[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.
____________________