[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 138 (Thursday, September 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8605-H8608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON S. 4, THE SEPARATE ENROLLMENT AND LINE-
                         ITEM VETO ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX, and by 
direction of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the 
Committee on Rules, I offer a privileged motion and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Clinger moves that the House insist on its amendment to 
     the bill S. 4 and agree to a conference with the Senate 
     thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on February 6 of this year the House passed H.R. 2, to 
give the President the line-item veto. The Senate followed suit in 
adopting S. 4, a separate enrollment version of item veto which was 
both considerably weaker than the House language and which posed 
substantial administrative burdens.
  The disparity between our approaches was obvious, and so for the past 
several months Representatives of the House and Senate have been 
meeting informally to sort out the differences between our bills. The 
meetings have helped to identify areas for compromise and have focused 
attention on areas of remaining concern, such as the bills' target tax 
benefit language and en bloc voting provisions.
  Because of these informal and bipartisan discussions, it now appears 
that agreement on the line-item veto is well within reach. House and 
Senate leaders have agreed that a formal conference is now warranted, 
and we are prepared to act. But to progress further and achieve a final 
agreement, the House must agree to a conference. My motion will allow 
us to move forward through a conference to resolve our few remaining 
differences and send to the President the bill he has been seeking--the 
strongest possible line-item veto.
  I urge the motion's adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the privileged motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The motion was agreed to.


                 motion to instruct offered by mr. wise

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Wise moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the House amendments to the bill S. 4 be instructed to 
     insist upon the inclusion of provisions within the scope of 
     conference making the bill applicable to current and 
     subsequent fiscal year appropriation measures.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion on behalf of the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], and the other Democrats on 
the committee. I would hope that it would be noncontroversial.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion does one thing and one thing only. It 
instructs the House conferees to insist upon an agreement giving the 
President line-item veto authority over current fiscal year 
appropriations, not just appropriations that are enacted after the 
enactment of the line-item veto. In other words, if my colleagues 
believe in the line-item veto, that they want it to apply as early as 
possible, that is the purpose of this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, pending that I would just indicate that, as chairman of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, we are pleased to 
accept the motion offered by the minority to instruct. The motion 
simply urges conferees to extend the full effect of the line-item veto 
to the President insofar as the scope of the conference will allow, and 
it is an eminently reasonable suggestion which fulfills the spirit of 
the line-item veto legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, the report from my constituents during the month of 
August was very clear: Get on with the task of balancing the budget and 
downsizing government.
  One tool that is going to be critical in the effort to reduce 
wasteful spending is the line-item veto. I have long supported a line-
item veto for the President and have repeatedly introduced legislation 
to provide for this provision.
  Both Houses have passed a line-item veto and it is time to go to 
conference and get this enacted into law.
  I do not care whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, we 
should give him a line-item veto, and we should do it now.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], 
the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for 
yielding me half of his time. I applaud the chairman for the 
outstanding work that he and his committee have done to bring the line-
item veto bill to this point, along with the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss] and other members of the Committee on Rules who have worked 
so diligently and so long on this very important issue. I agree with 
Chairman Clinger that the gentleman's motion to instruct be accepted.
  However, Mr. Speaker, it must not go unnoticed that we are at an 
historic moment right now, one which some of us have awaited for over 
125 years. I recall 17 years ago when I came here with the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] it was the first bill that I introduced 
in the Congress, and having waited all these years, it is going to be 
so gratifying to see this bill finally become law.
  It is going to mean something to another person that I have such 
great respect for, and that is the man on whose birthday we passed this 
line-item veto back on February 6. His name is Ronald Wilson Reagan, 
one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever known, and, once 
this passes both bodies and is signed into law by the President, no one 
will be happier than that former great President.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow the ranking 
member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], to control the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion does one thing, and one thing only. It 
instructs the House conferees to insist upon an agreement giving the 
President line-item veto authority over current fiscal year 
appropriations, not just appropriations that are enacted after the 
enactment of the line-item veto.
  At the outset, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my 
colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, for his support for my motion. Although we disagree over the 
need to give the President line-item veto authority at all, his 
willingness to give the President this authority over 1996 
appropriations, if applicable, demonstrates his fairness and his 
commitment to the line-item veto as an instrument of fiscal policy.
  In fact, the policy of the House-passed bills is to cover current 
year appropriations, and my motion simply ensures that this will 
continue to be the policy of the House. As a result of the passage of 
the amendment offered 

[[Page H 8606]]
by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the President would have 10 
days after the bill's date of enactment to line-item veto any 
unobligated funds from previously enacted appropriations for the 
current 1995 fiscal year.
  My motion simply updates the intent of this amendment by instructing 
the conferees to make the line-item veto applicable to any current year 
appropriation, which may be fiscal year 1996 by the time the line-item 
veto conference is concluded.
  The Obey amendment, which was adopted on February 3 of this year, 
received support from both sides of the aisle.
  In accepting the amendment for the majority, the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and 
manager of this bill, said ``it is an excellent addition to what we are 
trying to do here, which is to get at those elements of pork, wherever 
they may exist and wherever they exist every year.''
  Some have suggested that after receiving publicity for passing the 
line-item veto, some Republican proponents of this legislation wanted 
to deny President Clinton use of the line-item veto against upcoming 
fiscal year appropriations which they have written.
  Again, the debate from earlier this year makes it clear that this was 
not their stated intent at the time.
  During the floor debate, the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee, and a manager of the bill, made this very clear and forceful 
statement, and I quote:

       Well, here we are. We get a Democratic President, and here 
     is Solomon up here fighting for the same line item veto for 
     that Democratic President. I think this is something that a 
     chief executive in government, regardless of political party, 
     should have, just as 43 Governors of States have it. * * *.

  The gentleman from New York went on to say, ``I guess I have enough 
confidence in any President, regardless of political party, to use this 
new tool selectively and judiciously.''
  In his closing arguments, the Speaker also went out of his way to 
make it very clear that he had no interest in playing partisan politics 
with this issue. This is what the Speaker said at that time:

       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 
     States without regard to party or ideology.

  The record is clear on both points. There was every intention to give 
the President line-item veto authority over current year 
appropriations, including those passed prior to the enactment of this 
bill, and not to deny the President this authority for partisan 
political reasons.
  Mr. Speaker, I personally do not support the line-item veto bill, but 
if it is the answer to the country's spending problems that its 
proponents say it is, then this President should have it to deal with 
appropriations that may soon become law.
  Once Congress cedes the line-item veto authority to a President, it 
is unlikely that it will every get it back. In the future, there will 
always be Presidents to whom the Congress may not want to give the 
line-item veto authority, but they will not have that choice. To deny 
the President line-item veto authority over fiscal year 1996 
appropriations is to admit that the line-item veto is a mistake.
  Today, I ask all proponents of this measure, to demonstrate again 
that their purpose is serious, fiscal reform. Vote for my motion to 
instruct the conferees to insist that the bill continue to apply to 
current appropriations, including, if applicable, those 1996 
appropriations measures that soon will be enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds in order to 
recognize the enormous role that the chairman of the Committee on Rules 
has played in this whole effort. As he said, starting 17 years ago he 
has been in the forefront of the effort to bring to fruition the line-
item veto, and I commend him for his commitment to this goal over these 
many years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], another leader in this effort, who has 
done a superb job and, hopefully, will be a member of the conference 
and bring this thing home.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking action to provide the 
President an important tool necessary to reduce Government spending. As 
we move to go to conference on the line-item veto, we take a major step 
toward eliminating wasteful projects which are often buried in public 
laws without the benefit of public scrutiny.
  On February 6 this House passed H.R. 2 by the overwhelming and 
bipartisan vote of 294 to 134. The Senate unfortunately disregarded 
that version and went on to pass a somewhat cumbersome line-item veto 
which would split larger bills into hundreds of pieces when they went 
to the President's desk.
  Separate enrollment, as the other body calls its version, would 
create many problems, not the least of which would be giving the 
President writer's cramp from signing the thousands of bills Congress 
would be forced to send him.
  The House, on the other hand, produced a strong, workable bill which 
preserves the balance of power between the legislative and executive 
branches while providing the President with more flexibility by 
allowing a reduction of spending items. I am confident that in working 
together with the Senate we can come up with a fine compromise.
  By the end of this fiscal year, the Federal debt is estimated to be 
more than $4.9 trillion. In fact, appropriately on Friday, October 13, 
of this year, the Federal debt will reach the incredible level of $5 
trillion. That means a child born today is immediately saddled with an 
expense of more than $187,000 over their lifetime just to pay the 
interest on their debt. While it will not in and of itself balance the 
budget, the line-item veto will be an important tool the President can 
use as this country moves toward that goal in 2002.
  By moving forward on the line-item veto today, we are poised to 
deliver a long-overdue instrument of fiscal discipline not only to the 
President, but to the entire system of government here in Washington. 
Because we have kept our promise to swiftly maneuver the line-item veto 
through Congress, the days are numbered for wasteful projects rolled 
into omnibus spending bills.
  This is truly an historic day because common sense is finally coming 
to our National Capital. I want to commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for his tremendous leadership on this issue 
as well as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss], and many Members of this Congress on both 
sides of the aisle who think this is a very, very important tool for 
the President to have.

                              {time}  1100

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to 
conference and the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins] to instruct conferees to H.R. 2, the line-item veto 
bill. I am pleased, frankly, that we are finally naming conferees, 
although I am disappointed that it has taken so long. I would like to 
give some credit to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], 
for prodding us to this point in the process.
   Mr. Speaker, 8 months ago, February 6, the House passed H.R. 2; the 
Senate passed its version of the bill on March 23. We did it with great 
fanfare. In fact, the date that was chosen, February 6, was not 
fortuitous; it is the birthday of Ronald Reagan. My friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, said this was one of the proudest days of his 
life. The Republican leadership took particular pride in the fact that 
they were willing to give a Democratic President this substantial 
accession of power.
  The Speaker himself said during the debate:


[[Page H 8607]]

       For those who think that this city always has to break down 
     into partisanship, you have a Republican majority giving to a 
     Democratic President this year without any gimmicks an 
     increased power over spending.

  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], said:

       A few years ago when we started pushing for this 
     legislative line-item veto, there were a few doubting 
     Democrats who said, ``Solomon, it is easy for you to support 
     the line-item veto when your party controls the White House, 
     but we bet you will not be so gung ho when we have a 
     Democratic President.''

  Well, here we are. We get a Democratic President, and here is the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] up here fighting for the same 
line-item veto for that Democratic President.
  So in view of all of the fanfare, what has been the fate of this 
bill? Almost 150 days after the House and Senate have passed it in 
different versions, and significantly different versions, that is part 
of the problem, we are finally getting around to appointing conferees. 
What happened to the gung ho enthusiasm, to the bipartisan spirit? One 
has to wonder whether the Republican leadership is no longer so sure 
that it wants to give these broad powers to a Democratic President. One 
has to wonder whether they are concerned, afraid that this might give 
the President too much leverage during the upcoming budget battle. 
Whatever the reasons may be, I hope we can finally go back to that 
bipartisan spirit, that enthusiasm that was expressed on February 6.
   Mr. Speaker, I still have constitutional questions about this bill. 
As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] knows, every time we 
brought it up, I have been out here with an alternative that I think is 
a more workable alternative that would clearly pass constitutional 
review. However, I finally came around to voting for this, because I 
think it will help restore credibility in the congressional spending 
process if we give the President some additional power to cull out 
wasteful spending and to send it back here for final review.
   Mr. Speaker, the question I am raising today is whether we are going 
to match our rhetoric with action today, and I hope the conferees will 
not just take their appointment, but move quickly to resolve 
differences between the House and Senate bill. I think we have to move 
to the House bill. I think the Senate has come up with an unworkable 
proposal as well as an unconstitutional proposal.
  Let me take just one final moment to urge support for the motion of 
the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and to commend the 
gentlewoman for bringing forward this particular motion. This should 
not be controversial. All they do is make clear that H.R. 2 applies to 
fiscal year 1996 spending bills, even if these bills become law before 
H.R. 2 is finally enacted.
  As a result of the delay in passing H.R. 2, the item veto bill, it 
could be interpreted to exclude fiscal year 1996 spending measures from 
its coverage. It was never the intent of the House, I do not believe 
when we passed the bill, to exclude fiscal year 1996 spending bills. In 
fact, when H.R. 2 was considered by the House, we passed the Obey 
amendment. The Obey amendment gave the President the authority to veto 
items in fiscal year 1995 appropriation bills within 10 days after 
passage of H.R. 2, even if H.R. 2 was enacted.
  So I do not think that the Collins amendment should be controversial. 
If we are true to our intent here, true to our purpose, we will make 
this part of the instruction, and I hope it will come back, the 
conference report itself, will come back with the Collins provisions 
incorporated.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to briefly thank both my former office neighbor, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], who is also a Chicago Bears fan along with me, 
and it looks like they were going to be coming back strong this year, 
and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for quoting my 
previous remarks. Yes, I did back in 1979 support the line-item veto 
for a President called Jimmy Carter, and I supported it later on for a 
President called Ronald Wilson Reagan, and I supported it later on for 
a President called George Bush, and I still support it for a President 
called Bill Clinton, because it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, that he wants us to 
get back on a bipartisan basis. We are doing that right here, because 
we are supporting the motion to instruct offered by the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. We want to make this bipartisan. I 
intend, as one of the conferees, to make sure that we are going to lean 
toward the House-passed bill, because much of what the gentleman from 
South Carolina said is true: There are constitutional problems with the 
Senate version. Plus, from a practical point of view, it is just 
totally unworkable, if we are going to have a real meaningful line-item 
veto that a President can use effectively.
  So I look forward to working with those Members, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Blute], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and others who will be 
conferees to make sure that we get a meaningful line-item veto finally, 
once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], another leader on this issue and 
one of the most fiscally responsible Members of this body, a member of 
the Committee on Rules, who has led the fight for fiscal responsibility 
since the day he set foot on this floor.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise obviously in very strong support of the 
House-passed version of the line-item veto. I would point out that 
taking this up today as we start out the fall session is a promise 
kept. We said we would do it, we are doing it. I certainly commend the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise] for carrying her motion to resolution which we 
agree with, as we have said, to instruct conferees. I think it is a 
useful addition.
  I would point out that by a vote of 294 to 134 in early February, 
this House acted, I think, very decisively to grant line-item veto 
authority to the President. We really are committed to establishing 
this tool to root out unnecessary or wasteful spending where we can 
identify it, and we can, and unfair tax breaks as well, where we can 
identify them. Our colleagues in the other body obviously have come up 
with a markedly different approach to the line-item veto, as we all 
know, their so-called separate enrollment process, and I frankly think 
that is a very cumbersome and complex process, and I do not think it 
can be effective, but we will discuss that in conference. We are going 
to have our work cut out for us over there.
  Preliminary discussions, however, make me a little optimistic that we 
are going to be able to make some progress. I think we are beginning to 
see some wisdom from people on the other side in understanding our 
position on this and why we think it is going to work better.
  I commend particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], as well as the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
for their efforts of really keeping this on the front burner as we have 
gone along, even at a time, frankly, when some thought the differences 
between the House and the other body were going to be too great to 
overcome. We are back at it, and I think that is right where we should 
be.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees reflects a spirit of 
bipartisan cooperation, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
has just reiterated, by urging the conference to move expeditiously so 
that the line-item veto can begin to work as soon as possible on 
appropriations measures. This language restates our commitment to 
implementing the line-item veto expeditiously, as we have promised we 
would do.
  I was down in the district as we all were on this recent break, and I 
can count on two questions coming up any time I get a gathering of more 
than two or three people in my district. One of those questions is 
where is the line-

[[Page H 8608]]
item veto, the other question by them is what about the notch.
  Mr. Speaker, let us today support this motion and get on with our 
work in conference.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding, and I rise frankly just to suggest to my colleagues a word of 
caution that I raised with my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], 17 years ago when we were freshmen, about this matter. I 
agree very strongly with those who are concerned about our deficit and 
the importance of moving toward a balanced budget.
  Having said that, I feel very strongly about local government and 
State running a lot more than the Federal Government, but there are 
reasons to have a Federal Government, including our national defense. 
From time to time in the history of this country we have tended to be 
penny-wise and pound-foolish in that area. As peace looms on the 
horizon, many an administration becomes very cautious about spending 
money in this area. I would rue the day that a President, for example, 
chose to use the line-item veto to strike the B-2, for example, so 
critical to our future ability to project peace in the world. So a word 
of caution, my friends, as we move forward with the streamroller that 
seems to be heading toward either a direct line or a cliff.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
motion, and I compliment the gentlewoman from Illinois for putting 
forth this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that this body get on with the work 
that the American people want us to do, and that is to accomplish the 
line-item veto legislation. When this legislation was first introduced 
in January, and it is a piece of legislation that I have supported both 
in this Congress and in the last Congress, I cautioned my constituents, 
saying that I feared what we would see is we would see quick action in 
the House, perhaps separate action by the Senate, and then there would 
be serious delay in getting the two bodies together, and unfortunately 
that is clearly what has happened up to this point.
  But now it is time for us to get to work. Let us do the work that the 
American people want us to do, let us sit down as conferees, get the 
differences between the two houses ironed out and give the President 
the authority to get rid of pork barrel spending and special interest 
tax breaks.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take just this moment to thank the ranking 
member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the 
chairman, for his assistance in this matter and for the spirit of 
cooperation that he has always dealt with the minority on this 
particular matter. He has done so repeatedly, and he has always been 
there to discuss these very important issues with us.
  I want to also thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules who, I am 
glad to say, is still a very avid fan of the Chicago Bears and, along 
with him, I too hope that we are successful this term.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois, the 
ranking member. We may not always agree, but we are always very civil 
and she has always been very cooperative in accomplishing what needs to 
be accomplished.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out again that this measure did have 
broad bipartisan support when it came before the House in February. I 
am pleased that we come out of this motion today again united, with 
bipartisan support, in moving forward and trying to address the issues 
with the other body.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to 
instruct conferees, which seeks to apply line-item veto legislation to 
all fiscal year 1996 spending bills.
  I am pleased to see House leadership appoint conferees today for H.R. 
2, the line-item veto legislation. This move is long overdue. On 
February 6, the House approved H.R. 2, the line-item veto bill, by the 
overwhelming majority of 294 to 134. Line-item veto was a key component 
of the Contract With America. The Senate passed a line-item veto bill 
in March. However, it is almost 6 months later, and we are finally 
getting around to appointing conferees.
  As a strong supporter of line-item veto, I became increasingly 
distressed this summer to hear statements from leadership that line-
item veto was dead for the year. In an effort to increase pressure to 
revive this bill this year, I attempted to offer an amendment to each 
of the five remaining appropriations bills to apply the provisions of 
H.R. 2 to those individual appropriations bills. My concern was that 
even if we passed line-item veto this year, a delayed agreement would 
mean that over $500 billion in fiscal year 1996 spending would not be 
subject to line-item veto.
  When I was denied the opportunity to offer this amendment, I then 
introduced a House resolution on the last day before recess calling on 
House leadership to appoint conferees. This resolution was cosponsored 
by 66 Members of the House. My resolution also stated the sense of the 
House that we should not send appropriations conference reports to the 
President unless we took steps to apply line-item veto to such 
conference reports.
  The motion to instruct conferees goes to the heart of this issue. The 
motion instructs conferees to insist that line-item veto be applicable 
to any current or subsequent fiscal year appropriations bills--which 
would include all 1996 spending bills. It is my understanding that 
leadership will accept this motion. I applaud this constructive move, 
and again, support the action we are taking today to begin the 
conference process on line-item veto.
  Finally, I would like to acknowledge that finding an agreement 
between the House and Senate will not be an easy chore. While there is 
a clear majority in both the House and Senate in favor of some form of 
line-item veto or enhanced rescission, there are honest disagreements 
over the best form of such legislation.
  However, I have never understood why the potential difficulty of 
reaching agreement should prevent us from even trying. That is why I 
have pushed so hard to begin the process. It is my hope that we can 
move expeditiously to reach an agreement and send a line-item veto bill 
to the President for his signature into law.
  However, the appointment of conferees and the motion to instruct 
still provide no assurance that line-item veto will apply to 1996 
spending bills. Therefore, I reiterate my call to apply line-item veto 
provisions to each spending bill that we send to the President this 
year--and to urge that we make every effort to make sure that every 
dollar of discretionary spending is subject to the fiscal scrutiny of 
Presidential authority to veto individual items of pork barrel or 
unnecessary spending. If we can do so, we can help restore taxpayer 
faith that their tax dollars are spent wisely.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
on the motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  The motion was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Clinger, Solomon, Bunning, Dreier, Blute, 
and Mrs. Collins of Illinois and Mr. Sabo and Mr. Beilenson.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________