[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3209-H3210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




YESTERDAY'S RULE VOTE WAS NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM AN UP-OR-DOWN 
                       VOTE ON THE LINE-ITEM VETO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank you for 
your patience in allowing me to put my matters together. I rise today 
to correct what I believe has been a serious misunderstanding of 
yesterday's rules vote. Yesterday, a number of news organizations 
erroneously reported that a vote on the rule, House Resolution

[[Page H3210]]

391, was in fact a vote on the line-item veto. Mr. Speaker, this is not 
the case. The vote on the rule was an extremely complicated vote on a 
procedural matter. It was most certainly not a place in which Members 
believed that they were registering either support or opposition to the 
line-item veto. In fact, there was not one single occasion yesterday 
when this House had an up-or-down vote on the line-item veto.
  Anybody interested in finding a clean up-and-down vote on the line-
item veto, and I want you to pay strict attention, anybody interested 
in finding a clean up-or-down vote on the line-item veto should read 
the Congressional Record from February 6, 1995, or they should look at 
some of yesterday's other votes. For instance, the vote on the motion 
to recommit was a vote either for or against making the line-item veto 
effective immediately as opposed to waiting until January 1997, after 
the Presidential elections.
  Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House are very complicated, and 
yesterday's rule was one of the most confusing that I have seen in a 
long while. In fact, even if the rule had failed, line-item veto could 
still have proceeded on to the President. But I believe we in the House 
have a responsibility to explain those rules to the people we serve, 
rather than simplifying them to the point that they no longer reflect 
the realities of the House. So let me state again, Mr. Speaker, so that 
I may make myself perfectly clear: Yesterday's rule vote was not in any 
way, shape, or form an up-or-down vote on the line-item veto.

                          ____________________