance of the separation of powers cannot be
questioned. In his famous Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)
dissent, Justice Louis D. Brandeis said:
The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the
Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude
the excercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to
avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction
incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among
three departments, to save the people from autocracy. (P.
293).
It is also apparent that the Line-Item Veto Act is also redundant.
Under current law, the Constitution gives the President two
opportunities to provide input into the Federal budget process. The
President's budget is his first
opportunity to express his views regarding funding for particular
programs. Congress may then either accept or reject the President's
recommendations.
The President may also veto any appropriations bill if he does not
agree with the funding provisions contained in it. On several occasions
we have seen Presidents exercise this option in order to prevent
Federal funds from being used for various programs. Congress did not
override these vetoes and the President's will prevailed. Therefore,
granting the President an additional means through the line-item veto
to attack legislation is completely unnecessary and duplicative. The
President already has all of the veto power that is constitutionally
permissible.
Mr. Chairman, I must also stress that reports of the deficit reducing
impact of the line-item veto have been greatly exaggerated. Of the 43
States which have already enacted a line-item veto, there has been,
overall, negligible progress toward State deficit reduction as a result
of this law. A study conducted by the University of Wisconsin examining
the deficit reducing power of the line-item veto revealed that vetoes
produce budget cuts that ranged from .006 to 2.5 percent. Several other
studies also reveal that, contrary to the representations made in the
slick sales packaging of this bill, line-item vetoes are primarily used
as a tool of policymaking and partisan advantage rather than fiscal
restraint.
Such a compromise of authority could result in the undermining of
important legislation and Government programs that a majority of
Congress has deemed necessary for this Nation. Considering the majority
party's historic hostility toward antipoverty programs, it is not a
surprise that they support legislation that would grant the President
greater power to use the line-item veto to act as a tool of
policymaking and political advantage. I fear that the election of a
President hostile to antipoverty and equal opportunity legislation
would initiate an unwarranted and unprecedented line-item veto attack
on aid to families with dependent children, public housing, food
stamps, equal opportunity efforts, and other programs for the
disadvantaged.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is unsurpassed in its compromise of
the balance of powers in our Nation. With very little opportunity for
open hearing, and with limited debate, this measure has been placed
before us. A measure of this kind requires detailed analysis of the
impact it may have on the American people, and the greatest pillar of
the American Republic: The separation of powers--but no such review
has, or will, take place. In the current rush to force this bill
through the House, the will of the American people and the Constitution
I have sworn to uphold will certainly be compromised. I urge my
colleagues to join with me and vote against this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2, the
Line-Item Veto Act, which I have cosponsored in this 104th Congress and
in the six previous Congresses.
With the passage of this legislation, we fulfill our commitment made
in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the first legislative item in our
Contract With America. We completed the first half of this act last
month with the passage of the balanced budget amendment. Tonight we
send the Senate legislation giving current and future Presidents the
line-item veto authority already available to 43 Governors.
The American people have made clear their desire to eliminate
wasteful Federal spending and this powerful tool gives the President a
way to eliminate programs he deems wasteful without having to veto an
entire appropriations bill or other major legislation that may also
contain many important and timely programs.
Under current law, wasteful or questionable projects or programs
often find their way into law because the President cannot afford to
veto the important overall legislation in which they are included.
Today's line-item veto legislation will change that procedure by
allowing the President to single out specific projects and force
Congress to vote on each of them individually. This makes both Congress
and the President more accountable to the American taxpayers for every
dollar in the Federal budget, and injects greater honesty and openness
into the budgetary process, another important goal of the Contract With
America.
More than any other provision of our Contract With America, our
support for this bill indicates Republicans' deep commitment to cut the
budget deficit, balance the Federal budget, and restore fiscal sanity
to the Federal Government.
In the past, Democrat-controlled Congresses not only refused to give
this authority to Republican Presidents, they also failed to give it to
Presidents of their own party. The Republican Contract With America
puts the welfare of the country above partisan differences, and will
not only give future Presidents of any party a greater ability to keep
the size and scope of the Federal Government under control, but this
legislation, when enacted, will give President Clinton a line-item veto
authority the day he signs it into law.
By granting Presidents greater power to control spending, Congress
also places upon them a responsibility to use this tool to cut waste as
demanded by the American taxpayers. The line-item veto creates a bias
in the Federal Government in favor of saving tax dollars, not spending
them. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important
governmental reform to take another step toward getting our Nation's
fiscal house in order.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
legislation that will save taxpayers billions of dollars by eliminating
wasteful and unnecessary spending, namely, H.R. 2, the Line Item Veto
Act of 1995. For too many years Congress has been spending the
taxpayers' money as if there were no tomorrow. Mr. Chairman,
yesterday's tomorrow has become today's reality. We can no longer
pretend that the problem will go away.
The House measured up to the first challenge last week when we passed
a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That was the first
step toward restoring fiscal accountability and responsibility in the
Federal budget. The next step is before us, Mr. Chairman, in the form
of the Line-Item Veto Act, which would give the President the authority
to strike all or part of any appropriation item or any special tax
benefit. Congress would still have the option of disapproving this
action and then overturning a Presidential veto, if necessary.
There has been much publicity in recent years about waste in
government, and there has been a lot of finger-pointing. Actually, most
Americans probably have benefited in
[[Page H1259]] some way, at some time, from some special authorization,
whether in the form of a tax benefit, a special service, or simply a
new bridge in their district. The time has come, though, to review our
budget item by item and make the difficult choices that every family in
America must make when they attempt to balance their budgets and live
within their means each year.
We are talking about tough choices for tough times, Mr. Chairman. The
line-item veto will give the President a check and balance on the
budget process and ultimately will encourage Congress to submit
fiscally responsible budgets. It also will help restore the American
people's confidence and trust in government and help ensure that they
are getting the most value for their tax dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly approve this
legislation and send a message to the Nation that ``the buck stops
here.''
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, by the close of business today, the House
will have taken another great strike toward its commitment to greater
fiscal responsibility.
The House's approval of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act, will ensure
that the budget President Clinton sends to Capitol Hill today, and the
budgets of future Presidents, are no longer considered dead on arrival.
Congress will have to start paying attention to what's in those
budgets.
The Line-Item Veto Act, along with the balanced budget amendment, are
the only measures strong enough to hold Congress accountable for its
spending. The line-item veto is crucial in our efforts to eliminate
wasteful pork in the budget because the President can require the
Congress to justify, with the veto, its spending priorities. Current
rescission powers granted to the President have failed miserably
because the law simply allows Congress to sit on its hands and do
nothing. Forty years of hand sitting has given us an annual deficit of
$200 billion.
Mr. Chairman, 43 of our Nation's Governors have the power to pare
down wasteful pork-barrel spending. Beginning today, we take yet
another step and recognize that Washington should live under the same
discipline that our State governments have exercised for some time.
Support for the line-item veto is bipartisan; 77 percent of Americans
favor it. In the spirit of bipartisanship, the Republican Congress will
give line-item veto authority to our Democratic President. Passage of
the Line-Item Veto Act will give future Presidents--Republicans and
Democrats--the necessary authority to scrutinize every dollar of
discretionary spending.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Line-
Item Veto Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, the Framers of the Constitution set up a
system of three branches of Government because they knew that
concentration of power is dangerous. No matter how much faith we might
have in any individual, or branch of Government, we should remember the
warning of Lord Acton about the corrupting effects of power. That
warning is especially on point today as we consider the line-item veto.
Once again, we are engaged in tampering with the Constitution simply
to comply with an obsession to meet a mindless 100-day goal for
enacting, without careful consideration of the consequences, the
Contract With America.
We should have passed the Wise-Stenholm-Spratt amendment last week.
It provided for expedited rescissions, and represented a
constitutionally acceptable approach to this issue, requiring each
member of Congress to be accountable with a specific vote on any items
a President might find objectionable enough to rescind. Without it,
H.R. 2 is clearly unconstitutional.
Last month we passed a change to the House Rules to require a three-
fifths majority vote to raise tax rates. I argued then that the
Constitution permits no such way to change the basic rules of the
Republic. And we can no more change the basic constitutional
requirement of majority rule by statute than by House rules. So, to the
sponsors of this legislation, I say: If you want to make this kind of
change in how our laws are passed, you must do so through an amendment
to the Constitution.
Article I, section 7, clause 2 states that:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a
Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If
he approve it, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return
it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have
originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
journal and proceed to reconsider it.
The Framers then went on to spell out the two-thirds majority
requirement for overriding the veto.
The language in the Constitution clearly gives Congress the
responsibility for crafting legislation, while the President is limited
to simple approval or disapproval of bills presented to him. Article I,
section 7 refers to the President returning a bill, not pieces of a
bill. Yes, the Constitution allows the President to state his
objections to a bill upon returning it, but the objections merely serve
as guidelines for Congress should it choose to redraft the legislation.
Thus, there's a clear constitutional delineation of responsibilities,
and we are obliged by our oath of office to adhere to it. The
Constitution does not allow the President to approve only those parts
of a bill with which he agrees. We have no legitimate power to pass a
statute to the contrary. The Constitution does not allow the President
to amend a bill by striking a spending level approved by Congress and
substituting another of his own choice. We have no legitimate power to
pass a statute to the contrary.
As the Supreme Court noted in its decision in I.N.S. versus Chadha,
``Explicit and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution prescribed
and define the respective functions of the Congress and of the
Executive in the legislative process.'' The Court continues, ``These
provisions of Article 1 are integral parts of the constitutional design
for the separation of powers.'' The line-item veto proposal in H.R. 2
would impermissibly alter that ``constitutional design for the
separation of powers'' between the executive and legislative branches
by allowing the president singlehandedly to amend legislation which
Congress has already approved.
The Framers were deliberated and precise in dividing legislative
powers. In the Federalist papers, Hamilton and Madison both
expressed the view that the legislature would be the most powerful
branch of Government. Thus, they also recognized the need for some
checks on its powers. So, the Constitution provides for a bicameral
legislature, with each body elected under different terms and
districts. And it affords the President a veto power. Other constraints
are also imposed, such as requirements for origination of certain
legislation in the House.
The President's veto power, as a check on Congress, was recognized to
be a blunt instrument. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 73, the
Framers acknowledged that with the veto power ``the power of preventing
bad laws includes that of preventing good ones.'' It was their sense,
however, that ``the negative would be employed with great caution.''
The line-item veto proposed in H.R. 2, by providing the President
with the authority to veto subsidiary parts of legislation, turns the
framework defined in article I, section 7 on its head. What the
President might decide to eliminate is simply eliminated, unless the
Congress goes through an entire repetition of the article I legislative
process, including a two-thirds vote of both Houses. This would allow
the President and a majority in only one House of Congress to frustrate
the will of the majority--an outcome that flies in the face of the
constitutional principle of majority rule.
Mr. Chairman, this proposal goes too far in fuzzing the separation of
powers set forth in the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to reject it
before it is rejected by the courts.
The problem here isn't just that this measure is unconstitutional.
It's also unwise. Common sense tells us that enactment of the line-item
veto would make the operation of the Federal Government less responsive
to the will of the people.
Consider just one recent example of the sort of havoc a single
individual might wreak if that individual--the President--is given this
additional authority. Some of us here remember that during the 1980's,
President Reagan sent up budgets proposing to end most Federal aid to
education. He wanted to zero out direct student loans. He wanted to
eliminate aid to public libraries. He wanted to end aid for
disadvantaged students at the elementary and secondary level, and
Federal/State vocational rehabilitation programs, and college work
study programs, and funding for the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act. To be fair, he did propose replacing some of these
programs with block grants to the States for ``educational purposes.''
But if he had the line-item veto, it's fair to assume he would have
used it on many or most of these items.
If President Reagan had been able to exercise a line-item veto
like the one in H.R. 2 to kill these education programs, he almost
certainly would have succeeded, even though those programs were
supported by a vast majority of Americans and of their representatives
in Congress.
How could he have prevailed with only minority support? Because under
the bill before us, even if every single Member of the House, and a
large majority of the Senate, voted to pass a joint resolution
disapproving his line-item veto, the President could, and presumably
would, veto that joint resolution. And if just 34 Senators out of the
entire 535 Members of Congress voted to uphold that veto, the veto
would stand. And, by the way, it's possible to have a group of 34
Senators who
[[Page H1260]] represent barely 7 percent of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, that would represent an enormous shift in the
constitutional balance of power. And that should trouble us much more
than any of the problems inherent in our current appropriations
process, in which Presidents have frequently succeeded with the veto of
an entire bill in order to force the excision of an offensive item or
two.
The Framers gave Members of Congress the power of the purse for a
reason. Congressional decision reflect a consensus of the many elected
representatives, not the solitary decision of a single individual.
Members of Congress are closer to the people they represent, and know
better their needs and views. And Members of the House, where all
spending bills originate, are accountable to the electorate every 2
years, making them more immediately accountable to the people than the
President. The tremendous power of setting the budget is diffused among
hundreds of people working together, and responsible to each other. We
should not now cede it to a single individual.
None of this should be taken to mean that we shouldn't find a way to
make it easier to eliminate wasteful programs. For example, I supported
the enhanced rescission bill that was passed by the House in the last
Congress. That bill would have forced Congress to act on every proposed
Presidential rescission, but Congress would have had to act
affirmatively for the rescission to take effect. Unfortunately, the
Senate failed to take action on that legislation. The text of that
enhanced rescission bill was before us again as the Wise-Spratt-
Stenholm substitute to H.R. 2, but unfortunately it failed to pass.
Without the mitigating effect of that substitute, H.R. 2 remains an
unmitigated affront to the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to defeat
it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2,
the Line-Item Veto Act. I firmly believe that we cannot have meaningful
budget reform without the Presidential line-item veto. Regardless who
is President, we need this added check and balance on spending if we
have any hope of getting Federal spending under control.
Most people don't fully understand the importance of the line-item
veto. If it does nothing else, the line-item veto will place the public
spotlight on Federal spending that deserves closer scrutiny.
Under current Federal law, Congress sends the President legislation
containing hundreds of spending items and the President, whoever he or
she may be, has only two options--sign the bill or veto it.
With this act, we are proposing that the President would have a third
option--to choose those individual spending items that are
questionable, and just veto those items, while signing the bill as a
whole.
Congress would be given the power to override the President's veto
with a two-thirds vote.
The line-item veto will force Congress and the President to work more
closely on spending decisions, as the Governors and legislators in 43
of the 50 States do now.
As the chairman of the New Jersey Assembly Appropriations Committee
in Trenton, I worked with Jim Florio, a Democrat, and Christine
Whitman, a Republican, under the line-item veto law, and I can tell you
that I defend the line-item veto for all chief executives, regardless
of party as necessary and desirable.
I don't worry about the transfer of power from the legislative to the
executive branch, because I know that it may end gridlock by forcing
everyone to sit down at the same table and work out our differences. We
have seen the alternative in Washington year after year, and it is not
the best way to run the Government.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a strong line-item
veto proposal.
The debate over the line-item veto is mostly about shining the bright
light of public attention on bad small ideas. Battles in Congress tend
to be fought over big ideas. When Congress and the President clash over
major policy issues, the constitutional authority of the President to
veto legislation serves as a meaningful tool.
President Bush used the veto effectively in headline issues like
most-favored-nation status for China, the gag rule on abortion
counseling, family and medical leave, and campaign finance reform
legislation. Individual Members might agree or disagree with those
vetoes, but we can agree that the veto power served the President well
and functioned as the Founding Fathers envisioned.
The reason we are here today is that the veto power provided the
President is virtually useless to combat small bad ideas. Any of the
individual 13 regular appropriations bills sent to the President each
year is likely to include major spending decisions that are supported
by broad majorities of the American people. Funding for the interstate
highway program, for instance, enjoys broad support.
But the bills are also likely to include special pet projects, sought
by individual Members, that might not have the same national base of
support. Under the current structure, the President has a choice. He
can stop the smaller projects, at the risk of delaying the national
priorities and shutting down entire agencies of Government. Or he can
hold his nose and sign the bill, accepting the crumbs in order to keep
the main program on track.
Those of us who support the line-item veto say the President should
have a third choice. He should be able to weed the garden. He should
have the option of identifying spending or tax items which he considers
wasteful and unjustified and forcing Congress to act specifically on
those items.
The value of line-item veto is in its potential to help restore
confidence in Government. The public perception of Members of Congress
hiding away goodies in spending and tax bills underscores the public's
suspicion and distrust of this institution and their Government. Let's
shine a spotlight on wasteful spending and tax loopholes, and help
restore the confidence of the American people that we're managing their
money wisely.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, enthusiastic support for
H.R. 2, the long overdue line-item veto bill that we are considering
today.
Persistence does pay off.
When I came to Washington, a little over 8 years ago, the first two
pieces of legislation I cosponsored were the balanced budget
amendment--which we finally passed the week before last--and the line-
item veto--which we are going to pass today.
And it's about time.
The balanced budget amendment will give Congress the budgetary
backbone it has always lacked.
And the line-item veto that we pass today will give the President the
scalpel he has always needed to trim out unnecessary spending from
major appropriations bills.
It's time for the Christmas tree to come down. The line-item veto
will do that.
It's time to take the pork out of the barrel. The line-item veto will
do that.
It's time to establish a rational way for the President of the United
States to strip wasteful, special interest or local interest projects
out of omnibus spending bills. The line-item veto will do that.
It is not cure-all. Nobody claims that it is. By itself, it won't
balance the budget.
But this bill will give the President a very valuable tool that will
help him cut Federal spending, weed out Federal waste and root out
Federal boondoggles.
That might not balance the budget--but it will reduce spending and it
will help restore the confidence of the American people that the system
works.
Considering the size of our Nation's national debt, there is simply
no way that we can refuse to take advantage of such a promising tool.
It would be foolhardy to turn back now that we are so close.
There is no magic or voodoo or smoke and mirrors here. We know the
line-item veto works. We have seen it work at the State level. 43
Governors have--and use--the line-item veto authority. It works.
This is not a partisan issue. Presidents of both parties get the same
authority.
It is a good government issue. And I urge my colleagues--of both
parties--to join me in supporting this measure and give the President
of the United States the line-item veto authority.
In November, the American people made it very clear that they want a
leaner, cleaner, smaller Federal Government. The line-item veto will be
a great help in achieving that goal.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the
Line-Item Veto Act.
As a supporter of the line-item veto since the 98th Congress, I
believe that floor consideration of such legislation is long overdue.
While Congress has failed to address its wasteful spending habits, our
annual deficits have routinely exceeded $200 billion. Inaction is no
longer an option.
When our Founding Fathers wrote article I, section 7 of the
Constitution, they provided for the means by which a bill becomes law.
According to section 7, legislation passed by both Houses of Congress
shall be presented to the President for approval. If the President does
not approve of the bill, he may return it to Congress, with his
objections.
I provide this history lesson because some of my colleagues who
oppose H.R. 2 apparently believe that Congress would somehow abdicate
its constitutional obligations to the Executive by enacting a line-item
veto. Clearly, the Executive plays a vital role in the process by which
bills become law. I assure my colleagues that the line-item veto is
completely appropriate, and, in fact, would argue that it has always
been a legitimate prerogative of the Executive.
[[Page H1261]] The line-item veto, while not a panacea to our runaway
national debt, will provide an important check on wasteful pork-barrel
spending. When combined with the balanced budget requirement just
passed by the House, we will finally be able to tilt the effort of the
Federal Government away from the profligate spending habits that have
left us with a $5 trillion debt.
The benefits of a line-item veto have been demonstrated by 43 of the
Nation's Governors who have this prerogative. One study has estimated
that if the executive branch had exercised such fiscal restraint, the
budget deficit for 1995 would be almost $23 billion smaller.
I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Klug) having assumed the chair, Mr. Boehner, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2) to give the
President item veto authority over appropriation acts and targeted tax
benefits in revenue acts, pursuant to House Resolution 55, he reported
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the
amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] be permitted to speak out of
order for 5 minutes and then I be permitted to follow her remarks for 5
minutes out of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
{time} 1830
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot during
this debate about the need to reduce the Federal deficit and to control
Federal spending. However, we have not heard very much about what H.R.
2 the Line-Item Veto Act, will actually do.
This bill does one thing: It makes it possible for a President acting
on his own to change a law after it has been signed. Is there any one
of us who would claim that changing a law is not a legislative
function? Is there any circumstance from the past in which changing a
law has been regarded as an executive function rather than a
legislative function? I think not.
The Constitution, which each of us has sworn to uphold, is very clear
on who has legislative responsibility. Section 1 of Article I of the
Constitution states unequivocally that all legislative powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
Now, let me repeat this for my colleagues. All legislative powers
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
This is critical. The Constitution did not say only some legislative
powers shall be exercised by the Congress. It does not say the Congress
has to share its legislative responsibilities with any other branch.
Perhaps most importantly from the standpoint of this debate, the
Constitution does not give the Congress the power to delegate its
legislative powers to the President or to anyone else.
Under the Constitution, you, my colleagues and I, are solely and
exclusively empowered to make the laws of our land. If we do not vote
as an assembled body to enact a bill, that bill under the Constitution
cannot become law. The Framers gave Congress the exclusive power to
legislate as a check on the power of the President. Once Congress
passes legislation, the Constitution surely does give the President the
power to veto, which he can use if he disagrees with the matter
Congress presents him.
The Framers understood that provisions needed to be made for those
instances in which the Congress, like the President, may abuse its
power or legislate unwisely. The line-item veto authority in H.R. 2 is
very-different than the veto authority the Framers of the Constitution
had in mind. Rather than enabling the President to check abuses by the
Congress, H.R. 2 allows the President to be virtually certain that he
can abuse and infringe on the legislative powers of this body, of the
Congress.
Under this legislation, the President is guaranteed that he can make
his rescission effective as long as he has the support of a mere one-
third plus one of the Members of this House or of the Senate. This
makes it highly unlikely that the Congress will ever disapprove a
Presidential rescission.
The authority of H.R. 2 is so extraordinary that even some proponents
of the line-item veto did not support the bill. For example, Senator
Domenici supports taking the approach that our colleagues, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spratt], advocated in the expedited rescission authority
they proposed to add to H.R. 2. In addition, many of my colleagues
appear to not fully understand the authority H.R. 2 would give the
President that is very different than the authority most Governors
have. They have repeatedly said that 43 Governors have this and
therefore the President ought to have it too.
Well, the fact is that only 10 of the 43 governors have anything like
the authority that the power of H.R. 2 gives to the President. It does
not simply let the President veto a particular line of spending
authority in the appropriation bill as many governors certainly do
have. Instead, as the director of Congressional Budget Office says,
H.R. 2 gives the President ``greater potential power than a
constitutionally approved item veto.''
We have heard time and again during this debate that President
Clinton has asked Congress to give him the strongest possible line-item
veto authority. Of course he wants that. Every President wants that. My
colleagues should know, however, that President Clinton's own Justice
Department thinks H.R. 2 gives the President, any President, Democrat
or Republican, too much power. His own Justice Department says that.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Assistant
Attorney General Dellenger challenged the constitutionality of H.R. 2.
He said it is constitutionally problematic and would appear to
``violate the plain textual provision of Article I, Section 7 of the
Constitution, governing the manner in which Federal laws are to be made
and altered.''
He very clearly states further that the Congress, not the President,
has the responsibility for making and changing Federal laws. That
power, Mr. Speaker, is ours. If we give it away in this legislation, we
will never, ever get it back again.
While it is questionable what effect this legislation might have on
Federal spending, there is absolutely no doubt that this legislation
will give the President power to threaten elimination or cuts in
spending for projects and programs Members of Congress may find
critical. That kind of leverage ensures that future Presidents will be
able to stop any effort to change or alter his line-item veto
authority, once Congress gives it to him.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to think carefully about the vote
they will cast on this legislation. At issue is not just needed cuts in
Federal spending. Instead, our whole structure of government is at
stake. If H.R. 2 becomes law, the President--any President, Democrat or
Republican--would, for the first time, have legislative power that the
Constitution gives exclusively to the Congress.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Klug). The gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Clinger] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, after years of talking about giving the President the
line-item veto, we are on the threshold, the verge, of giving him that
power, a power which 43 governors have had and have not abused, a power
which has been sorely needed to bring some order to our fiscal house.
I want to thank everybody who participated in this debate. I think it
was a very, very open debate. We did this bill again under an open
rule. Everybody who had an amendment to offer
[[Page H1262]] had an opportunity to offer it and to fully discuss it.
I think it was in the best traditions of this House to have an open,
complete debate on all of the issues involved.
I want to particularly thank the staff who was instrumental in
helping us throughout, particularly Monty Tripp on my staff, who did a
superb job, and all who participated in this historic debate.
Mr. SPEAKER, I yield the balance of my time to the Speaker of the
House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend
from Pennsylvania for recognizing me, and I thank the House for the
orderly speed with which we have managed this bill, only 3 days, as
opposed to unfunded mandates. I think we are moving and learning how to
do some of this.
I think of this evening as a very historic evening. We have a
bipartisan majority that is going to vote for the line item veto. For
those who think that this city has to always break down into
partisanship, you have a Republican majority giving to a Democratic
President this year without any gimmicks an increased power over
spending, which we think is an important step for America, and
therefore it is an important step on a bipartisan basis to do it for
the President of the United State without regard to party or ideology.
I think compared to what people all too often expect of this city, this
is the kind of positive effort to work together that is good for
America.
The line-item veto is an idea which has been around a long time.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on it, but, frankly, Jimmy Carter used it when
he was governor of Georgia, and Bill Clinton used it when he was the
governor of Arkansas. Again and again on a bipartisan basis, president
after President has said it is something that would be good for
America, because it would allow the President to cut out some of the
worst of the spending, to set some fiscal discipline, and to indicate
where the President stood. Yet it is being done in such a way that when
it is totally inappropriate, the Congress can override it and the
Congress can insist on spending if there is a distinct disagreement.
Governor after governor, I think 43 governors have this power. Again
and again they say it does help, it cuts the cost of government, it
does cut spending.
{time} 1840
It is particularly, I think, symbolic to be passing it today. There
are two birthdays today, as many of my colleagues know.
This is President Ronald Reagan's 84th birthday. I think the hearts
of every Member of this body go out, without regard to party or to
ideology, to what President Reagan and Nancy Reagan are going through.
I think all of us have them in our prayers. I think he will appreciate
the symbolism of the scheduling. I particularly commend the majority
leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], for his thoughtfulness in
arranging for this debate and insisting that we do it on this date.
Secondly, this is the 100th anniversary of the birthday of Babe Ruth.
In a sense this is a very symbolic home run for this Congress to hit
out of the park for the people of the United States.
On behalf of the former President, on behalf of the many millions of
Americans who want this to pass, I urge all of my colleagues to vote
yes and help us pass the line-item veto.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klug). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mrs. collins of illinois
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2
to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
the following amendment:
Paragraph (3) of section 4 is amended to read as follows:
(3) The term ``targeted tax benefit'' means any provision
which has the practical effect of providing a benefit in the
form of a different treatment to a particular taxpayer or a
limited class of taxpayers whether or not such provision is
limited by its terms to a particular taxpayer or class of
taxpayers. Such term does not include any benefit provided to
a class of taxpayers distinguished on the basis of general
demographic conditions such as income, number of dependents,
or marital status.
Mr. CLINGER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, under my motion, the line-item
veto authority, originally proposed in the Contract With America would
be adopted. Unlike H.R. 2, the line-item veto authority in my motion
would apply to all tax benefits designed to reduce tax obligations of
persons or classes of persons in order to promote certain types of
activity. Thus, all tax loopholes intended to benefit particular
industries would be subject to line-item veto under my motion.
A very disturbing trend has developed in this debate. The new
Republican majority seems to have two contracts with America; one under
which they protect the tax loopholes of the wealthy; and the other
under which they sacrifice programs for working people on the altar of
deficit reduction.
I think that is wrong, and I think the American people see through
it.
The majority would like us to believe that it is the middle income
tax cut they want to protect; but in reality they are protecting many
special interests that feed daily at the Federal trough of privileged
and preferred treatment. Let me cite on example:
Our Tax Code gives a special tax benefit or credit to drug companies
doing business in Puerto Rico. Twenty-four big drug companies with
receipts exceeding $250 million got a total of $2.6 billion in tax
credits from this provision in 1992. Because a total of 338 companies
get benefits from this provision, the President could not veto it.
The authors of H.R. 2 chose to change the definition that was
contained in the Contract With America. They limited it to a tax
benefit that helped 5 or fewer people. We increased that number to 100.
However, the definition that was in the Contract With America is a
much better definition of a special interest tax break. It is broader.
It focuses on real special interests, and the tax breaks worth millions
of dollars.
It does not apply to tax benefits based upon income, such as an
earned income tax credit. Nor does it apply to tax benefits generally
available, such as deductions for dependents.
When this amendment was offered in 1993 by the then minority leader,
Bob Michel, it passed with unanimous support from the Republican
members, and it passed with support from Democratic members.
There is no reason for the supporters of this bill to rewrite the
contract in order to save special interest tax breaks. I commend
Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Barrett for raising this
amendment earlier in debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, what we see in this highly
politicized Chamber for the last month is Republicans trying to portray
Democrats as big spenders. And Democrats trying to portray Republicans
as guardians of the wealthy and the privileged. What do the American
people want?
The American people want the President of the United States to get
rid of both pork barrel spending and tax loopholes for special
interests.
This language, which is identical to the language of the Contract
With America, does just that. It keeps a promise with the American
people that those Members in this Chamber care about deficit spending
and want to cut deficit spending. Anybody in this
[[Page H1263]] Chamber who is serious about that wants to get rid of
both pork barrel spending and tax loopholes for the rich. This is the
only way to do that.
The new Speaker talked about honoring President Reagan and Babe Ruth.
I think we should hit a home run in honor of Babe Ruth today and do
this bill right and give the President the authority to get rid of
both.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that now that
Members have heard the balance of this debate that they would conclude
that this amendment just makes good sense, and I would say that I would
urge them not to protect the special interests and vote for the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to
recommit. This is an amendment that was debated fully and at great
length in the House this week and earlier in this debate and was
defeated by a vote of 196 noes to 231 ayes.
Basically the argument for this is, of course, that it is going to
enable the President to have a broader approach to getting rid of
unnecessary spending.
It goes so far beyond what the purpose of the language in H.R. 2 is
designed to do, which was to get at those egregious, outlandish,
outrageous special tax privileges for fat cats and others on a limited
basis. It was not intended by this language to give the President the
power to really shape tax policy unilaterally by changing provisions in
the tax laws which he would otherwise be precluded from doing. So it
goes enormously beyond where the President should be permitted to go in
terms of shaping tax policy.
What H.R. 2 does is focus it very directly on those outrageous
examples where we have snuck things into tax bills or into
appropriations bills and should be eliminated. So I would urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to thank the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] and members of the Committee on Rules and
staff who have worked so hard to work closely with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and his committee to bring an open rule and
to conform two bills and bring them together and solve some of the
complexities of the problem of this discussion.
I think it is very important we do that, particularly as we speak to
that issue, just briefly, at this section, because there has been a lot
of confusion about what we are doing.
I think we have improved Mr. Michel's words very clearly by saying
what he meant in the Record in this bill. It is clear what the Record
has said, and I think we have made it clear for everybody. We have read
those words in the Record, and our bill reflects that.
We have debated it, and we voted on it--one amendment.
{time} 1850
However, Mr. Speaker, I have to say there has been confusion. I note
the gentlewoman from New York, as well as the gentlewoman from
Illinois, have both voted against the Michel language when it first
come out, the language they are offering today. Then I notice that they
voted for the Wise substitute last Friday, which in fact had the
version that we are trying to agree on now in H.R. 2.
Then I went back and read the committee report, and I discovered that
this in fact was a positive aye vote by voice in the committee, which I
believe was supported by the Democratic members of the committee when
that vote was taken.
We have gone around all the circles and corners. We have all taken
our sides and positions. What we have finally done is take Mr. Michel's
intent, get it into language we can all understand, and put it into the
bill. Now I think we should go forward and pass it.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, before we vote, I understand what the
gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Goss] said, but the gentlewoman from
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of the committee, has said
that the language proposed now is exactly what was in the Contract.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?
Mr. CLINGER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is correct, and I
would tell the gentleman that I would be the first to say that that
language was inartfully drafted to accomplish what we hope to be able
to accomplish with this language, which is a much more targeted
approach. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we would concede the point that this
language was broader than was intended to reach the goal we are trying
to reach, which was to eliminate those most outrageous tax breaks that
people get.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for those comments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klug). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 241, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No 94]
AYES--185
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--241
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
[[Page H1264]] Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--8
Becerra
Bryant (TN)
Ford
Frost
Jefferson
McDade
Tucker
Watts (OK)
{time} 1906
Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. GONZALEZ, and Mr. COYNE changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klug). The question is on the passage of
the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 294,
noes 134, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 95]
AYES--294
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--134
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--7
Becerra
Bryant (TN)
Frost
Jefferson
McDade
Tucker
Watts (OK)
{time} 1925
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________