[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.
  

                          ____________________