[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E655-E656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1997--AN EFFECTIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL 
           ALTERNATIVE TO THE DISCREDITED LINE-ITEM VETO ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DAVID E. SKAGGS

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 15, 1997

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining three other Members in 
introducing a bill to give the President and Congress new, effective--
and constitutional--powers to weed out wasteful Government spending.
  This bipartisan approach, the ``Expedited Rescissions Act of 1997,'' 
is being cosponsored by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Marge Roukema; 
the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, John M. Spratt, Jr.; and 
Charles W. Stenholm, a long-time leader in the fight for a balanced 
budget. I am very pleased to have their support for this measure.
  We all know that sometimes a large appropriations bill includes an 
item that could never

[[Page E656]]

pass if it had been considered on its own. Being able to cut that kind 
of unnecessary spending out of a bill is essential to be prudent in how 
we spend taxpayer money, to get the Federal budget under control, and 
to restore public faith in Congress. The line-item veto was supposed to 
be a way to deal with that. But while the diagnosis was right, the 
proposed remedy went too far--further than the Constitution permits. 
That's why it's been struck down in court.
  Our bill is a better prescription--one that will work and that will 
pass constitutional muster.
  Under our bill, whenever the President wants to cut a particular 
spending item in an appropriations bill, he would be able to require 
Congress to reconsider and vote separately on rescinding that item, 
under tight deadlines and without amendment.
  So, like the line-item veto act, our bill would let the President 
throw a bright spotlight onto spending items and have Congress vote on 
them separately, up or down, without changes and in full public view. 
Since the wasteful spending we're trying to get at is the kind of 
project that would never pass on its own, this process will be a 
completely reliable an effective way to block that kind of waste of 
taxpayer money.
  Our legislation is patterned after, but stronger than, the enhanced-
rescission authority passed by the House in 1993. Unlike the 1993 bill, 
our approach does not let the Appropriations Committee come up with its 
alternative way to rescind the same amount of money that would be cut 
by the President's proposed rescission. Our legislation requires that 
the actual rescission proposed by the President--that one, without any 
amendment, and with no alternative to it--be voted on by the Congress.
  Unlike the line-item veto, our bill is constitutionally sound. It 
does not attempt to give to the President the basic law-making 
authority that the Constitution vests solely in the Congress.
  Constitutionally, the line-item veto act could not be effective--it 
wasn't real. This bill would give the President authority that could be 
used effectively--it is real.
  The administration has said it will ask the Supreme Court to reverse 
Judge Jackson's decision striking down the line-item veto. I do not 
believe appeal will be successful. Judge Jackson's unusually emphatic 
opinion makes it clear that he was completely convinced that the line-
item veto is profoundly unconstitutional. I'm confident the Supreme 
Court will agree.
  We in the Congress ought to pass this new bill. That way, when the 
Supreme Court does sound the final death knell for the line-item veto 
act, we will have an effective, constitutionally valid alternative in 
place and ready for use. A majority of Congress wants a mechanism to 
cut out of appropriations bills that spending that could not withstand 
a separate up-or-down vote; the President wants that mechanism; a 
majority of the American people wants us to have that mechanism. This 
bill will give us that.

                          ____________________