[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.
____________________