[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2972-H2986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3136, CONTRACT WITH AMERICA 
                        ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 391 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 391

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     (except those arising under section 425(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974) to consider in the House 
     the bill (H.R. 3136) to provide for the enactment of the 
     Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996, the Line Item 
     Veto Act, and the Small Business Growth and Fairness Act of 
     1996, and to provide for a permanent increase in the public 
     debt limit. The amendments specified in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the 
     bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and

[[Page H2973]]

     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     (2) a further amendment, if offered by the chairman of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order (except those arising 
     under section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) 
     or demand for division of the question, shall be considered 
     as read, and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit, which may include 
     instructions only if offered by the Minority Leader or his 
     designee.
       Sec. 2. If, before March 30, 1996, the House has received a 
     message informing it that the Senate has adopted the 
     conference report to accompany the bill (S. 4) to grant the 
     power to the President to reduce budget authority, and for 
     other purposes, then--
       (a) in the engrossment of H.R. 3136 the Clerk shall strike 
     title II (unless it has been amended) and redesignate the 
     subsequent titles accordingly; and
       (b) the House shall be considered to have adopted that 
     conference report.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       Page 2, line 9, strike ``one hour'' and all that follows 
     through ``Means'' on line 12, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       ``80 minutes of debate on the bill, as amended, with 60 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means 
     and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight or their designees''.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson]. He is one of the most understanding Members of this body. 
He is going to be leaving us at the end of this year and we are going 
to miss him. We do not always agree, but he is one fine gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 391 provides for consideration of the 
bill H.R. 3136, the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996. That 
is important. This bill contains the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act 
of 1996. It contains the Line-Item Veto Act, the Small Business Growth 
and Fairness Act of 1996, and a permanent increase in the public debt 
limit.
  Believe me, if it were not for these other issues I just read off, I 
would not be standing up here supporting the increase in the debt limit 
for this Government. Not only does this bill represent the completion 
of three major contract promises, but it represents the product of 
bipartisan, bicameral and dual-branch negotiations. Think about that, 
ladies and gentlemen. That is cooperation. The bill before us today 
addresses concerns of both houses of Congress and the Clinton 
administration as well.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in the House of 
H.R. 3136, as modified by the amendments designated in the Committee on 
Rules report on this resolution. The rule provides for the adoption of 
two amendments. The first amendment is to title III of the bill 
relating to regulatory reform, and the second amendment is to title I 
of this bill relating to the Social Security earnings test limit. Both 
amendments address specific concerns of the administration and have 
been included in the bill in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation. It 
is hoped that the final product will meet the concerns of all parties 
involved.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except those arising under section 425(a) of the Budget Act relating to 
unfunded mandates. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, and of course we have just enacted an addendum to that, 
an amendment giving the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and 
his committee an additional 20 minutes, equally divided between the 
chairman and the ranking member.
  The rule further provides for the consideration of an amendment to be 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] or his designee, which 
is debatable for 10 minutes. This further amendment was provided to the 
manager of the bill in order to accommodate any further negotiations 
between Congress and the administration that occurred last night after 
the Committee on Rules reported this bill. It is my understanding now, 
however, that the use of this authority will not be necessary. Upon 
completion of debate, the rule provides for one motion to recommit 
which, if containing instructions, may only be offered by the minority 
leader or his designee.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that if before March 30, 
1996, the House has received a Senate message stating that the Senate 
has adopted the conference report on S. 4, which is the Line-Item Veto 
Act, then following House passage and engrossment of H.R. 3136, the 
Clerk shall be instructed to strike title II unless amended from this 
bill. This title contains the exact text of the conference report of 
Senate bill 4.
  Furthermore, upon the actions of the House, it will be deemed to have 
adopted the conference report on S. 4, which is the line-item veto 
conference report. This final procedure has been included in the rule 
as part of our continuing efforts to expedite the consideration of this 
terribly, terribly important piece of legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, as to the text of H.R. 3136, let me express my strong 
support for these Contract With America measures. Title I, the Senior 
Citizens Right to Work Act of 1996, is crucial legislation which will 
lift the current impediments seniors throughout my district and yours 
and throughout this entire country face as they try to increase their 
income by working in their later years.
  It is the most ridiculous thing when you have paid into Social 
Security with your own money, over all of these years, 30, 40, 50, 60, 
whatever it might be, that money is yours. It is being paid back to you 
from a trust, and yet you are penalized if you earn more than $11,000, 
three to one; you have to give back one dollar for every three you earn 
over $11,000. That is about the most undemocratic thing that I have 
ever seen. This bill is going to correct that.
  It also provides relief that was made in 1994 and is a promise that 
is going to be kept today. Title III, the Small Business Growth and 
Fairness Act of 1996, will provide needed regulatory relief and 
flexibility to millions of small business owners, to farmers and 
families across this country, enabling these job creators, and these 
kind of businesses create 75 percent of every new job in America every 
single year. It allows them to expand employment in the marketplace and 
to grow our Nation's economy and grow jobs for high school students 
graduating and college students, as well.
  Now, while this regulatory reform does not go as far as I would like 
to see it, it still represents a dramatic shift in the direction of 
regulatory relief that was promised in the contract for America. Mr. 
Speaker, this was another promise Republicans made, and this is another 
promise Republicans are going to keep here today.
  Mr. Speaker, title II of the bill represents legislation that is near 
and dear to my personal heart, legislation that I have worked to pass 
for more than 18 years here in this Congress. Title II is the Line-Item 
Veto Act. It represents fundamental budget process reform, and I never 
thought it would happen. After many hearings, three committee markups, 
2 days of floor consideration in the House, 1 week of floor 
consideration in the Senate, and more than a year of debate in a 
committee on conference, a thoroughly researched, extensively debated 
and well drafted bill has finally been produced.

[[Page H2974]]

The conferees, led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman 
Clinger, sitting next to me over here, are to be commended for bringing 
the House such thorough and historic budget process reform and getting 
it through the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, as you well know, I have been an ardent supporter of the 
line-item veto all these years. Nevertheless, I believe the conference 
report language before us today will provide the President, any 
President, regardless of political party, with an even more effective, 
yet limited line-item veto authority that I ever thought could be 
possible.
  Without question, it will result in lower, more responsible 
Government spending. Under the bill, the President is delegated the 
constitutional authority to cancel dollar amounts of discretionary 
appropriations. He is granted the ability to limit tax benefits or 
increases in direct spending, and these cancellations must be 
transmitted by special message to the Congress within 5 days of signing 
the original bill into law.
  With report to dollar amounts of discretionary appropriations, the 
President is permitted to cancel specific items in appropriations 
bills, any governing committee reports or joint explanatory statements 
to accompany a conference report. What that means is the bill will also 
allow the President to cancel any increase in direct spending, which 
includes entitlements and the Food Stamp Program. Believe me, that is 
going to make a difference, since that takes up almost all of the 
budget, these entitlement programs.

  This delegated authority will allow the President to cancel any new 
expansions of direct spending.
  Now, with regard to tax benefits, the President is permitted to 
cancel any limited tax benefits identified by the nonpartisan Joint 
Committee on Taxation in any revenue or reconciliation law. In an 
effort to limit this delegated cancellation authority, the line-item 
veto requires that the cancellations may be made if the President can 
determine that such cancellation would reduce the Federal budget 
deficit.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure reductions the 
deficit, a lot of people ought to listen to this because this is 
something we have been fighting for years, the bill has established a 
lock bloc mechanism lowering the statutory spending caps, locking in 
any savings gained through the use of the line-item veto.
  How many times have we offered amendments on this floor and we have 
cut out spending on a project only to find the money was reinstated for 
another project later on? That is going to stop right now when the 
President signs this bill.
  The bill also provides for expedited procedures in both the House and 
the Senate for consideration of a bill to disapprove any cancellation 
by the President. That disapproval bill would then be subject to a veto 
by the President, which would then have to be overriden by a two-thirds 
vote of both houses in order for the money, intended to be canceled, to 
be spent or to take effect. I intend to discuss the specifics of these 
expedited procedures later on in the debate, as will my good friend, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the 
conference on line-item veto. However, I will say now that these 
expedited procedures were intentionally drafted to allow any Member, 
majority or minority, who can muster sufficient support to receive a 
vote to disapprove on the floor of this House any particular veto.
  The bill also provides for expedited judicial review of any challenge 
to the constitutionality of the act. No severability or nonseverability 
provisions were included in the bill, but it is the intention of the 
conferees that any judicial determinations regarding the 
constitutionality of the bill be applied severably to the legislation. 
This is consistent with the current rule of thumb regarding 
constitutional challenges to any law that is silent on the issue of 
severability.

  Finally, the line-item veto authority becomes effective on the date 
of the earlier of these two: enactment of a 7-year balanced budget 
plan, or January 1, 1997. This authority would sunset on January 1, 
2005.
  Now, there has been some discussion whether the delay in the 
effective date has been motivated by partisan politics, but let us set 
the record straight here and now. As was stated in the Committee on 
Rules yesterday, this effective date has been agreed to by the signers 
of the conference report on both sides of the aisle, which were 
bipartisan. The Senate majority leader and Republican nominee for 
President, Bob Dole, and President Clinton himself, after a 
conversation between Majority Leader Dole and the President, both 
agreed to this effective date publicly in press conferences. 
Furthermore, the effective date was also chosen in part to take away 
any partisan games involving the line-item veto, take it out of the 
picture during the presidential election year.
  Mr. Speaker, with that discussion of the rule and the major 
provisions of the line-item veto, I urge support of the rule and the 
bill for this historic occasion.
  I include the following material for the Record:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                             [As of March 27, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 59                 59
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 25                 25
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 16                 16
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                100                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                             [As of March 27, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            

[[Page H2975]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Resolution......  A: 223-182 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 229-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                30/95).         
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
                                                                                                6/95).          
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....                   
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H. Con. Res. 122.  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
                                                                        Refuge.                                 
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
                                                                                                7/96).          
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         A: 251-157 (3/13/
                                                                        Penalty.                96).            
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2202........  Immigration...........  PQ: 233-152 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (3/21/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 165....  Further Cont. Approps.  PQ: 234-187 A:   
                                                                                                237-183 (3/21/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 388 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.R. 125.........  Gun Crime Enforcement.  A: 244-166 (3/22/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3136........  Contract w/America      .................
                                                                        Advancement.                            
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3103........  Health Coverage         .................
                                                                        Affordability.                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, my chairman and my 
good friend, for his kind words.
  Mr. Speaker, we have very serious concerns about this rule and about 
the bill that makes in order the so-called Contract With America 
Advancement Act. This legislation provides for an increase in the 
public debt limit to $5.5 trillion, but it also includes three measures 
that are completely unrelated to the debt limit: a bill increasing the 
Social Security earnings limit, a conference report on the so-called 
Line Item Veto Act, and a new version of regulatory reform legislation 
entitled the Small Business Growth and Fairness Act.
  The rule before us continues the disturbing trend under the 
Republican majority of disregarding normal legislative procedures and 
unreasonably restricting debate. This is a closed rule. No amendments 
are in order except one that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] is 
permitted to offer. When the Committee on Rules met last night on this 
matter, the committee allowed this amendment without knowing what

[[Page H2976]]

it would be. We hope it is a good amendment.
  The rule also sets up a highly unusual procedure, which the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] described a few minutes ago, for disposing 
of the Line Item Veto Act. The rule provides that if the other body 
approves the conference report on this bill before Saturday and the 
House passes H.R. 3136, the conference report shall be sent to the 
President as a freestanding bill.
  Because the Senate approved the conference report last night, that 
part of this bill will in fact be separated upon passage of this 
legislation. We believe it is unnecessary and unwise to construct final 
action on the Line Item Veto Act in this convoluted manner. There is no 
good reason why this matter should not be considered in the same way 
other conference reports are normally considered; that is, as 
freestanding legislation and without reference to action by the other 
body. For that matter, there is no good reason why any of the 
extraneous legislation included in this increase in the debt limit must 
be included.

                              {time}  1100

  While we understand that the inclusion of the three bills here 
reflects an agreement, reached between the President and the Republican 
leadership in both Houses of the Congress, we regret that is the case. 
We think it would have been much more responsible and appropriate for 
us to consider a simple, straightforward debt limit increase. The 
raising of the debt limit is an extremely urgent matter, as we all 
know. We have to do it very soon to prevent a Government default. The 
fact this very necessary legislation is encumbered with unrelated 
controversial matters will cause, unfortunately, some of us who 
otherwise would support raising the debt limit to instead vote against 
it.
  In the Committee on Rules last night, we offered an amendment to make 
in order a clean debt limit increase. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our 
amendment was defeated on a party line vote, as were several other 
amendments we offered that would have given the House more choices in 
the outcome of this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the most troubling portion of this legislation, in my 
view, is the Line Item Veto Act conference report. While we all agree 
that reducing Federal budget deficits is one of the most important 
tasks facing us, many of us do not believe that providing the President 
with the extraordinary new authority contained in the Line Item Veto 
Act will do much, if anything, to help us achieve that goal.

  What this legislation will do is transfer power from Congress to the 
President and enhance the power of a minority in Congress to override 
the will of a majority on matters of spending priorities. Under this 
legislation, the President's cancellation of line items in 
appropriations, which includes not only items listed in bills but also 
in committee reports and joint statements of managers or direct 
spending or targeted tax benefits, would automatically take effect 
unless Congress specifically passes a resolution disapproving the 
cancellation. If Congress overturns the President's action, the 
President could then veto the disapproval, which, in turn, would have 
to be overridden by two-thirds of both Houses. Thus the President would 
be empowered to cancel any such item with the support of only a 
minority of Members of either House. A one-third plus 1 minority, 
working with the President, would control spending.
  This procedure would result in a dramatic and quite possibly 
unconstitutional shift in responsibility and power from the legislative 
branch to the executive branch. This broad shift of powers could easily 
lead to abuses. The President could target the rescissions against 
particular legislators or particular regions of the country or against 
the judicial branch. This power could be used to force Congress to pay 
for a pet Presidential project that a majority of Members oppose or to 
agree to a policy that is completely unrelated to budgetary matters.
  Furthermore, we would be transferring this unprecedented amount of 
power to the President with little reason to believe that it would have 
much of an effect on the Federal budget deficit. This new line item 
veto would be used primarily for annually appropriated discretionary 
spending. However, discretionary spending, as Members know, which 
accounts for less than one-third of the budget, is already the most 
tightly controlled type of spending, since it is subject to strict 
caps. It has been declining both as a percentage of the total Federal 
budget and as a percentage of GDP for the last several years. It will 
continue to do so into the foreseeable future.
  Additional controls in this area of the budget will not accomplish 
much, if anything, in the way of deficit reduction. In fact, 
discretionary spending is an area of the budget where Presidents have 
wanted more spending than Congress has approved. According to the 
Office of Management and Budget, from 1982 to 1993, Congress 
appropriated $59 billion less than the President had requested.
  In addition, over the last 20 years, Congress has rescinded $20 
billion more than the President has requested in rescissions. If those 
patterns continue and the President is given greater leverage in the 
appropriations process, it is likely that he will use this new line 
item veto authority as a threat to secure appropriations for programs 
he wants funded rather than to reduce total amount of spending.
  I would also like to point out that the legislation is unlikely to 
accomplish what its advocates claim it will in the way of including 
special-interest targeted tax benefits under this new authority. That 
is because the bill allows the Joint Tax Committee, which is controlled 
by the House and Senate tax-writing committees, to determine what 
provisions in the bill constitute a targeted tax benefit before it is 
sent to the President. Thus it is highly unlikely that many special-
interest tax benefits, if any at all, will be subject to the line item 
veto authority.

  For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, if the House moves forward 
with approval of this line item veto authority, I believe even the 
measure's most ardent supporter will in time come to regret it.
  The other troubling piece of this package, at least in this Member's 
view, is the increase in the Social Security earnings limits for 
recipients aged 65 to 69. While this legislation is extremely popular, 
I believe it moves in the wrong direction in terms of what we need to 
accomplish to control spending, and perhaps it is more than a little 
ironic that it is coupled with the line item veto in this piece of 
legislation. This part of the legislation would increase Social 
Security benefits, already our Nation's most expensive entitlement 
program by far, by an estimated $7 billion over the next 7 years alone. 
Most of that benefit increase also, most, would go to relatively well-
off recipients while some of the spending cuts used to pay for those 
benefit increases would fall on those of more modest means.
  In addition, the legislation would take a giant step toward turning 
Social Security retirement benefits into a reward for turning age 65 
rather than insurance against the loss of income that comes with 
retirement, as the Social Security system was designed to provide. We 
ought to consider very carefully whether that kind of change is wise, 
particularly when we know we are facing a huge shortfall in the funds 
that will be needed to pay existing levels of benefits when the large 
baby-boom generation reaches retirement age in the early part of the 
next century.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, although many of us on this side of the aisle 
would have greatly preferred a rule providing for a straightforward 
debt limit extension, we believe that if this legislation is going to 
be encumbered with extraneous matters that are a priority to our 
Republican Members, then the rule also ought to permit us to at least 
consider one legislative priority from this side of the aisle as well. 
One of our highest priorities is increasing the minimum wage,
  So, at the end of this debate, we shall move, Mr. Speaker, to defeat 
the previous question so that we may amend the rule to provide for 
consideration of an amendment that would raise the minimum wage in two 
steps to $5.15 an hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

[[Page H2977]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend, first of all, this line-
item veto does not apply to just the small portion of the budget 
dealing with discretionary spending. The conference final report 
expanded that to include all entitlement programs, including food 
stamps. It includes the entire budget.
  Second, the gentleman complains that there are extraneous matters in 
this bill other than the debt ceiling; namely, Social Security, repeal 
of penalties and the line-item veto and regulatory relief. And yet, in 
their trying to defeat the previous question, they will add further 
extraneous material. That I do not understand.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL 
[Mr. Goss], one of the most respected and hardest-working Members of 
this body. He is a member of the Committee on Rules and also a 
tremendous help as a conferee on the line-item veto measure.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule for business at hand that 
allows the House to approve necessary legislation to preserve the full 
faith and credit of the United States--while keeping important promises 
to the American people. I confess, I am extremely uncomfortable voting 
for an extension of the debt ceiling. An offer of extended credit is a 
false favor to someone who is having trouble paying the bills. And the 
same holds true for the national budget--higher debt limits simply 
postpone and exacerbate the inevitable pain of paying the bill. We have 
a moral obligation to break the cycle of debt. Of course we know that 
decades of neglect cannot be reversed overnight. But that does not mean 
we should not spend every day moving in that direction. Although 
President Clinton torpedoed our effort to lock in this year a glidepath 
to balance in 7 years, the drive toward a balanced budget is 
continuing. Our new majority has already saved billions of dollars in 
this year's spending cycle alone. We've crafted positive reforms to 
preserve and strengthen our national safety net--while shrinking the 
size and reach of the Federal bureaucracy. We've made tough choices to 
secure our children's future--and we are not going to be sidetracked by 
President Clinton's overactive veto pen. We all know the pen is filled 
with red ink, just like his budget pen. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for 
this debt ceiling increase--but only because we are finally on the 
right track toward a balanced budget and fiscal sanity. I hope next 
time we vote on the debt limit we will be voting to lower the ceiling, 
nor raise it. Thankfully, there is good news in this bill--items that 
represent promises kept to America. With this bill we will be 
implementing the line-item veto, a major deficit cutting tool that we 
are delegating to the President in the interest of saving the taxpayers 
money. After more than a year of hard work, the conference has 
completed an agreement to grant the President real, effective and 
carefully defined line-item veto authority over spending and tax bills.

  This historic delegation of power will be a significant new weapon in 
our arsenal as we fight for deficit reduction. It is not a matter of 
the President pitted against the Congress. It is a matter of the two 
branches of government working together to ensure wise management of 
the Nation's finances. For the first time, the bias will shift away 
from spending and toward saving. Americans understand that big spending 
and tax bills often get signed into law, carrying with them provisions 
of questionable national merit that might not stand on their own. The 
line-item veto allows the President to zero in on these items and bring 
them to the light of day. That is just the kind of accountability we so 
desperately need in the Federal budget process to bring our spending 
under control. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that this 
legislation includes the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, 
legislation to increase, to restore some fairness to our Tax Code for 
seniors. I take my hat off to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] 
for the incredible work he has done on that, as well. The Social 
Security earnings limit is a dinosaur--and it discriminates mightily 
against those seniors who want to be productive. This is a long-overdue 
first step toward the ultimate goal of repealing the unfair restriction 
altogether. Support this rule and the bill.
  I take my hat off to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the 
chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the 
chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], for the 
extraordinary work they did in prevailing in the conference on this 
version we are passing today.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject 
this unfair rule. If we are going to attach unrelated items to this 
debt limit extension, then I believe the working people of America 
deserve to know why the Gingrich Republicans will not allow the House 
to vote on an amendment that would increase the minimum wage.
  What is the majority so afraid of? Why are they in opposition to 
paying working parents enough, enough to support their families and 
enough to take care of their kids?
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the new majority knows that if it came to a 
vote, it would be next to impossible for Members of this House to deny 
the fact that the 10 million minimum wage earners in this country 
deserve a raise.
  Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that April 1 will mark the 5-year 
anniversary of the last time this House approved an increase in the 
minimum wage, the truth is the minimum wage has significantly lost its 
value and it keeps families in poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for this body to do something good for the 
working families of this country and to make work pay.
  To my colleagues who care about working people in this country, I 
urge you to reject this rule and show the new majority that it is high 
time for an increase in the minimum wage.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because it 
denies a long-overdue opportunity to raise the minimum wage.
  Yesterday the Committee on Rules rejected my request to offer an 
amendment to increase the minimum wage. They have left in the cold 
families who are working hard and playing by the rules and who are 
being left behind.
  Think about it, the minimum wage today is $4.25 an hour. That means 
the approximate annual salary for a full-time minimum wage worker is 
$8,500, barely half the official poverty line for a family of four and 
below what people make on welfare. They would deny a 90-cent-an-hour 
increase. Imagine 90 cents. This, from people who make over $130,000 a 
year.
  Members of Congress earned more during the Government shutdown than a 
full-time minimum wage worker earns in a single year.
  America needs a raise. Reject this rule. Help hard-working families 
by putting more money in their paychecks.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond 
to the last two speakers, to say that yes, there is some merit in 
raising the minimum wage. I believe that it should be raised. But, just 
to give an example, I met with farmers from all over New York State 
yesterday, and we discussed that and how it would reflect on them. They 
said:

       Jerry, if you can just give us some regulatory relief, in 
     other words, so we don't have to spend so much of our money 
     meeting all of these regulations, we certainly wouldn't 
     object to a raise in the minimum wage.

  Let the regulatory relief bills go through that we pushed for the 
last 2 years, and I think you would find some support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger], someone I have great respect for. The gentleman came to 
the body 18 years ago with me and is the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. He was the chairman of our conference 
for over a year on the line-item veto. If you want to

[[Page H2978]]

know why his hair is a little grayer, it is because of that, I assure 
you. He did yeoman work. We could not be here today without Bill 
Clinger.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we often engage in this body in hyperbole, some would 
say hot air. But I have got to say today we really are entitled to say 
this is a historic time we are engaged in. This bill we are going to be 
considering today is indeed a historic bill.
  For years a lot of us have talked the talk about the line-item veto. 
But, unfortunately, we have been unable to bring it to the floor to get 
a vote. Today we are going to be able to walk the walk. So I am very 
delighted as chairman of the conference on the line-item veto to bring 
our product to this floor as part of the increase in the debt limit. I 
think it is absolutely appropriate that it should be considered as part 
of this increase in the debt limit.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to consider a bill that will increase the 
Federal debt limit to $5.5 trillion. That is $22,000 for every man, 
woman, and child in this country. We have got to find a better way to 
get control of this spending. What this bill will do is give the 
President a scalpel instead of a hacksaw to really deal with the 
enormous debt that we keep building up year after year after year and 
the deficits we run year after year. This is an enormous burden we have 
been imposing on the American people. This is the first serious effort 
to really provide an effective means to address this enormous problem.

  I have to say we would not be here without the hard work of a lot of 
people. Bob Dole, our nominee for President, was an inspiration and 
really was the driving force in getting us to resolve this conference 
and get an agreement with the White House on what could pass and be 
signed by the President. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 
been a tireless worker for this legislation for, as he said, 10 years 
and longer. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], 
all of whom served over this whole year on this conference, have just 
been invaluable in bringing us to this day. At times we did not think 
we would get an agreement because of determined opposition. Despite 
that tough opposition from people on both sides of the aisle and both 
sides of the Capitol, we have gotten an agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge support for the line-item 
veto and for this bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions when every Member of this 
body should be mindful of the undertaking that we make at the beginning 
of every Congress to protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
States, because the line-item veto provision in this proposed bill runs 
absolutely in the face of that obligation.
  The first words of the Constitution are, ``All legislative powers 
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'' A 
few pages later, dealing with the President's responsibility with 
regard to legislation, the Constitution states as follows: ``If he 
approves, he shall sign it,''--the bill--``but, if not, he shall return 
it with his objections.''
  Those are the basic parameters of the legislative responsibilities 
that we have under the Constitution and that the President has under 
the Constitution, and it is not in our power to change them. It is our 
responsibility in fact to respect and preserve them.
  While the friends that we have across the ocean in Britain are having 
second thoughts these days about their monarchy, this line-item veto 
provision and its effect will be to start the gradual accretion of 
power in an American monarchy.
  If we recall those grand words of the Declaration of Independence in 
which we protested the usurpation of power by King George, then mark my 
words, we will live to regard the usurpation of power that we invite by 
future Presidents of the United States if this provision becomes law.
  Thank God that the courts will be there to do the right thing and 
find it, as it is, contrary to the Constitution.
  The court has spoken to this point many times, but most recently and 
on point I think in the Chadha case, making it absolutely clear that 
the powers of neither branch with respect to the division and 
responsibility on legislation can be eroded.
  What is even more bizarre in this particular proposal is the 
provision for the 5-day ``cancellation'' period. Now, think about that. 
This is a metaphysical leap of Herculean proportions.
  The enactment provisions of the Constitution say that once the 
President signs a bill, it shall be law. We propose that he then gets a 
5-day cancellation right after signing a bill? That is absolutely 
absurd. This defies any logical reading of the clear meaning of the 
Constitution with regard to these provisions.

  But beyond the constitutional arguments, this proposal is 
fundamentally unwise, and it manifests a disrespect of our own 
responsibilities in this body under law and under the Constitution.
  On the large issues, let us think back to what would have happened 
during the Reagan administration, with a President who, for his own 
reasons, sent budgets to this body zeroing out most categories of 
education funding in the Federal budget. Presumably, if that President 
had this power, it would be exercised to eliminate most education 
funding by the U.S. Government, and 34 Senators representing 9 percent 
of the people of this country, in league with the President, could have 
brought about that outcome.
  Even more pernicious, and the invitation to usurpation that lies in 
this language can also be understood by going back to those days in the 
late eighties when we were still debating whether we would continue aid 
to the Contras. Now, if I happened to have been fortunate enough to 
have gotten, let us say, a provision in an appropriations bill for a 
needed post office or a needed courthouse in my district, and it was 
down at the White House awaiting signature at the same time we were 
debating aid to the Contras, I would guarantee you I would have gotten 
a call from someone at the White House saying, ``Congressman, I notice 
you had some success in dealing with this need in your district. We are 
pleased at that, but we need your support on aid to the Contras.''
  That is exactly the kind of absolutely evil excess of power that we 
are inviting future Presidents to use. Pick your issue. That is one 
that comes to my mind.
  It is clear that the Governors of the several States who have this 
power use it in exactly this way, to get their version of spending 
adopted in contradiction to the legislative judgment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to just say to my 
good friend that I suspect he protests too much. From Thomas Jefferson 
to Richard Nixon, Presidents had the right of rescission. If they did 
not want to spend the money because it was not necessary, they did not 
have to do it. Unfortunately for America, this Congress took that 
President to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court made him spend 
the money. That is what happened, and that is why we are in the fiscal 
mess we are in today. We are attempting to turn around a little bit of 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Southgate, KY, 
Mr. Jim Bunning, someone I used to worship when I was growing up. He 
was a hero of mine because of his baseball prowess, throwing no-hitters 
and pitching shutouts. He is no less a hero today, especially for what 
he has done today on this line-item veto.
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the first bill I signed on when 
I came to Congress 9 years ago was the line-item veto, and, thank God, 
we are finally going to get it passed today. It has been a long time 
coming, but we have taken another major step in restoring fiscal 
responsibility to the budget process. Of course, I am talking about the 
line-item veto.
  The line-item veto will allow the President to end, once and for all, 
that notion that Federal spending cannot be

[[Page H2979]]

controlled. As President Truman said, the buck will truly stop with the 
President. If he does not use that power that we give him, shame on 
him. I have been for this bill, by the way, when a Republican was in 
office, and now I am for it while a Democrat is in office.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to give the President the opportunity to 
restore the fiscal integrity of this Government and to end the era of 
pork-barrel spending. We all have spending needs in our States and 
districts, but we have a duty to the country not to bankrupt the 
Treasury. All spending is not the same. Alpine Ski slides in tropical 
locations and ice hockey warming huts are not of the same importance as 
people with adequate needs for post offices and courthouses.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is not perfect. We have worked hard 
to make something work that everyone can use, that is good for the 
American people. It was crafted in an effort to accommodate the 
concerns of the broadest cross-section of the Members of this House and 
the Senate.
  I wish we had not gone down the road of applying the line-item veto 
to tax issues, but even on that issue we have tried to meet the 
concerns with the majority of this Congress. I hope and pray that 
everyone realizes that this line-item veto is in the best interest of 
the United States of America, and if in fact the courts look at this 
bill, as one of the prior speakers has talked about, that they will 
find how much the need is there for this and it will be ruled 
constitutional by the courts. We will let them decide. Let us just do 
our work and pass this bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, it's been a long time in coming but we are about to take 
another major step toward restoring fiscal responsibility to the budget 
process. I am, of course, talking about finally giving the President 
the line-item veto.
  The line-item veto will allow the President to end, once and for all, 
the notion that federal spending cannot be controlled. As President 
Truman said, the buck will truly stop with the President.
  If he doesn't use the power that we give him, shame on him.
  We are going to give him the opportunity to restore the fiscal 
integrity of this Government and end the era of the pork barrel.
  We all have spending needs in our States and districts but we also 
have a duty to the country not to bankrupt the Treasury.
  All spending is not the same. Alpine Ski slides in tropical locations 
and ice hockey warming huts are not of the same importance to the 
people as adequate post offices and courthouses.
  The bill before us is not perfect but we have worked hard to make it 
something that will work for the American people.
  It was crafted in an effort to accommodate the concerns of the 
broadest cross-section of the Members of the House and Senate.
  I wish we had not gone done the road of applying the line-item veto 
to taxes. But, even on that issue we have tried to meet the concerns of 
the majority of our Members.
  The line-item veto before us today will be criticized by some who 
think that it goes too far. Others will say that we did not do enough. 
That satisfies me that we did the right thing.
  To those who wanted us to include more on taxes, I would simply 
remind them that our financial problems have not been caused by too few 
revenues but by too much spending.
  In 1981, the year before the Reagan tax cut took effect, revenues 
were $599 billion and by 1993 revenues had grown to nearly $1.15 
trillion., Even though revenues nearly doubled spending grew at an even 
faster pace.
  To paraphrase President Reagan, the American people are not taxed too 
little, their Government spends too much.
  Nonetheless, we recognized that there is the potential for abuse in 
the tax laws and we have taken adequate steps to address that problem.
  The limited tax provisions which appear from time to time in a large 
tax bill and which under the Democrats were often targeted to a 
specific taxpayer are now going to be subject to the line-item veto.
  That means that Congress will now specifically point out to the 
President what these provisions of limited benefit are and he can use 
the line-item veto on them.
  The nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee will identify these limited tax 
provisions for the tax writing committees based on the definition in 
this bill. And we will clearly point to them in what we send to the 
President for his signature.
  I feel confident that the President will see the good policy behind 
some of these very narrow tax breaks such as the orphan drug tax credit 
which provides a tax incentive for research into drugs for rare 
diseases.
  But he can use his veto pen to make sure that no unfair tax breaks 
are given to one or just a few taxpayers as has happened from time to 
time.
  I would also remind those who think that we should have gone farther 
on allowing the President to item veto tax provisions to remember that 
tax breaks allow people to keep their own money.
  Spending provisions take money from one person's pocket to be used 
for someone else's benefit.
  If that distinction isn't clear to you, I imagine that your 
constituents can help you see the light. They know whose money we are 
spending.
  This is a good bill and by passing it we can keep one of our most 
important promises from the Contract With America. I urge my colleagues 
to support line-item veto.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge the House to 
defeat the previous question. My opposition to the rule is very simple: 
This rule denies that House an opportunity to consider an amendment to 
increase the minimum wage that was offered before the Rules Committee 
by my colleague, Representative DeLauro.
  Some on the other side of the aisle will argue that a minimum wage 
increase is not germane to a bill increasing the debt limit. I remind 
my colleagues that the Republican leadership has chosen to load this 
bill with extraneous matters, including regulatory reform for small 
business, which is of questionable germaneness. The Republican 
leadership has deliberately decided not to allow this body to consider 
wage relief for the working poor.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for this House to give workers a raise, a 
raise that is long overdue. April 1 will mark the fifth anniversary of 
the last time the minimum wage was increased. The real wages of 
American workers have been declining for over two decades and the 
disparity between rich and poor in this country continues to grow. In 
terms of distribution of wealth, the United States has become the most 
unequal industrialized nation in the world. Increasing the minimum wage 
is one modest step toward addressing this problem.
  The Republican leadership of this House enjoys the distinction of 
destroying the spirit of bipartisanship on so many issues, including 
the minimum wage. In 1989, for example, the minimum wage increase 
passed this body by a vote of 382 to 37, with 135 Republicans voting 
for the bill, and 89 to 8 in the Senate, with the support of 36 
Republicans. In fact, Speaker Gingrich, Senator Dole, and my committee 
chairman, Bill Goodling voted for the last increase. Regrettably, 
Republicans now appear too embarrassed to even allow this body to vote 
on that issue.
  We often talk about how important it is to get people off welfare. If 
we are serious about that, if we really want to get people off welfare 
as opposed to just talking about it, there is one simple way to do 
that--to make work pay.
  Recent studies suggest that 300,000 workers would be lifted out of 
poverty if the minimum wage were raised to $5.15 per hour. It is time 
to do something positive for the working poor.
  Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Americans support raising the 
minimum wage. It is unconscionable for the Republican leadership of 
this House to block the will of the American public.
  Defeat this rule, defeat the previous question, allow us to consider 
increasing the minimum wage.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that the debt limit part of this 
bill should have been passed last year. It is another indication of the 
inability of the leadership of this House to get issues of fiscal 
importance to the floor in a timely fashion. The debt has been 
confronting us since September of last year and has placed at risk the 
good credit of the United States of America,

[[Page H2980]]

which in fact placed, therefore, the fiscal stability of the 
international community at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this rule, and I will vote against 
it because it marries two issues, one which I very strongly support.
  Finally, the Republican leadership has come to the extension of the 
debt until 1997, so that it will not be a political football but will 
be the recognition of fiscal responsibility.
  It is late but welcomed. However, they have married to that bill a 
line item veto. It is a line item veto which the gentleman from 
Colorado, one of the previous speakers, has characterized as contrary 
to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. I agree 
with that premise. I am hopeful that the courts will find this 
provision unconstitutional, because I believe with Senator Byrd and I 
would hope with at least some of my colleagues that this is a radical 
shift of authority from the people of the United States and their 
representatives to the Executive of the United States.
  Now, I support an enhanced rescission. That is a device which would 
allow the President of the United States to take out of a piece of 
legislation and say to the American public, this item should not be 
passed but the bill should be passed. But then the enhanced rescission 
would say, we have to bring it back to the House in the full light of 
the American public's scrutiny in a democracy and pass it. But what it 
would not do is to give to the President the ability to have one-third 
plus one of a House say that I and I alone will top this from going 
into effect.
  Mr. Speaker, that will be a radical shift of power. It is not 
surprising that we pass radical proposals in this Congress, of course, 
but the fact of the matter is it is bad policy. In my opinion, we will 
live to regret it.
  It is ironic, indeed, that those who have waited 9 years, according 
to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, to see this legislation 
pass, propose today to have it delayed until January. If it is so 
important, why not now? Is it perhaps because President Clinton is a 
Democrat? I hope not.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds. I was proud to 
yield 15 to my good friend over there so he would have some time.
  The President of the United States is a part of this agreement to 
make it January 1, 1997. That was what we call cooperation, 
bipartisanship.
  Let me just say to my good friends, as I listened to the speakers up 
here, one after another get up and oppose this line-item veto, I look 
at the National Taxpayers Union and almost every one of them appear as 
the biggest spenders in the Congress. They used to be a majority, and 
they are the ones that drove this debt through the ceiling, $5 
trillion.
  It irritates me to have to stand up here today and vote to raise the 
debt ceiling by $500 billion when I voted for none of it, none of that 
debt.
  Well, the reason I am going to vote for it is because we have a 
chance now to do something for the senior citizens, get rid of this 
heinous tax that is on Social Security now, on the earnings tax. We 
have a chance to do the line item veto, which is going to put a crimp 
in every one of these big spenders. There are not many left around 
here. Most of them got beat, but there are still a few and we are going 
to cut their spending off.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not referring to me 
personally, I take it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. No; absolutely not. I have great respect for my friend, 
although I will check the list to see if he is on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Blute], someone I have great respect for, from Shewsbury, MA. He 
has only been here now for about 3\1/2\ years. But let me tell my 
colleagues, he has been a leader on this line item veto. With him and 
some of the others, like the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] and 
the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and many others, the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], who is not here on the floor yet, but 
because of them, we have this line-item veto here now. He is a great 
American.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his kind words. This 
is, as others have said, a very important day, a very exciting day 
because it means that this Government is going to make a break from the 
past and we are going to continue the process of turning the Federal 
ship of state away from deficits and debt and toward fiscal sanity and 
fiscal balance by giving the President of the United States the line-
item veto authority. It is a major step forward in eliminating wasteful 
Federal spending.
  In passing the conference report on S. 4, the Line-Item Veto Act, 
Congress is saying to the American people that we have listened to the 
call for fiscal responsibility. For more than a century, Presidents 
like Ronald Reagan have called for the line-item veto, but it took this 
Republican Congress to give it to a Democratic President in a true 
showing of bipartisanship.
  Bipartisanship is exactly what has characterized this legislation 
from its inception. It passed the House on February 6, 1995, by the 
overwhelming vote of 294 to 134. All along, Members from both sides of 
the aisle have pushed this legislation toward this ultimate 
destination. In a process that took more than a year, the House and 
Senate conferees worked out the differences in two bills which could 
not have been more different. The product of that work is an extremely 
workable procedure that mirrors what the House has passed.
  Congress has delegated to the President the very serious power to 
cancel individual spending items that are normally buried in 
appropriations bills. However, we did not stop there. This conference 
report expands the line-item veto to include direct spending and 
limited tax benefits that cost the American taxpayers more in some 
cases than appropriations bills. Unlike other attempts at rescissions 
legislation, the emphasis in this conference report is on deficit 
reduction and not spending.
  Mr. Speaker, the President will be able to cancel individual spending 
items, increases in direct spending and limited tax benefits. Congress 
must then pass a bill to disapprove of those cancellations and affirm 
it wants to spend the money. The President can veto the disapproval 
legislation and Congress must override by a two-thirds majority. Make 
no mistake about it, this is a powerful tool of fiscal accountability.
  When the Congress cannot muster the two-thirds to override the 
President, the total of the cancellations must be deposited in a 
lockbox. This mechanism will guarantee that a cancellation or 
rescission in spending cannot be used in another account. Instead, any 
savings must be used toward deficit reduction.
  This line-item veto, Mr. Speaker, has been field tested in 43 States 
with very impressive results. It is common sensical. It works, It is 
what the American people want.
  Let us continue the revolution of fiscal sanity begun by the 104th 
Congress and give the President this fiscal tool.
  Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, I would like to commend and thank 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], for allowing me the 
extraordinary opportunity to serve with them on this historic 
conference report.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  The Contract With America Advancement Act: what a true abuse of the 
English language. If this is an advancement of the Contract With 
America, the one thing it demonstrates is that some of our Republican 
colleagues cannot tell backward from forward. Let us look at what is 
included in this great advancement of the Contract With America failed 
agenda.
  Well, the first thing is an increase in the Social Security earnings 
limit. A laudable measure. So laudable that 411 Members of this body 
last year voted to approve it, and only four voted against it. Our 
seniors would have this Social Security earnings limit adjusted already 
if our Republican colleagues had advanced it at the beginning of this 
Congress instead of at this point.

[[Page H2981]]

  What is the second item? Regulatory reform. Far different from the 
regulatory wreckage of the unilateral disarmament of our health and 
safety laws that they proposed last year. Again, if they had advanced 
this very modest regulatory reform, our small businesses across America 
would have had relief in 1995, not a promise in 1996. Finally and most 
important, it advances the contract through the line-item veto. What is 
the history of the line-item veto in this body?
  Well, last February we took it up, and we considered it, and we 
approved it by a vote of 294 to 134. It is true that the version that 
is here before us today is improved, improved in part because at the 
time of that debate in February, my Republican colleagues rejected the 
sunset amendment that I proposed, and today they have incorporated that 
very amendment into this proposal.
  The Speaker of the House came to the floor that night and he told us, 
and I quote: ``You have a Republican majority giving to a Democratic 
President this year without any gimmicks an increased power over 
spending, which we think is important.''
  Unfortunately, he did not think it was important enough to appoint 
conferees for 6 months, or the President would have had this tool last 
year. What we have here is a Contract With America that is a flop, and 
this advancement act is a sop.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the vote we are about to have on this rule, 
on the previous question on the rule, will be a vote on whether or not 
we as Members of this body want to raise the minimum wage, whether we 
want to raise the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, all over America people are working hard. They are 
working overtime. They are working second jobs. They are working third 
jobs to make ends meet. They deserve a break. They deserve to have a 
government that is on their side, that will not stand in their way. But 
once again, we are here and the majority will not, the majority will 
not even allow us a vote on an issue to put more money in the pockets 
of Americans. That is what we are talking about, putting more money in 
the pockets of working people and families in this country.
  Now, the minimum wage has not been raised since 1989. Back then two 
people who supported the raise were Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. But 
they are standing in the way today of helping working families. Mr. 
Speaker, when are my friends on this side of the aisle going to learn 
they cannot talk about family values if they are not going to value the 
family and they cannot move from welfare to work if they do not make 
work pay.
  The minimum wage is not enough. It is less than $9,000 a year for a 
full-time worker. One cannot raise a family on that amount of money. 
There are literally millions of single parents in this country who are 
trying to do just that. Think about it. Could we raise a child or two 
children on that? It is a disgrace that people who make that choice to 
choose work over welfare, who work hard every single day, they try to 
set a good example for their kids, for their neighborhood, cannot lift 
themselves above the poverty line.

                              {time}  1145

  Now these are not kids we are talking about. We are talking about 60 
percent of the people on the minimum wage are working women with 
children who work hard and deserve a raise. They do not come to this 
floor, do not come to this floor, I tell my colleagues, to tell us that 
it will cost jobs, because every study that has been done over the last 
few years, from California to the studies that were done in 
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, have indicated that there would not be a 
loss of jobs. In fact, some of the studies say that there would be an 
increase in jobs in this country if we, in fact, raise the minimum 
wage.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why over a hundred economists, three Nobel 
laureates, have said raise the minimum wage. When the minimum wage goes 
up, everybody benefits. People who make a little bit more than the 
minimum wage will get a raise, people above them will get a raise, and 
what we will have is people circulating more money in the economy. 
People will be buying more at the grocery store, they will be buying 
more at the hardware store. It will create a dynamic where people will 
have more money in their pockets, and they will be spending money, and 
they will help the economy in general.

  Now over 12 million Americans would benefit right away from a 90-cent 
increase in the minimum wage, including about 42,000 people in my own 
State of Michigan alone.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been 5 years since we raised the minimum wage. 
Its value, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, it at its 40-year 
low, 40-year low. Seventy percent of the American people in a recent 
poll say they support an increase in the minimum wage.
  Now is the chance for my colleagues to stand up and face this issue 
head-on because here it is. This vote on the previous question on the 
rule is whether or not my colleagues are going to support having this 
made in order so we could vote on this important question and put money 
in the pockets of Americans today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
can have the opportunity to raise this issue, and I thank my colleague 
for having yielded me this time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], who has led the fight for as long as I can 
remember, ever since he succeeded his father as a Congressman, and he 
has been a real leader on this.
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill which 
includes a very important provision--the line-item veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], with whom I have worked so closely on this 
issue in the past, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when we pass this legislation, I think there is no one 
in this House who will deserve more credit for it than the gentleman 
from New York, Jerry Solomon. I congratulate him for his work on this 
very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, on the first day of every Congress since I was elected 
in 1988, I have introduced a line-item veto bill that is almost 
identical to the provision that we are considering now.
  While past Congresses have been unwilling to pass a line-item veto 
with real teeth in it, and in fact we passed one that the Wall Street 
Journal in 1993 called a voodoo line-item veto bill, I am pleased that 
today we are on the verge of approving a line-item veto that will truly 
be effective in reducing pork barrel spending.
  In fact, the other body overwhelmingly passed this provision 
yesterday by a vote of 69 to 31.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. Forty-three of our 
Nation's Governors, both Democratic and Republican, already have the 
line-item veto and are using it to cut spending in their States and 
balance their budgets.
  It is time for Congress to give this same tool to the President, so 
that he can eliminate the most outrageous examples of wasteful and 
unnecessary spending without vetoing entire appropriation bills.
  The General Accounting Office estimated in 1992 that more than $70 
billion of pork-barrel spending could have been cut between 1984 and 
1989 if Presidents Reagan and Bush had had a line-item veto.
  The Cato Institute estimates that $5 to $10 billion a year could be 
saved with a line-item veto.
  In last year's State of the Union Address, President Clinton 
highlighted some of the most absurd examples of pork-barrel spending 
approved by the 103d Congress, and said ``If you give me the line-item 
veto, I will remove some of that unnecessary spending.''
  Mr. Speaker, I wish we did not need such things as a balanced-budget 
amendment and a line-item veto to bring our Federal spending under 
control.
  Unfortunately, however, Mr. Speaker, Congress has proven time and 
again that it does not have the will to cut spending on its own.
  That is why this legislation is so very necessary today. If the 
Congress does not really want to cut spending, it will have to say so, 
and say so publicly.

[[Page H2982]]

  Mr. Speaker, with a national debt of over $5 trillion, we simply 
cannot afford to withhold this important tool from the President any 
longer.
  Former Senator Paul Tsongas, writing in the Christian Science Monitor 
a few months ago, said that if present trends continue, the young 
people of today will face average lifetime tax rates of an incredible 
82 percent.
  We must do something about this to give a good economic future to our 
children and grandchildren.
  This will not solve our problems by itself, but it will be a big step 
in the right direction. I urge passage of this very important 
legislation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Harrisburg, PA [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
   Mr. Speaker, when I first ran for the Congress many years ago, I ran 
on a platform that included 10 separate items, much like the Contract 
With America. One of them, much like the Contract With America, was to 
advance the cause of line-item veto. My own Commonwealth, Pennsylvania, 
had enjoyed since its constitutional existence long time ago that 
privilege on the part of the Governor, the chief executive. I wanted, 
as part of my campaign for election to the Congress, to try to transfer 
that responsibility to the Chief Executive of the United States.
  We are at the threshold now of accomplishing one of my points of my 
own personal Contract With America. Second, another point, regulatory 
flexibility with judicial review is also at hand with this vote.
  I urge support of the previous question.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me simply advise Members that if the previous question is 
defeated, we will offer an amendment to the rule which would make in 
order the floor amendment to incrementally increase the minimum wage 
from its current $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour beginning on the Fourth 
of July 1997.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], our distinguished minority leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Missouri is recognized for 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I urge my colleagues 
to vote against the previous question so that we can add an amendment 
to this bill that will increase the minimum wage. I simply want to say 
that wages, decent wages, are a family value. People who earn the 
minimum wage today earn a little over $8,000 a year. The minimum wage 
has not been increased in 5 years. It is a 40-year low. One-third of 
the people on the minimum wage are the sole wage earner in their 
family. It will not cost jobs, as some have asserted.
  I met a woman in my district the other day, a single mother with 2 
minimum wage jobs. She told me she was worried that her kids would not 
be a victim of a crime; she was worried they would perpetrate crimes. 
People cannot spend time with their family if they do not earn a decent 
wage.
  I urge Members to vote against this previous question, and I say to 
my friends on the other side, ``You've not heard the last of the 
minimum wage. I suspect we won't prevail on this vote. But we are going 
to bring it back and back and back and back until we finally prevail 
for America's families and workers.''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend, the minority 
leader, who I have great respect for, I just cannot help but feel that 
there are some political games being played here. As my colleagues 
know, written into this rule was a little provision that said during 
the time after the Committee on Rules finished meeting last night, and 
while Mr. Panetta or the President were meeting with our Republican 
leadership, they could have negotiated to add anything into this bill, 
anything. That was not even mentioned once, this business of the 
increasing the minimum wage. Where this has come from I do not know, 
but I just suspect it is political games.
  So let us just do away with that, and let me just in closing give my 
colleagues a little bit of history because it is kind of interesting, 
especially when we consider the word Byrd from West Virginia, something 
to do with the other body. As my colleagues know, in 1876; that was 120 
years ago, Representative Charles Falken of West Virginia--remember 
him, George; was the gentleman here then?--came to the floor of this 
House and introduced a bill granting the President the authority to 
veto individual items in spending measures. Can my colleagues imagine 
that 120 years ago, a Representative from West Virginia? Boy, how times 
change over 120 years.
  When I first came to this Congress 17 years ago, one of the first 
bills I introduced was the line-item veto. We have been waiting 17 
years. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan entered the White House and asked 
Congress to grant him line-item veto authority, that was 16 years ago. 
In 1994 the Republican candidates for the House of Representatives all 
across this great country campaigned on a promise in the Contract With 
America that, if elected, they would pass a bill giving the President 
line-item veto, no matter who that President was, Republican, Democrat.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here today at the finish line of a race that has 
lasted 120 years, and I get so excited I can jump up and down. Today I 
stand with my Republican colleagues and a good number of Democrats. 
Wait and see, most of the Democrats on that side of the aisle will vote 
to deliver a promise to the American people.
  As a conferee on the line-item veto, I must submit that this historic 
moment is due in no small part to the efforts of our conference 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], sitting right 
next to me, and that of the Senate majority leader, Bob Dole. If Bob 
Dole had not put his weight behind this, we never would have got it by 
many of those Senators who do not want to give up that power. They want 
to spend, spend, spend, but they did, thanks to Bob Dole.
   Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record 
further explanatory information regarding the expedited procedures of 
congressional consideration of a Presidential message.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The statement referred to is as follows:
   Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that the provisions relating to the 
receipt and consideration of a cancellation message and a disapproval 
bill are clearly understood, I believe it is necessary to provide some 
further explanation.
  Upon the cancellation of a dollar amount of discretionary budget 
authority, an item of direct spending or a limited tax benefit, the 
President must transmit to Congress a special message outlining the 
cancellation as required. When Congress receives this special message 
it shall be referred to the Committee on the Budget and the appropriate 
committee or committees of jurisdiction in each House. For example, the 
message pertaining to the cancellation of a dollar amount of 
discretionary budget authority from an appropriation law would be 
referred to the Committee on Appropriations of each House; a message 
pertaining to the cancellation of an item of direct spending would be 
referred to the authorizing committee or committees of each House from 
which the original authorization law derived. Any special message 
relating to more than one committee's jurisdiction, i.e., a 
cancellation message from a large omnibus law such as a reconciliation 
law, shall be referred to each committee of each House with the 
appropriate jurisdiction.
  Every special message is referred to the Committees on the Budget of 
both the House and the Senate. This is due to the requirement in the 
bill that the President include in each special message certain 
calculations made by the Office of Management and Budget. These OMB 
calculations pertain to the adjustments made to the discretionary 
spending limits under section 601 and the pay-as-go balances under 
section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
1985, as a result of the cancellation to which the special message 
refers.

[[Page H2983]]

  Upon receipt in the House, each special message shall be printed as a 
document of the House of Representatives.
  In order to assist Congress in assuring a vote of disapproval on the 
President's cancellation message, a series of expedited procedures are 
established for the consideration of a disapproval bill. A disapproval 
bill qualifies for these expedited procedures if it meets certain time 
requirements within an overall time period established for 
congressional consideration. The time clock for congressional 
consideration starts the first calendar day of session after the date 
on which the special message is received in the House and Senate. 
Congress has 30 calendar days of session in which to approve or 
disapprove under these expedited procedures of the President's action. 
A calendar day of session is defined as only those days in which both 
Houses of Congress are in session.
  During this 30-day time period, a disapproval bill may qualify for 
these expedited procedures in both Houses. However, upon the expiration 
of this 30 day period a disapproval bill may no longer qualify for 
these expedited procedures in the House of Representatives. A 
disapproval bill may qualify at any time for the expedited procedures 
in the Senate.
  If Congress adjourns sine die prior to the expiration of the 30-
calendar day of session time period and a disapproval bill relating to 
a special message was at that time pending before either House of 
Congress or any committee thereof or was pending before the President, 
a disapproval bill with respect to the same message may be reintroduced 
within the first 5 calendar days of session of the next Congress. This 
reintroduced disapproval bill qualifies for the expedited procedures 
and the 30-day period for congressional consideration begins over.

  In order for a disapproval bill to qualify for the expedited 
procedures outlined in this section it must meet two requirements. 
First, a disapproval bill must meet the definition of a disapproval 
bill. Second, the disapproval bill must be introduced in later than the 
5th calendar day of session following the receipt of the President's 
special message. Any disapproval bill introduced after the 5th calendar 
day of session is subject to the regular rules of the House of 
Representatives regarding consideration of a bill.
  It should be noted that the expedited procedures provide strict time 
limitations at all stages of floor consideration of a disapproval bill. 
The conferees intend to provide both Houses of Congress with the means 
to expeditiously reach a resolution and to foreclose any and all 
delaying tactics--including, but clearly not limited to: extraneous 
amendments, repeated quorum calls, motions to recommit, or motions to 
instruct conferees. The conferees believe these expedited procedures 
provide ample time for Congress to consider the President's 
cancellations and work its will upon them.
  Any disapproval bill introduced in the House of Representatives must 
disapprove all of the cancellations in the special message to which the 
disapproval bill relates. Each such disapproval bill must include in 
the first blank space a list of the reference numbers for all of the 
cancellations made by the President in that special message.
  Any disapproval bill introduced in the Senate may disapprove all or 
part of the cancellations in the special message to which the 
disapproval bill relates.
  Any disapproval bill shall be referred to the appropriate committee 
or committees of jurisdiction. Any committee or committees of the House 
of Representatives to which such a disapproval bill has been referred 
shall report it without amendment, and with or without recommendation, 
not later than the seventh calendar day of session after the date of 
its introduction.
  If any committee fails to report the disapproval bill within that 
period, it shall be in order for any Member of the House to move that 
the House discharge that committee from further consideration of the 
bill. However, such a notion is not in order after the committee has 
reported a disapproval bill with respect to the same special message. 
This motion shall only be made by a Member favoring the bill and only 1 
day after the calendar day in which the Member offering the motion has 
announced to the House his intention to make such a motion and the form 
of which that motion takes. Furthermore, this motion to discharge shall 
only be made at a time or place designated by the Speaker in the 
legislative schedule of the day after the calendar day in which the 
Member gives the House proper notice.
  This motion to discharge shall be highly privileged. Debate on the 
motion shall be limited to not more than 1 hour and shall be equally 
divided between a proponent and an opponent. After completion of 
debate, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion to 
reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to or not agreed to 
shall not be in order. It shall not be in order to consider more 
than one such motion to discharge pertaining to a particular special 
message.

  After a disapproval bill has been reported or a committee has been 
discharged from further consideration, it shall be in order to move 
that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union for consideration of the disapproval bill. If the 
bill has been reported, the report on the bill must be available for at 
least one calendar day prior to consideration of the bill. All points 
of order, except that lying against the bill and its consideration for 
failure to comply with the one day layover, against the bill and 
against its consideration shall be waived. The motion that the House 
resolve into the Committee of the Whole shall be highly privileged. A 
motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or 
disagreed to shall not be in order.
  During consideration of the bill in the Committee of the Whole, the 
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate on 
the disapproval bill shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
1 hour equally divided between and controlled by a proponent and an 
opponent of the bill. After completion of the 1 hour of general debate, 
the bill shall be considered as read for amendment under the 5-minute 
rule. Only one motion that the committee rise shall be in order unless 
that motion is offered by the manager of the bill.
  No amendment shall be in order except any Member if supported by 49 
other Members, a quorum being present, may offer an amendment striking 
the reference number or reference numbers of a cancellation or 
cancellations from the disapproval bill. This process allows Members 
the opportunity to narrow the focus of the disapproval bill striking 
references to cancellations they wish to overturn. A vote in favor of 
the disapproval bill is a vote to spend the money the President sought 
to cancel. A vote against the disapproval bill is a vote to agree with 
the President to cancel the spending.
  No amendment shall be subject to further amendment, except pro forma 
amendments for the purposes of debate only. Consideration of the bill 
for amendment shall not exceed one hour excluding time for recorded 
votes and quorum calls. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without any intervening motion. A motion to 
reconsider the vote on passage of the bill shall not be in order.
  All appeals of decisions of the Chair relating to the application of 
the rules of the House of Representatives to this procedure for 
consideration of the disapproval bill shall be decided without debate.
  It shall be in order to consider only one disapproval bill pertaining 
to each special message under these expedited messages except for 
consideration of a similar Senate bill. However, if the House has 
already rejected a disapproval bill with respect to the same special 
message as that to which the Senate bill refers, it shall not be in 
order to consider that bill.
  In the event of disagreement between the two Houses over the content 
of a disapproval bill passed by both Houses, conferees should be 
promptly appointed and a conference on the disapproval bill promptly 
convened.
  Upon conclusion of such a committee of conference it shall be in 
order to consider the report of such a conference provided such report 
has been available to the House for 1 calendar day excluding Saturdays, 
Sundays, or legal holidays, unless the House is in session on such a 
day, and the accompanying statement has been filed in the House.
  Debate in the House of Representatives on the conference report and 
any amendments in disagreement on any disapproval bill shall be limited 
to not more than 1 hour equally divided and controlled by a proponent 
and an opponent. A motion to further limit debate shall not be 
debatable. A motion to recommit the conference report shall not be in 
order and it shall not be in order to reconsider the vote by which the 
conference report is agreed to or disagreed to.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, in closing I just would like to point out 
that President Ronald Reagan closed his autobiography entitled Ronald 
Reagan In American Life with these following paragraphs, which I cited 
in my 1 minute earlier today. He said:
  ``And yet, as I reflected on what we had accomplished, I had a sense 
of incompleteness, that there was still work to be done. We need a 
constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget,'' said Ronald 
Reagan, ``and the President needs a line-item veto to cut out 
unnecessary spending.''
  Come over here and give Ronald Reagan another birthday present. Let 
us pass this line-item veto. Give it to

[[Page H2984]]

the President who has guaranteed, ``I will sign it.''
  Come over here and vote for it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  We have just been informed that this closed rule self-executes into 
this debt limit bill a completely unrelated Senate-passed bill that 
will promote fraud by rogue operators posing as small businesses. This 
bill has not been reviewed by the House committees of jurisdiction, and 
the SEC strongly opposes it as drafted.
  While I strongly support initiatives to aid small business 
development, this legislation includes provisions that gives 
preferential treatment to small businesses that engage in securities 
fraud. One section would require the SEC to adopt a program to reduce, 
or in some circumstances to waive, civil penalties for violations of 
statutes or rules by small entities. This would have the obvious effect 
of encouraging rogues and knaves to conduct unlawful activities through 
small-business shells in order to get off with a slap on the wrist or a 
free fraud. Mr. Speaker, this is outrageously bad public policy.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a copy of a letter 
from the Chairman of the SEC outlining the problems with the small 
business bill.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.

                           Securities and Exchange Commission,

                                   Washington, DC, March 27, 1996.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Dingell: I am writing to express the views 
     of the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or 
     ``Commission'') regarding S. 942, the ``Small Business 
     Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.'' S. 942 
     recently passed the Senate and we understand that it may soon 
     be considered by the House. Although the Commission is very 
     supportive of fostering small business endeavors, it has 
     serious concerns that the bill could have a negative impact 
     on the Commission's enforcement program. The Commission's 
     principal concerns are as follows:
       The Commission is concerned about the provisions in S. 942 
     that suggest that preferential treatment should be afforded 
     to small businesses that engage in violative conduct. Fraud 
     is by no means confined to large entities: some of the most 
     egregious securities frauds in recent years (e.g., involving 
     penny stocks, prime bank notes, and wireless cable) have been 
     perpetrated by shell companies and other entities that could 
     qualify as ``small entities'' under S. 942. In fact, nearly 
     three-quarters of the firms in the securities industry could 
     be considered ``small entities.'' As a general matter, the 
     Commission believes that rules involving market integrity 
     should apply and be enforced equally as to all firms, large 
     as well as small.
       Another troubling provision in S. 942 would shift attorneys 
     fees and other expenses to the Commission, even in cases 
     where the Commission prevails in court, but where it fails to 
     obtain the full relief it has sought. In order to protect 
     investor funds from fraud and abuse, the SEC often must act 
     with swift, decisive enforcement action against fraud or 
     other misconduct. The requirements of S. 942 could serve to 
     hamper the Commission's enforcement efforts as it seeks 
     penalties or other appropriate relief from wrongdoers.
       The Commission's enforcement program is well-recognized for 
     its fairness. As a general practice, potential defendants are 
     given the opportunity through ``Wells'' submissions to 
     directly address the merits of proposed SEC enforcement 
     actions before they are instituted by the Commission. In 
     addition, pursuant to The Securities Enforcement Remedies and 
     Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990, Congress already requires the 
     Commission to weigh various factors before seeking or 
     imposing civil penalties. These include mitigating factors--
     such as the ability of the respondent to pay a penalty as 
     well as its ability to continue in business. The Commission 
     is concerned, however, that the imposition of S. 942's 
     additional requirements could ``tilt'' the enforcement 
     balance in favor of small firms, regardless of the damage 
     that may be done to public investors.
       The Commission has a record on small business issues that 
     is second to none. In recent years, the Commission has 
     created a new, simpler registration and disclosure regime for 
     small businesses that seek to raise capital in the securities 
     markets. It also has sought to expand the category of small 
     businesses that are exempt from the registration and full 
     disclosure requirements of the Exchange Act. Most recently, 
     the Commission's internal Task Force on Disclosure 
     Simplification released a report recommending the elimination 
     of numerous SEC regulations and forms, and proposing a 
     variety of additional steps to ease the capital formation 
     process for small businesses.
       The Commission recognizes that still more can be done to 
     reduce the regulatory burdens of small business, and we are 
     committed to continuing our efforts in this area. However, 
     while it is possible to streamline disclosure requirements 
     for small business issuers without impairing market fairness, 
     there is much less room to dilute or alter the regulatory and 
     enforcement framework that applies to market professionals 
     who handle investors' retirement funds and savings. In 
     applying and enforcing rules relating to market integrity, 
     the Commission believes that investor protection must come 
     first.
       The attached staff analysis discusses the issues raised by 
     S. 942 in greater detail. We believe that the Commission's 
     concerns can be easily met through appropriate exemptive 
     provisions for the SEC. We ask your assistance in raising 
     these issues on behalf of the Commission when S. 942 is 
     considered by the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arthur Levitt,
                                                         Chairman.
       Attachment.

    Staff Analysis of Effects of S. 942 on Securities and Exchange 
                               Commission

       The Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or 
     ``Commission'') has traditionally supported efforts to 
     facilitate the capital formation process for small business. 
     However, SEC staff is concerned that S. 942's proposals for 
     small business regulatory reform sweep too broadly--that the 
     bill could potentially impair regulatory and enforcement 
     efforts that are crucial to the integrity of the securities 
     markets, while imposing significant new costs upon the 
     Commission.\1\ This analysis focuses on parts of the bill 
     that the Commission staff believes are the most troublesome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  small business enforcement variance

       Section 202 of S. 942 would require each agency to adopt a 
     policy or program ``to provide for the reduction, and under 
     appropriate circumstances for the waiver, of civil 
     penalties'' for violations of statutes or rules by small 
     entities. This section appears to be premised on the 
     assumption that violations by medium-sized or large 
     businesses should be penalized, but that violations by small 
     businesses should be tolerated. This approach does not seem 
     appropriate for the regulation of the securities markets, 
     which depend on the exercise of professional judgment and 
     self-vigilance by all market participants, regardless of 
     size.\2\
       As a threshold matter, it is important to recognize that 
     serious fraud is not confined to large entities: some of the 
     most egregious frauds in recent years (involving penny 
     stocks, prime bank notes, and wireless cable) have involved 
     firms that could qualify as ``small entities'' under S. 942. 
     In addition, this enforcement philosophy would also be 
     applied to non-scienter based securities violations that are 
     equally critical to the integrity of the securities market, 
     for example, broker-dealer capital requirements. Notably, in 
     crafting rules such as the capital requirements, the 
     Commission already considers the size and the nature of a 
     broker-dealer's business; if a firm violates the requirements 
     applicable to them, there is no reason to consider these 
     matters in the enforcement context.
       This provision already exempts matter relating to 
     environmental health and safety; on additional exemption 
     relating to securities violations would appear equally 
     tenable.
       In any event, the language of the general requirement of 
     Section 202 suggests that the reduction of civil penalties 
     for violations by small businesses in mandatory; at a 
     minimum, this language should be changed to clarify that the 
     agency has discretion to consider ``appropriate 
     circumstances'' in determining whether to reduce civil 
     penalties.


               amendments to equal access to justice act

       S. 942 would increase the ability of all qualifying 
     litigants (and not just small businesses) to recover fees 
     from agencies under the Equal Access to Justice Act 
     (``EAJA''). Currently, EAJA permits litigants to recover 
     attorney's fees and other expenses from an agency if the 
     agency's position was not ``substantially justified.'' S. 942 
     would expand the opportunities for such recovery by 
     permitting the award of fees and expenses if the judgment or 
     decision of the court or adjudicative officer is 
     ``disproportionately less favorable'' to the SEC than the 
     relief the SEC requested. In practical terms, this means that 
     the SEC could ``lose, even if it wins'' in a lawsuit or other 
     enforcement proceeding.
       The changes to EAJA made by S. 942 would significantly 
     increase the exposure of the Commission to fee awards, in at 
     least two ways:
       First, the SEC might have to pay EAJA fees even in cases 
     that it wins, in the event that it does not obtain the full 
     relief it initially sought. For example, in enforcement 
     actions, the Commission frequently seeks to obtain an 
     injunction against securities law violations. While the court 
     could find that a violation has occurred, it might not 
     award an injunction for other reasons--for example, if the 
     defendant is too old, working in a different type of 
     business, or has expressed remorse for the violation. In 
     such situations, the court's final judgment may be 
     ``disproportionately less favorable'' to the Commission 
     than the relief requested for reasons wholly unrelated to 
     the merits of the Commission's case.
       Second, the SEC would be vulnerable to fee awards in cases 
     where it loses central issues of fact or law, regardless of 
     the reasonableness of the Commission's position. The 
     Commission faces some litigation risk every time it brings an 
     enforcement action. Enforcement cases for insider trading 
     fraud, for example, generally require the Commission to

[[Page H2985]]

     piece together documentary evidence such as telephone records 
     and securities trading patterns. If a jury or judge disagrees 
     with the Commission's interpretation of the facts and 
     exonerates a defendant, the Commission could be liable for 
     EAJA fees, even if the Commission had reasonably interpreted 
     the available evidence and sought relief that it believed was 
     substantially justified by such evidence.
       Similarly, adverse resolution of legal issues could subject 
     the Commission to EAJA fee awards. Even the most settled 
     interpretations of the securities laws are subject to 
     dissenting approaches of judicial or adjudicatory 
     decisionmakers. In a recent case, for example, the U.S. Court 
     of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit refused to follow several 
     other circuit courts that had long recognized a claim for 
     fraudulent insider trading based on the misappropriation of 
     material nonpublic information. United States v. Bryan, 58 
     F.3d 933 (4th Cir. 1995). In such situations of novel or 
     unanticipated legal decisions, the adverse resolution of a 
     central issue can remove any grounds for relief and subject 
     the Commission to fee awards.\3\
       Finally, the Commission often must act with swift, decisive 
     enforcement action against fraud, particularly in cases where 
     money may be moved quickly outside of the jurisdiction of a 
     U.S. Court. The requirements of S. 942 would hamper the 
     Commission's enforcement efforts by requiring it to evaluate 
     the risks to its own funds before seeing penalties or other 
     appropriate relief from wrongdoers.
       Because the Commission could be liable for EAJA awards even 
     when it prevails in a lawsuit, or when its position is 
     reasonable,\4\ the Commission opposes the EAJA provisions of 
     S. 942.\5\


                Amendments to Regulatory Flexibility Act

       S. 942 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``Reg. 
     Flex. Act'') to permit court challenge of the Commission's 
     final regulatory flexibility analyses. Enacted in 1980, the 
     Reg. Flex. Act currently requires the Commission to prepare 
     regulatory flexibility analyses evaluating the economic 
     impact of proposed SEC rules and rule changes on small 
     businesses. The SEC takes seriously the Reg. Flex. Act 
     requirements, and faithfully prepares the requisite analyses 
     for every rulemaking action it takes. Nevertheless, the Act 
     requires the Commission to predict future events--that is, 
     the effects that new and untested rules will have on small 
     businesses operating in ever-changing markets. Such 
     predictions are intrinsically imprecise; the Commission 
     cannot predict market forces and behavior in advance.
       The Reg. Flex. Act amendments in S. 942 would enable small 
     businesses to challenge in court the SEC's compliance with 
     the Reg. Flex. Act. A small business might try to argue, for 
     example, that the SEC did not adequately foresee the impact 
     that a rule change would have on small businesses. As a 
     result of such a challenge, a court could order the SEC to 
     defer enforcement of the rule against small entities until 
     the court completed its review of the challenge, unless the 
     court were to find ``good cause'' for continuing the 
     enforcement of the rule.
       The amendments contained in S. 942 would thus make it 
     possible for a party who opposes any Commission rule proposal 
     to use the Reg. Flex. analysis (regardless of the care and 
     effort taken in its preparation) as a pretext for litigation. 
     Conceivably, even rules that reduce burdens or provide 
     exemptions for businesses--large or small--could be subject 
     to attack under the Reg. Flex. Act amendments on the grounds 
     that the Commission did not foresee their potential impact on 
     small businesses, even where the impact was shaped in large 
     part by market shifts or economic forces. In any event, the 
     Commission believes that, as a general matter, rules 
     regulating market participants and relating to market 
     integrity issues should apply equally to all firms, large as 
     well as small.


             congressional review of commission rulemaking

       Title V of S. 942 permits Congress to override an agency's 
     adoption of any rules. This legislative veto authority does 
     not extend, however, to rules that concern monetary policy 
     proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee. 
     Because the Commission's rules directly concern the integrity 
     and efficiency of the securities markets, and are often 
     closely tied to the stability of such markets, we believe 
     that it is appropriate to accord the same exemption for SEC 
     rules as is accorded to the Federal Reserve and the FOMC.\6\


                               footnotes

     \1\ Senator Bond has made notable efforts to narrow the scope 
     of S. 942. However, the bill passed by the Senate continues 
     to pose significant issues with respect to the Commission's 
     enforcement and regulatory programs. This analysis outlines 
     those concerns for the Commerce Committee.
     \2\ In fact, of the approximately 7600 broker-dealers 
     registered with the Commission, over 5300 are small entities.
     \3\ Although the proposed EAJA amendments provide an 
     exception from fee awards if the ``party or small entity has 
     committed a willful violation of law or otherwise acted in 
     bad faith, or special circumstances made an award of 
     attorney's fees unjust,'' a court or administrative law judge 
     probably could not make a finding of ``willful violation'' or 
     bad faith action by the defendant if it determined that, even 
     in a close case, its interpretation of the law or the facts 
     did not permit the relief requested by the Commission.
     \4\ Under existing law, EAJA fees have not been imposed on 
     the SEC when the court has found that there was a reasonable 
     basis for the Commission's action. See, e.g., SEC v. Switzer, 
     590 F. Supp. 756 (W.D. Okla. 1984) (refusing to award EAJA 
     fees, despite finding no securities law violation, because of 
     reasonable basis for Commission's enforcement action).
     \5\ Even though the Commission by law forwards the civil 
     penalties it obtains in enforcement actions to the U.S. 
     Treasury, the Commission must pay EAJA fees directly out of 
     its annual appropriation. Amendments to EAJA under S. 942 
     would further increase the burden on the Commission by 
     increasing the fee rate for attorney's fees from $75 per hour 
     to $125 per hour.
     \6\ Similar concerns arise regarding H.R. 994, a separate 
     regulatory reform bill that is currently under consideration 
     in the House. That bill would require the Commission to 
     engage in a lengthy, costly and onerous review of all of its 
     rules (even those involving market integrity), despite the 
     substantial efforts the Commission has made in the past to 
     tailor its rules to the changing conditions of the securities 
     industry. A similar exception in H.R. 994 for the rules of 
     the federal banking agencies should be extended to include 
     the Commission.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ``ayes'' appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution, as amended.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 180, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 97]

                               YEAS--232

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--180

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder

[[Page H2986]]


     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Blute
     Borski
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Gutierrez
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lazio
     Nethercutt
     Sisisky
     Smith (WA)
     Stokes
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1214

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Fowler for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
       Mr. Lazio of New York for, with Mr. Stokes against.

  Mr. GIBBONS and Mr. DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 177, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 98]

                               AYES--232

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--177

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Blute
     Borski
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Dickey
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fowler
     Gejdenson
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lazio
     Longley
     Nethercutt
     Roth
     Smith (WA)
     Stokes
     Tauzin
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1224

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Fowler for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
       Mr. Lazio of New York for, with Mr. Stokes against.

  Mr. BARCIA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________