[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 164 (Thursday, November 18, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2437-E2438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            INTRODUCTION OF EXPEDITED RESCISSION LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 17, 1999

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that 
will give the President an important tool to control spending by 
identifying low priority and wasteful spending that can be eliminated. 
The legislation I am introducing today, known as modified line item 
veto or expedited rescission legislation, would strengthen the ability 
of Presidents to identify and eliminate low-priority budget items with 
the support of a majority in Congress.
  Under this legislation the President would be able to single out 
individual items in tax or spending legislation and send a rescission 
package to Congress. The President would have the option of earmarking 
savings from proposed rescissions to deficit reduction by proposing 
that the discretionary spending caps be reduced by the amount of the 
rescissions. Congress would be required to vote up or down on the 
package under an expedited procedure. Members could offer motions to 
remove individual items from the package by majority vote if their 
motion was supported by fifty members. The spending items would be 
eliminated or the tax item would be repealed if a majority of Congress 
approves the rescission package. If the rescission bill is defeated in 
either House the funds for any proposed rescission would be spent or 
the tax item would take effect.
  This legislation embodies an idea which many Members, both Democrats 
and Republicans, have worked on for several years. Dan Quayle first 
introduced expedited rescission legislation in 1985. Tom Carper and 
Dick Armey did yeomen's work in pushing this legislation for several 
years. On the Democratic side, Tim Johnson, Dan Glickman, Tim Penny and 
L.F. Payne were particularly effective advocates of this legislation 
for years. Numerous Republicans, including Lynn Martin, Bill Frenzel, 
Gerald Solomon, Harris Fawell and others made meaningful contributions 
to expedited rescission legislation as it has developed.
  Thanks to the efforts of these and other members, the House 
overwhelmingly passed expedited rescission legislation in the 102nd 
Congress. In the 103rd Congress, John Spratt and Butler Derrick worked 
with me to refine the legislation. This revised legislation was passed 
by the House in 1993. In 1994, Representatives John Kasich and Tim 
Penny joined the effort and helped pass a strengthened version of this 
legislation. Since then, Representatives Bob Wise, Rob Andrews and 
others have advocated this approach. Today, I am joined by David Minge, 
Rob Andrews, Collin Peterson, Marion Berry, Max Sandlin, Ralph Hall and 
Allen Boyd in introducing this legislation.
  We have heard a lot of talk about eliminating waste and pork barrel 
spending, but little serious action to actually eliminate pork barrel 
spending. In fact, the appropriations bills passed by the House 
includes hundreds of earmarks for spending items that were not 
requested by the administration and have not been subject to hearings 
or review. Senator John McCain has identified more than $14 billion of 
spending items buried in appropriations

[[Page E2438]]

bills that have not been subjected to the proper review. Other private 
organizations have identified even more earmarked spending in the 
appropriations bills passed by Congress which they believe can be 
eliminated. Instead of subjecting these spending items buried in the 
appropriations bills to scrutiny, the Majority has proposed an across 
the board spending that would cut good programs just as much as we cut 
low priority and wasteful programs.
  Forcing votes on individual items in tax and spending bills will 
bring a little more accountability to the budget process. I hope that 
my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are serious about 
controlling spending and eliminating wasteful spending and special 
interest tax breaks that cannot withstand public scrutiny, will join me 
in cosponsoring this legislation.

              Summary of Expedited Rescission Legislation

       The legislation would amend the Budget Control and 
     Impoundment Act of 1974 to require Congress to consider 
     Presidential rescissions of appropriations or tax items by a 
     majority vote.
       The President could propose to cut or eliminate individual 
     spending items in appropriations bills or to repeal targeted 
     tax breaks (tax breaks which benefit a particular taxpayer or 
     class of taxpayers, except benefits based on demographic 
     conditions).
       The President would be required to submit proposed 
     rescissions of tax items within ten days of signing the tax 
     bill. Proposed rescissions of spending items could be 
     submitted at any time during the fiscal year.
       The President could propose that the discretionary spending 
     limits be reduced by the amount of the rescissions, but would 
     not be required to do so.
       Within ten legislative days after the President sends a 
     rescission package to Congress, a vote shall be taken on the 
     rescission bill in the House. The bill may not be amended on 
     the floor, except that 50 House members can request a vote on 
     a motion to strike an individual rescission from the package.
       If the President's rescission package is approved by a 
     simple majority of the House, the bill would be sent to the 
     Senate for consideration under the same expedited procedure. 
     Fifteen Senators may request a separate vote on an individual 
     item.
       If a simple majority in either the House or Senate defeats 
     a rescission proposal, the funds for programs covered by the 
     proposal would be released for obligation in accordance with 
     the previously enacted appropriation, or the tax provision 
     would take effect.
       If a bill rescinding spending or eliminating tax benefits 
     is approved by the House and Senate, it would be sent to the 
     President for his signature. Upon Presidential signature, the 
     spending items in the rescission package are reduced or 
     eliminated, or the tax items in the rescission package are 
     repealed.

     

                          ____________________