[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10773-H10779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. 4, THE SEPARATE ENROLLMENT AND LINE 
                         ITEM VETO ACT OF 1995

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on 
the Senate bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the President to reduce 
budget authority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Deutsch moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes on the two 
     Houses on the House amendments to the bill S. 4 be 
     instructed, within the scope of the conference, to insist 
     upon the inclusion of provisions to require that the bill 
     apply to the targeted tax benefit provisions of any revenue 
     or reconciliation bill enacted into law during or after 
     fiscal year 1995.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to rule 
XXVIII, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] 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 Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, on February 6 of this year, this House passed by a 294 
vote a line-item veto bill. The Senate subsequently passed the vote as 
well. It took 7 months. We went through the winter, the spring, the 
summer, and then we came into the fall, just about the fall again, and 
September 20, conferees were appointed.
  I think there is a question, really, of the sincerity of conferees 
and appointing conferees when it has taken this long. This is an idea 
which not only has the support or the voting support of the majority of 
the Members of this House, but I really think a clear majority of the 
American people as well; 38 States have line-item vetoes. If we are 
talking about fiscal restraint, this is the way to go.
  What this proposal does, Mr. Speaker, what this motion to instruct 
says is if we are going to have a line-item veto, let us get the job 
done. Let us apply it to 1995 appropriations bills and budget bills.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We are in the midst of a 
prolonged hearing on the reconciliation bill up in the Committee on 
Rules. We have listened to five witnesses over 3\1/2\ hours. We have 65 
more to go. Hopefully, we will be able to bring the Members a bill 
tomorrow.
  Let me just say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], if he 
will pay attention over there, without all the discussion, he mentioned 
or questioned the sincerity of the conferees. Mr. Speaker, I am not 
going to question his sincerity. I do not think we should do that. He 
is a friend of mine, and he is a good Member of this body. But, I just 
have to point out, it is strange that his name appears on the National 
Taxpayers Union list of big spenders, and yet, he is up here talking 
about the sincerity of the conferees on the line-item veto. That 
bothers me a little bit.
  First, let me just say this. The amendment does not do what the 
gentleman claims it does. Neither the House nor the Senate version of 
the line-item veto contained any retroactive provisions dealing with 
targeted tax benefits.
  The House version did contain retroactive language regarding the 
applicability to appropriation measures for fiscal year 1995, but that 
authority was not extended to revenue measures. The gentleman's motion 
calls upon conferees to apply the targeted tax provisions to any 
revenue or any reconciliation measure enacted into law during fiscal 
year 1995. At the same time, the motion urges the conferees to stay 
within the scope of the conference. These instructions are 
inconsistent. We cannot have it both ways.
  If the gentleman had not included the phrase ``within the scope of 
the conference,'' he would have been deliberately instructing the 
conferees to go beyond the scope of the conference, which the gentlemen 
well knows would be a violation of the rules of the House, and subject 
to a point or order.
  Because he did include this phrase, we can only conclude that this 
entire motion is purely politically driven, a poor attempt to try and 
embarrass those Members who happen to support both the line-item veto 
and the landmark balanced budget we will be approving here on this 
floor tomorrow.
  Because the gentleman's motion is inherently contradictory, I urge 
that we accept the motion and can honestly state that we will follow 
the instructions. We will make the line-item veto, as it applies to 
targeted tax benefits, as retroactive as possible within ``his 
amendment,'' the scope of the conference, which, according to the 
gentleman's motion, is not retroactive at all.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, they are important groups and I seek their support. The 
organization that you mention is not one of them.
  Let me also mention that I would like to offer a wager to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], of Florida oranges versus New 
York apples, as the whether this is ultimately adopted into law. In 
front of the world I offer the gentleman that wager. If the gentleman 
is willing to accept it, I would be happy for him to accept it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take the gentleman's 
bet.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to 
instruct offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  The line-item veto was always intended to apply both to 
appropriations 

[[Page H10774]]
and to targeted tax benefits. House conferees have already been 
instructed to make the line-item veto applicable to current and future 
fiscal year appropriations. The motion offered by Mr. Deutsch 
reemphasizes that current and future targeted tax breaks should also be 
covered.
  Some have suggested that after receiving publicity for passing the 
line-item veto, Republican proponents of this legislation wanted to 
deny President Clinton use of the line-item veto against appropriations 
bill and against special interest tax breaks.
  Floor debate earlier this year suggested that the majority wanted to 
move ahead in a bipartisan way and also to encourage cooperation 
between the legislative and executive branches.
  Speaker Gingrich 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 gimmick 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.

  Mr. Speaker, I do not personally support the line-item veto, but if 
it is the answer to the country's spending problems that its proponents 
say it is, then this President should have it now.
  Once Congress cedes the line-item veto to a President, it is unlikely 
ever to get it back. In the future, there will always be Presidents to 
whom the Congress may not want to give line-item veto power, but they 
will not have that choice.
  If the majority truly believes that the head of the executive branch 
deserves this power, then there is no excuse to deny him such power 
now. To deny it is to admit that the bill is merely an exercise in 
political gamesmanship, to be discarded once it has served its purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second instruction that has been brought to 
the floor on the line-item veto. I offered the first dealing with 
applicability of the line-item veto to appropriations, and my motion 
passed by voice vote. Mr. Deutsch's motion also deserves bipartisan 
support. His is especially timely as we prepare to consider the omnibus 
budget reconciliation bill, which contains numerous provisions 
deserving the President's veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for the gentleman's motion.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], a very valued member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for recognizing me and 
for his leadership on this important issue for our country. We on the 
House side agree, I think with what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Deutsch] is trying to do and trying to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, 294 
Members of the House agreed to limit the use of tax benefits to certain 
individuals or special interests, and therefore, we agree with the 
underlying premise of the motion, but no retroactivity language is in 
either the House or Senate versions dealing with tax benefits. Because 
it is outside the scope of the conference, it will be subject to a 
point of order in both the House and the Senate.
  I think the gentleman from Florida and others realize that we still 
have a fight on our hands to get a strong line-item veto in the hands 
of the President. We still have a fight to put together the right 
number of votes to put this over the top. I believe we are moving, and 
the conference committee is moving, toward agreement with the Senate, 
and we are getting close to producing a report that will once and for 
all give the President of the United States a strong line-item veto, as 
I think most of us support.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say, as it regards the sincerity question, as a 
member of the conference committee, I certainly have observed that 
Members of the minority party who are appointed to this conference from 
both the House and the Senate have prefaced their remarks consistently 
with the statement: I am unalterably opposed to a line-item veto. I am 
against a line-item veto. I do not want to give the President a line-
item veto.
  So perhaps, if the conferees from the minority on this conference 
committee could join with us to do the right thing and give the 
President the line-item veto, we could move this process forward.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I 
would point out to my colleague from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] that the 
majority controls the conference committee and there are Members of 
your party and my party that voted against this. The Republican party, 
the day it wants, can pass out of conference without a doubt.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene 
Green].
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague 
from Florida for, one, bringing this motion to instruct to the floor 
and also for yielding myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, when the debate came up not only in our committee, and I 
serve on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I supported 
the line-item veto both in the committee and also on the floor. I 
served 20 years in the legislature where we lived under the line-item 
veto, and I always joked I had the distinction of having line-item veto 
by both Republicans and Democrats when I was in the legislature, so it 
was bipartisan.
  During my campaigns for a couple of years people said, ``Well, we 
need the line-item veto to control Federal spending.'' It is not the 
panacea to control Federal spending. It is just a small weapon in the 
arsenal to do it.
  I guess my concern and the reason I am rising today in support of my 
colleague from Florida is that the line-item veto has a great deal of 
bipartisan support; and it seems amazing, here we are at the end of the 
tenth month of this year and we have not seen it come back to us out of 
conference committee. In fact, again, as my ranking member on the 
committee mentioned, this is the second instruction that we have had.
  We need to see that as part of the Contract With America and one of 
the items I supported to my colleague from Massachusetts, because I 
think it is a good program, it is something that not just future 
Presidents, but this President should do.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember several months ago that this bill was part of 
the Republican's Contract With America. In fact, the majority took 
great pains to pose on former President Reagan's birthday and provided, 
as my colleague Mr. Obey tells us, holy pictures and likes to say and 
show their devotion to the Contract With America.
  Well, I am sorry that President Reagan has not been able to enjoy the 
actual gift that they were going to give to him. The problem is, 
evidently, that maybe they like the idea of line-item veto, but maybe 
not for President Clinton.
  Again, I have had the honor of having items vetoed by both Republican 
and Democrat Governors in Texas and what is good for the goose is good 
for the gander. I would hope that before we stay here too long that we 
will see that come out of the conference committee, a real line-item 
veto that the President can deal with.
  Again, I regret my colleague from New York, Mr. Solomon, our chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, talking about my colleague being listed by 
some lobby group as a big spender. That group that he mentioned, I 
noticed a lot of folks from both parties are on their list. Sometimes I 
wonder if people are more interested in perpetuating their groups than 
they are actually looking at the Federal budget.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I would hope that my Republican colleagues, 
to paraphrase St. Augustine, will remember saying, Lord, I am really 
for the line-item veto, but just not yet.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that some issues are coming out here that are 
rather clear.
  First of all, I think everybody understands that bringing this 
subject up at this point is a fine time to again focus a little 
interest on the line-item veto for those of us who want it and have 
been working very hard to get it. In fact, we have been trying to get 
it out of conference as rapidly as we can.

[[Page H10775]]

  I am delighted to have the opportunity to get up and say publicly to 
the world we are working on this, and we are working on it as rapidly 
and as faithfully as we can, as we promised we would, to the body.
  But it has not been quite as easy as some might imagine. The other 
body, in fact, has some very significant differences of opinion. We 
have had an open conference meeting so far. We have met. It turns out 
that the gap that we predicted was there is, in fact, there.
  The other body has some things called special enrollment procedures, 
some sunset ideas, some things that are very different than what we 
wanted and are working out to get a tough, effective line-item veto 
that works for the great majority here who supported that.
  So I can report back and I am happy to take advantage of this time 
and this motion to say that progress is being made and faithful pursuit 
of the commitment is, in fact, under way.
  Now, without sounding partisan, because I do not think we need any 
more strident, red-not rhetoric and partisanship out here on this issue 
right now, I would point out that it strikes me that the main 
opposition we are getting is from the gentleman who makes the motion, 
his own party in the other body, from some of the more revered and 
senior Members, I would say. Again, I do not want to speak out of 
school about what is going on in conference committee.
  I would also point out that the problem with the motion to instruct 
conferees that we have before us today is self-canceling.
  The gentleman, my friend from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], well knows that 
we have to stay within the scope of the conference. The problem is that 
we have to stick within the scope, and we therefore cannot reach back 
into decisions about tax provisions that occur before the line-item 
veto becomes law. That is not within scope.

  So what the motion to instruct involves is something that is 
impossible to do within the Rules of the House. Consequently, what we 
have is a somewhat meaningless motion in front of us, a meaningless 
resolution in front of us.
  However, I am willing to take that meaninglessness in terms of the 
substance and try and turn it into a self-purpose by saying, I am glad 
we have the opportunity to report back to the gentleman and those who 
care that, indeed, progress is going forward, and I believe we should 
accept this motion in the interests of bipartisan cooperation to 
reinforce that position of the House team in conference that will, in 
fact, accomplish the line-item veto according to what we wanted to be 
in the House at the very earliest opportunity.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I am hearing sort of a repetition of debate. I keep 
hearing being pointed out that there are Democrats opposed to this 
issue. There are also Republicans opposed to this issue, but they have 
been in the majority not that long. Maybe they have not gotten it yet, 
that they, in fact, are in the majority now; and they do not need any 
of our votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I also support the line-item 
veto, and I applaud the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] for moving 
this issue forward.
  The American people want the line-item veto, and they want the line-
item veto because they are concerned about two things: They are 
concerned, on the one hand, about pork barrel spending. They want to 
see an end to pork barrel spending. On the other hand, they also want 
to see an end to special interest tax breaks that are tucked away into 
revenue bills. I think that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] 
does a good job in pointing these two things out.
  The American people also want us to act now. They do not want us to 
go forth with business as usual and say, Well, let us just have one 
more round, one more for the road, one more round of special interest 
tax breaks and pork barrel spending in this year's revenues bills. What 
they want us to do is they want us to act to have it apply to the 
revenue bills and the appropriation bills that are moving through 
Congress right now.
  They do not want the Republicans, who I understand where they are 
coming from. They have been out of power a long time. They have a lot 
of Christmas tree presents that they want to hang, and they want to 
hang them on these bills. But that is not what the election last fall 
was all about. The election last fall was ending that type of practice. 
So I think that the Republicans would be best served if they would just 
acknowledge what everybody in here knows, and that is that the American 
people want this practice to stop and they want this practice to stop 
right now.
  Now, the charges that go back and forth on the floor today from the 
Republicans is that they are saying that the Democrats really are not 
concerned about this, that they are opposed to it. Well, as Mr. Deutsch 
pointed out, there are many of us who support this.

                              {time}  1415

  We frankly are somewhat dubious of the motives of the Republicans 
because we think what they are going to do is they are going to keep 
confereeing and confereeing and confereeing until we get to the middle 
of next year and then pass a measure so President Clinton does not have 
the opportunity to get rid of their pork.
  The best way for us to come together is for the Republicans and the 
Democrats to say, well, let us do it right now. Let us pass this 
measure and let us have this measure apply to appropriation bills right 
now. Then we can all walk away with clean hands. That is what the 
American people want.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman be willing to use his 
articulate argument on some members of his own party in the other body? 
Because in the other body, the gentleman well understands, we only have 
53 of us over there and there is something called filibuster and 
cloture problems.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I would be more than happy to.
  Mr. GOSS. We need members of the gentleman's party to help us.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I would be more than happy to. As I have 
indicated here and as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] has 
indicated, certainly you in the majority have the power in this body to 
move forward. The problem in appointing conferees came from this body. 
That is where the delay was. It was only September 20 that the Speaker 
in this body appointed those conferees. So there was a lot of foot-
dragging, but the foot-dragging was on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. I would admit that it did not go as rapidly as I wanted, 
but in 9 months we got further than your party got in 40 years and I 
think that is a fair comment.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I think the test is going to be when this 
bill reaches the President's desk. If you drag your feet until mid 
September of next year, then you have succeeded in your goal. That is, 
depriving President Clinton of the ability to get rid of your pork-
barrel spending and your special interest tax loopholes.
  Mr. GOSS. If the gentleman will yield further, with your help, that 
will not happen.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as our freshman class came in, we fought 
for the line-item veto. The second class to follow that fought for the 
line-item veto, the 73 Members, and most of them voted for it.
  What I have found in the couple of hundred days that we have been 
here is if we take a look at the delaying tactics, the gridlock tactics 
of the business at hand.
  Let us get through the balanced budget, let us get through the 
Medicare, let us get through the tax back to the people, let us get 
back to welfare reform. Let us take care of the business at hand.
  We have got everything to go before Christmas. Yes, I have bought my 

[[Page H10776]]
  Christmas tree here because I think we are going to be here at 
Christmas.
  When we get through with that business, we will bring up the line-
item veto. But until you quit your delaying tactics on all the 
legislation from your liberal leadership, then we will never get it 
done.
  Looking at every single bill that we have here, they want to continue 
spending. There is always a good reason for it. they want to continue 
more spending.
  Your heart is not in what you are saying. Some of the Members are and 
they fought for line-item veto and I appreciate that. But the overall 
leadership of the Democratic Party does not have their heart in it and 
they will not follow through and the continuing gridlock will not allow 
us to bring it up.
  Help us do that and we will be more than happy to bring it.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am going to point out two things. One to my good friend and 
colleague from Florida, there is a reconciliation bill that we are 
going to take up actually in a very short period of time that is this 
high, or higher. It includes untold numbers of pieces of legislation. 
The gentleman is on the Committee on Rules. He probably does not even 
know how many different bills.
  My colleague still has time. There is another bill you can put in 
reconciliation, which is the line-item veto bill. That in fact deals 
with your issue of the Senate filibuster, because as the gentleman is 
well aware, in the Senate the reconciliation bill needs only 50 votes, 
or 51 votes. Actually 50 votes because that is something that the 
President has supported. I assume the Vice President will follow the 
President's leads on that issue.
  You have put everything else in the reconciliation bill. Here is your 
opportunity to do the right thing.
  I have to respond to my colleague's last statement on the floor. 
Gridlock. My God, when this Chamber has wanted to do something, the 
rules of this House allow you to do things pretty darn fast when you 
want to do them fast, without debate, without any discussion. You get 
it done. We have 1 day hearing, less than a day of hearing on Medicare, 
27 days on Whitewater, 84 days on Ruby Ridge. You guys control the 
time.
  There is an incredible limit in terms of what we can do. You can do 
it today. Here is your opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. 
Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. I voted 
for the line-item veto. I campaigned on it as well as I talked to 
people across the 13th District in Michigan. I believe the line-item 
veto is an effective tool in controlling spending in this House and 
more importantly in reining in the cronyism which tends to permeate the 
whole appropriations process.
  Even in this supposedly reformed Congress, we have seen more than a 
little pork work its way into the budget. I have voted to cut billions 
of dollars, many others have as well, and many others were unsuccessful 
in removing pieces of the budget.
  The question of whether or not people are being sincere in their 
activities since they are now in conference begs the issue of why it 
took so long to send people to conference. I am left to question 
whether or not we are dealing with real values here, real principles, 
or, rather, situational political posturing that says, a line-item veto 
is good for a Republican President but not very good for a Democratic 
President.
  I put aside my partisan differences to vote for this veto because I 
believed it was the right thing to do. I would ask the conferees to do 
exactly the same in order to pass this proposal into law. Our 
constituents sent us here to do a job, not to fight, not to whine, not 
to rely on our party affiliation, but to do a job, and they want this 
veto. Move it now.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I just felt that it is important that we 
understand that we in this body, in the House, are much blessed by 
orderly rules and a wonderful Committee on Rules that makes sure that 
things are properly brought forward.
  I believe the suggestion of my colleague and good friend, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], that we throw this thing into 
some kind of an omnibus reconciliation bill because we have already 
passed it on the floor would make sense from the House side. Indeed it 
might. But we have a problem on the other side. Again, maybe the 
gentleman and some of his colleagues on that side of the aisle can help 
us with somebody over there who has a special rule in the other body, 
where they have a different approach than we do, might be able to 
prevail on them. Because it still takes the necessary number of votes 
to overcome objections and the procedures in the other body.
  This is not where the problem is here. I know the gentleman from 
Florida is not suggesting anything as diabolical as that we have got 
one group in his party here revving this thing up and another group in 
his party stopping it over there. That would be unthinkable.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was a little naive when I came here on the 
evening of February 6 to speak in favor of this line-item veto 
initiative. You see, I labored as a new Member under the misimpression 
that there might be a way for some genuine bipartisan participation to 
do something about the budget deficit, to provide some new tools to get 
a handle on this Nation's financing, and to change business as usual in 
this House.
  So I, along with other Members on the Democratic side of the aisle, 
spoke in favor of the Republican initiative on the line-item veto. We 
have it in Texas. Democrats and Republican Governors alike have used 
the line-item veto and have used it effectively. I was particularly 
impressed with the last speaker on the night of February 6 on this 
issue, the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. This was not a speech 
like so many, one of these gloating speeches about we won and you are 
dumb. No; this was a serious speech in favor of the line-item veto in 
which Speaker Gingrich allowed as how he as a Republican in an act of 
bipartisanship wanted to be sure that President Clinton, a Democrat, 
had the line-item veto power in order to get at pork barrel in this 
budget.
  What happened after all the speeches were said and done? Well, the 
Senate on a bipartisan basis proceeded to act, and they passed the 
measure. By March or April, they had appointed conferees to consider 
the line-item veto. And what happened at this rostrum? Nothing. Nothing 
happened. Nothing happened in March, nothing happened in April, nothing 
happened in May, nothing happened in June, nothing happened in July, 
nothing happened in August, and nothing happened through most of the 
month of September because despite the fine speech that was given here, 
the Speaker did not want to give President Clinton the power to use the 
line-item veto to cut through this pork that has been put in these 
appropriations bills. That is not my opinion alone. Various Republican 
Members of the U.S. Senate have voiced the same concern about the delay 
that has transpired month after month, that it was all talk and no 
action. We saw the very same thing happen here this morning. There is a 
lobby reform bill that the Senate on a bipartisan basis, Republicans 
and Democrats coming together, passed 98 to 0.
  What happens to it over here? It is still sitting there this 
afternoon. It has been sitting there for 3 months. The Speaker will not 
even refer this lobby reform bill to a committee to study it. That is 
not revolutionary, despite all the proclamations that have been made 
here about these great revolutionaries reforming the way the budget is 
handled, reforming the way this House acts, but it is a little 
revolting that we cannot get bipartisanship to resolve these problems.
  I salute the gentleman from Florida for coming here and keeping his 
word. These people may break their word about what they say they are 
willing to do on line-item veto but at least you are providing us 
another opportunity to really come to grips with this problem.

[[Page H10777]]

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], one of the champions of the 
line-item veto and a member of the conference committee.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think those colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
for the most part are very serious about this issue, as we are, have a 
sense of urgency with the state of fiscal affairs in our country and 
think that the line-item veto would work in our system of government 
here at the Federal level like it does in 43 some odd States including 
my State of Massachusetts, the State of Texas and many, many other 
States of the union. But I am hearing some very serious selective 
memory loss problems here on the other side. Because as someone who is 
relatively new to this Chamber, I recall watching the debates years and 
years ago in which President Reagan as early as 1981 asked for the 
line-item veto, and the then majority denied him that line-item veto 
each and every year of his tenure. Then President Bush was elected and 
he asked for the line-item veto, and the then majority denied him the 
line-item veto each and every year. Then President Clinton was elected, 
and he asked for a strong line-item veto, in the first 2 years of his 
tenure, and the then majority denied him, their own President, a strong 
line-item veto.
  The new majority has been in office now for about 10 months. In 
addition to coming forward with the reform of our welfare system, 
reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and a reconciliation package that I think 
will bring us toward a balanced budget, we have also gone to conference 
committee on the line-item veto in 10 short months.
  Let us be serious with the American people. In any comparison of who 
is moving forward quickly on this agenda item, I think the new majority 
here has to get great credit for moving quickly. It is not easy. There 
are Members on both sides of the aisle who are opposed to the line-item 
veto on principled grounds but they have strong reasons for opposing 
it.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
on two points.
  One is there is no Member of this Chamber, no political party in this 
country that has a monopoly on wisdom. I credit my Republican 
colleagues for moving some issues that I supported and I supported in 
the last Congress. In fact, this House passed out a line-item veto in 
this Congress. The House did. The Senate did not in the last Congress.
  Again, this truly is a bipartisan issue. This is what is the right 
thing, 38 States have it, and the thing I think that the American 
people want. But also let me talk about disingenuous, and I think the 
American people to some extent are watching this, they have the ability 
to watch this, this debate going on.
  How disingenuous can someone be to take 7 months to appoint 
conferees? This is not rocket science. This is not building the Taj 
Mahal. This is not building the space shuttle. This is naming five 
people. Just like writing the names. Again, and this is out of a high-
technology office, they probably have computers there and they can 
probably even pull the computers out so it is probably seven key 
strokes.

                              {time}  1430

  To take each month, if they did one keystroke, it is totally 
disingenuous. The smiles and smirks on the other side on this issue 
really are disturbing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to do a little revising and 
extending of some of my own remarks here for just a moment. I was one 
of those that opposed the line item veto for many years because I 
believe giving any President one-third plus one minority override was 
too much power, and I argued that point. I argued it again this year, 
but a little bit differently.
  I came to believe several years ago that line item veto was a good 
thing and a very positive thing. But I still did not want to give a 
President one-third plus one. I wanted to give majority rule. In other 
words, if any President were to go in and veto Charlie Stenholm's 
favorite line item, that is, somebody else's definition of pork, he 
could do so. It would be my charge to get 50 percent plus one of my 
colleagues to agree with me. If the President got 50 percent to agree 
with him, it would go. I argued that this year, and we lost.
  Those who believe true line-item veto, one-third plus one won on the 
floor of the House.
  I have been looking at this and listening to this debate. Tomorrow 
you will get a chance to vote again for line item veto, H.R. 2. I will 
vote for it because I believe now those who have convinced me that 
giving a President one-third plus one is something that is very, very 
important. So I have changed my mind to the degree that I now believe 
it is time to do that, whoever the President is.
  But I find it very interesting in listening to some of the debate 
today saying we cannot do it because of the Senate. The Byrd rule is 60 
votes. At any time two-thirds of the House or the Senate wish to give a 
President line item veto, it may be done. I think it is time to turn up 
the ratchet. I think it is time to turn up the heat bipartisanly and 
say to both bodies, to the conferees, let us agree on what we are going 
to give this President and the next President and let us do it now. Let 
us make it applicable to this year's reconciliation bill, this year's 
tax bill, this year's appropriation bills, because I think it will be 
very helpful to a lot of the other debate going on concerning the 
reconciliation bill and how we are going to get a balanced budget by 
the year 2002, which I totally agree with. So I have been listening 
very, very carefully to all of the debate that is going on and about a 
train wreck and how we can avoid it.
  I think it is extremely important for all of us now, both sides of 
the aisle, people like me that have had reservations about doing a line 
item veto, like some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 
been wanting to do; I have been putting a lot of time and effort into 
the thought processes, and I think now is the time for us to test this 
theory and do it the right way.
  Let us instruct the conferees in the House and send the message to 
the other body. Now is the time for us to do this because it will be 
very constructive to avoiding a train wreck and to getting us to make 
the tough decisions that are going to be required in getting to a 
balanced budget in the year 2002.
  So I encourage my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let 
us look at this issue as it is being portrayed today and support this 
motion.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the reason why I wanted this 
time is because I wanted to point out we have heard repeatedly during 
this debate on the other side the conferees are doing this and they are 
doing that. What I want to ask is when were these meetings held. I am a 
conferee also. I have been to one meeting at which we gave these great 
speeches and nothing more.
  So my question is: When have we had all of these conferences? If so, 
the Democrats have been left out. I would ask that of the committee 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], when have we 
had conference meetings?
  Mr. CLINGER. If the gentlewoman will yield, as the gentlewoman well 
knows, in preparing a conference report, obviously there are staff 
discussions that lead up to member meetings. The staff discussions have 
been going on at a very vigorous rate, very expedited rate. We 
anticipate we will have a members' meetings soon because many of the 
issues in dispute are being resolved. I think we are going to be able 
to move to that.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, my staff tells me they 
have not been invited to any meetings in conference. I would just like 
to say to the chairman that I would very much appreciate it if the 
minority staff are invited to these conference staff meetings on this 
particular issue.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Florida 

[[Page H10778]]
  [Mr. Deutsch] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 18 minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] is entitled to close the 
debate.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize this 
line-item veto is only half of the line-item veto that we were offered 
in the Contract With America. The portion about giving line-item power 
to remove tax loopholes, that went out the door anyway, and now the 
question is whether we get the other half on spending, and I would just 
yield the rest of my time to anyone on the Republican side that can 
explain why it took the Speaker from the spring to September 20 to 
appoint conferees. If there is any explanation other than to thwart 
President Clinton's use of it, I would love to hear it. Clearly, the 
only reason was to thwart President Clinton's use of the line-item veto 
to get at pork barrel.
  If there is any other reason why the Senate appointed conferees in 
March and April, the House had to wait to name those five conferees all 
that time, this would be a good time to explain it.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. I would just throw the question back. We would like to 
know on this side of the aisle, while your party was in control of the 
Congress, why we did not get any opportunity to deal with line-item 
veto.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I think that does answer the question. There is no 
reason that they could offer other than to thwart President Clinton.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
just to say we have had an interesting debate, an interesting 
discussion.
  The other side has had an opportunity to beat their breast and make 
some political points about why we have taken so long to get to 
conference. I think we have to really focus on what is at issue here, 
and that is the gist of what the gentleman proposes in his motion to 
instruct. I am not going to oppose it, because it really has no 
meaning. It really does not have any impact.
  While both the House and Senate bills apply a line-item veto to 
targeted tax benefits, presented after the date of the line-item veto's 
enactment, neither S. 4 or H.R. 2 apply the line-item veto retroactive 
to any tax provisions, and, therefore, tax benefits enacted prior to 
signing H.R. 2 are not within the scope of either bill and remain fully 
outside the scope of the conference.
  Therefore, by the very terms of the gentleman's motion to stay within 
the scope of the conference, that is an impossibility, given the nature 
of the instruction.
  So it is an exercise, obviously, to give the other side an 
opportunity to talk about these things. But the impact of it is 
meaningless. I am not going to oppose it, because it has no impact.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, this body is the greatest 
deliberative body in the world. I mean, I have a thrill every time I 
come into this Chamber, and really thank God that I have the 
opportunity to serve the people of my district and the people of this 
country.
  I think what the people of this country want from us is nothing more 
than taking the high road. That is what they want from us. You know, 
there is an old expression that all of us know: If it walks like a duck 
and sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck and smells like a duck 
and feels like a duck, you know, there is probably a pretty darn good 
chance it is a duck.
  You know, if it sounds like you delaying, if it sounds like you are 
delaying, if it talks like you are delaying, if it smells like you are 
delaying, if it hears like you are delaying, if it feels like you are 
delaying, then you are delaying.
  You can protest as much as you want. But, you know, I just do not 
believe it stands up to the light of day.
  Let me talk about something that has been reported in the press 
today. This is a USA Today article talking about some of the tax breaks 
that are in the reconciliation bill as it is coming before us, things 
like college football coaches, college football coaches. You can read 
it in today's USA Today: College football, not basketball coaches or 
volleyball coaches, but college football coaches get a special tax 
break because they have friends in powerful places. Convenience store 
owners, because of a large company in a particular Member's district, 
get a special tax break, and that is someone from Oklahoma who is able 
to get that into the bill. I mean, this is business as usual. This 
would make Dan Rostenkowski proud.
  Let me just say that, you know, that is what is going on, and that is 
what should not be going on. If my colleagues on the other side want to 
be the majority party into the next century, then shame, shame, shame, 
shame. They should not be doing this.
  The same thing in terms of appropriations. Here is a list that my 
staff prepared for me of really turkeys, I mean outrageous, turkeys, 
that, you know, it seems as if what is going on to pass this 
reconciliation bill is a bidding war. You know, Members come and they 
say, ``This is what I need and buy me off and give it to me.'' Well, 
that is business as usual. That is not what the American people want.

  Again, I say to my colleagues on the other side, the smartest thing 
they can do and the best politically but also from a policy perspective 
is to stop playing the games and pass this bill.
  As has been pointed out before, there are 38 States in this country 
that provide a line-item veto for their Governors, and it has also been 
pointed out, I served 10 years in the State legislature in Florida.
  I served under Republican Governors and served under Democratic 
Governors as well. I tell you the system worked. It worked in Florida. 
I have talked to Members from other States. It has worked there. Not 
only does it give the Governor an opportunity to veto turkeys, 
outrageous things like these outrageous things like this that we are 
going to be voting on that are flat-out wrong. What it does, it 
prevents them from happening. People do not want to be embarrassed by 
highlighting those issues that might be in there.
  You know, it is a very simple debate, as well. The bill needs to 
apply to this year. If there is going to be line-item veto, apply it 
this year. There is no rational policy reason why it should not apply 
to this year, and, you know, we both talk about how we want to get away 
from the partisan politics, and that is not why people sent us here. I 
mean, I represent everyone in my district whether they are registered 
as a Democrat, as a Republican, or Independent or any other party. 
Americans are Americans. They are not Americans by party definition. 
What is good for this country does not just fall on individuals in 
political parties. It is good for this country, and it continues to 
make this country the greatest country in the world and the greatest 
country in the history of the world.
  I really urge my colleagues who have the ability on the other side of 
the aisle to use their majority as it should be used, to do the right 
thing, not to talk on the floor and say one thing but take 7 months to 
appoint conferees, to smirk when we are talking about issues in terms 
of resolving this issue, which just has not been done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would stand to urge my colleagues to support this motion to 
instruct conferees.
  I have been laboring for many years here to bring to pass a line-item 
veto. In concept, there are many ways to accomplish it, whether through 
enhanced rescission, through the line-item veto provisions we 
recommended earlier in the year. How it is accomplished is not as 
important as accomplishing it.
  I believe that there are some concerns about the constitutionality of 
some of these issues, but it is proper to instruct conferees at this 
point.
  Let me just add a word of caution. If all we do is instruct conferees 
and the conferees never really meet and we never really have a 
conference report, 

[[Page H10779]]
we still have not accomplished anything. We have been working now for 
many months to try to push forward the line-item veto concept. I asked 
on five different appropriation bills to include line-item veto. Rules 
would not make it in order.

                              {time}  1445

  We have attempted to have it included and, in fact, there is one 
certain way that all of my colleagues could ensure that line-item veto 
would apply this year, and that is pass the coalition budget 
alternative tomorrow, the budget reconciliation alternative, because we 
have this very provision in the coalition budget reconciliation 
alternative. It would apply line-item veto to the 1996 spending cycle.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman surely is aware that the 
provision included in his bill tomorrow would be subject to some 
provisions in the Senate that probably would see it stricken?
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, the Senate could in fact try to strike it. 
Does that mean that because the other body may try to strike it that we 
do not act? I think we have to continue to act, to push forth what the 
people who elected us and sent us here to do want us to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 381, 
nays 44, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 736]

                               YEAS--381

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--44

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Engel
     Evans
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Klink
     Lewis (CA)
     Martinez
     McDade
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Myers
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bereuter
     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Sisisky
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1506

  Messrs. LEWIS of California, HASTINGS of Florida, MYERS of Indiana, 
TOWNS, KLINK, and CONYERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, ZIMMER, BASS, McDERMOTT, LEWIS of 
Georgia, STARK, and COYNE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________