[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 82 (Thursday, June 22, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4433-H4441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4890, LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO 
                              ACT OF 2006

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 886 and ask for its immediate consideration
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 886

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4890) to amend the 
     Congressional and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide 
     for the expedited consideration of certain proposed 
     rescissions of budget authority. The bill shall be considered 
     as read. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Budget now printed in the 
     bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), 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. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 886 is the rule that 
provides for debate of H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 
2006.
  As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, the 
two committees of jurisdiction for the underlying legislation, I am 
pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for our consideration.
  The Legislative Line Item Veto Act is the product of years of work on 
both sides of the aisle in Congress and at both ends of Pennsylvania 
Avenue. The original Line Item Veto Act was signed into law in April of 
1996. It was later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its 
1998 ruling on Clinton v. The City of New York. In each Congress since 
1998, there have been multiple proposals from both parties to give the 
President constitutional line item veto authority.
  In his State of the Union address this year, President Bush stated: 
``I am pleased that Members of Congress are working on earmark reform, 
because the Federal budget has too many special interest projects. And 
we can tackle this problem together if you pass the line item veto.''
  This subtle, but powerful, statement gave momentum to the effort to 
consider a constitutional option to the original Line Item Veto Act. 
The statement was followed up by an official message from the President 
to Congress in which he specifically asked Congress to consider his 
proposed Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, which was subsequently 
introduced by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
  This legislation is based on an expedited rescissions approach to 
controlling spending that has been historically supported by both 
Democrats and Republicans as a means of bringing greater transparency 
and accountability to the budget and spending process. In fact, during 
the early 1990s, and again in 2004, expedited rescissions proposals 
that would have provided the President with the ability to propose the 
cancellation of spending items and special interest tax breaks and have 
them considered by Congress on an expedited basis were widely supported 
by Members of both parties. The Expedited Rescissions Act of 1993 was 
introduced by the ranking member, the Democratic leader on the Budget 
Committee, and received 258 votes on the House floor, including 174 
Democrats. The Expedited Rescissions Act of 1994, another bill 
sponsored by the ranking member on the Budget Committee, received 342 
votes on the House floor, including 173 Democrats. In 2004, the Ryan-
Stenholm bipartisan Expedited Rescissions amendment received 174 votes 
on the floor, including 45 Democrats, one of which was the ranking 
Budget Committee member.
  The current version of H.R. 4890 is also the product of that 
bipartisan effort. Based on input from Members from both sides of the 
aisle, it is narrowly drafted to meet the intent of allowing the 
President to work with the Congress to reduce wasteful spending, while 
preserving the separation of powers between the legislative and 
executive branches. This legislative line item veto ensures that the 
power of the purse remains in the hands of Congress, where our Founding 
Fathers placed it and intended it to remain. Both the House and the 
Senate must affirm the President's vetoed spending. We will vote on any 
items the President selects. Congress maintains the final say on where 
and how and if the funding in question occurs.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ryan, the Budget Committee, and the Rules 
Committee for creating legislation that will enable this Congress to 
maintain control of our spending priorities at both the beginning and 
the end of the budget process. This legislation is another example of 
the Republican-led Congress and our President pushing forward with 
fiscal discipline.
  I urge members to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and good 
friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for the time, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the 
underlying legislation. It is the misguided belief of some that the 
line item veto will serve as an effective tool to overcome the 
profligate spending by Congress. The irony, of course, is that if 
Congress had any kind of backbone, we would do it ourselves. For 
instance, if these same Members, who in my opinion feign seriousness 
about reining in spending, were actually serious, they would support 
our colleague, Mr. Flake, more often in his admirable yet heretofore 
unsuccessful attempts in cutting spending using the constitutionally 
mandated method, writing them into or removing them from bills before 
being sent to the President.

                              {time}  1115

  Proponents argue that giving the President enhanced authority and 
power would check Congress' mismicromanagement of Federal spending. 
Frankly, I think this reasoning is preposterous. I highly doubt that 
increased rescission authority would be used to decrease our Nation's 
deficit. To the contrary, I believe such authority would only further 
the aims of the partisan politics we have seen through this Congress 
and this administration. And let me be fair. If there is

[[Page H4434]]

ever a Democratic President, I think he or she would likely use this 
particular legislation in a partisan fashion.
  For more than 5 years, the President has continually signed off on 
budgets that have only deepened our Nation's deficit. If the President 
seeks to cut excessive spending and lower the deficit, he, meaning this 
President, should adopt the traditional means he already possesses 
before seeking expanded authority.
  Americans might have less trouble keeping their heads above water if 
they were not being overwhelmed with the red ink flowing in Washington, 
D.C. The truth of the matter is that this President has no need to use 
his power to veto when he can convince the majority in Congress to 
strike sections of legislation that go against the President's 
political agenda. In fact, in the more than 5 years that President Bush 
has been in office, he has not used the veto authority he currently 
possesses to veto a single piece of legislation that would lower our 
deficit or reduce the debt.
  Who knew that in the year 2000 the Supreme Court would choose 
America's first prime minister and relegate Congress' role to that of 
an advisory committee.
  Someone said recently that this Republican Congress has been simply a 
rubber stamp for the President. I politely disagree. My view is that at 
least a rubber stamp leaves an impression.
  We have heard, and we will continue to hear, that almost all our 
Governors have something akin to line item veto authority. This, 
however, should not be used as a reason why we ought to do the same at 
the Federal level. In Florida, for example, the Governor's expanded 
veto authority has clearly shifted powers long held by the State 
legislators to the executive branch. We cannot let this happen here. 
We, the legislators, not the executive branch, should determine the 
legislative agenda.
  Ms. Slaughter, in our meeting the other day, said where is it that 
this divine notion of what ought to be in the power of the purse is 
over there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, no matter who occupies that 
office?
  Now, once you take an even closer look at this bill, it gets even 
worse. The bill's provisions mandate that no amendment can be made to 
any rescission bills while in committee. This heavily restrictive 
``all-or-nothing'' approach to the legislative process is quite 
damaging. Moreover, it totally undermines proponents' arguments that 
the President's ``all-or-nothing'' power to veto is what must be 
curbed.
  The bill also stipulates limited debate in both the House and the 
Senate. It certainly does not answer the question of what happens if 
the Senate votes one way and the House votes another on one of the 
measures that the President has determined should be rescinded. These 
requirements do nothing but upset the delicate balance of power that 
our Founding Fathers crafted.
  A footnote right there: Didn't the Supreme Court already tell us once 
before that veto in this particular fashion was unconstitutional, the 
line item veto?
  If this bill passes, consensus, the ultimate cornerstone of the 
legislative process, as well as the principles of democracy itself, 
will most definitely be lost. Furthermore and most importantly, I do 
not think it wise or in the best interest of the American people for 
the legislative branch, this House that the Founding Fathers gave the 
power of the purse, to delegate more of its powers to any 
administration. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, wherever the 
President comes from, they should not have the power constitutionally 
mandated for the legislative branch to have. Administrations have 
continually abused our trust and usurped our constitutional authority.
  For more than 5 years, the delicate system of checks and balances 
that our country depends on has been compromised all too often. Whether 
using so-called signing statements, and I wish I had to time to explain 
to the American public that dynamic, and I might add used by President 
Clinton as well, but not as much as by President Bush, which include 
caveats to bills, or tapping our phones, or wildly interpreting 
authority given by the PATRIOT Act, this President has shown little to 
no regard for Congress' coequal authority for control over the 
management of the country.
  We cannot let this President, or any President for that matter, upset 
the balance needed to run this country. Granting line item veto 
authority to the executive branch would not only be offensive to 
democracy, it would be a serious mistake. It would undermine the United 
States Constitution, and it would be the kind of mistake we cannot 
afford to pay.
  We are not children in this body, Mr. Speaker. We do not need to 
enshrine in law a paternalistic relationship between Congress and the 
President.
  I urge rejection of this rule, and I urge rejection and entreat my 
colleagues to defeat the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from 
Florida, a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committees, Mr. 
Crenshaw.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this rule so that we can get on with the 
underlying bill to grant the President line item veto to just be 
another tool in trying to get a handle on the way we spend money here 
in Washington. Everybody knows that we are trying to do a better job of 
controlling spending, and the line item veto would just be another 
piece of the puzzle, another reform that we ought to put in place to 
help us toward that goal.
  Now, first and foremost, we have got to exercise discipline ourselves 
here in this House. And a lot of people do not realize it, but we have 
actually done that. The last couple of years we have written a budget 
in this House where, for instance, last year in the budget, when you 
take out defense and homeland security, the nonsecurity spending of the 
United States Government actually went down for the first time in 20 
years since Ronald Reagan was President. This year we wrote a budget 
that freezes nonsecurity spending. And that is a huge step in the right 
direction.
  We have also put a rainy day fund in our budget this year to kind of 
be like most American families, to say if there is an unexpected 
problem, we will have some money set aside. We are already talking 
about earmark reform. That is part of some legislation.
  So now we have got the line item veto. That will give the President 
the right to say, ``I see something in the spending bill that looks a 
little bit out of line, and I want to bring it up.'' Now, all that does 
is add a little bit more oversight, a little bit more accountability, a 
little bit more transparency into this overall budget process. What is 
wrong with that? If you really want to get a handle on how we spend 
money, what is wrong with an additional review? It might even make us 
here think more thoughtfully about the things that we do and the money 
that we are spending it on.
  So I just think that this is part of the puzzle. It is one tool. It 
is not going to solve the spending problem once and for all, but it 
certainly is a valuable tool. We all know that government needs money 
to provide services, but it seems to me right now government needs 
something more. It needs discipline, and we are providing that, and the 
line item veto will help with that. The government needs the commitment 
to make sure that every task of government is completed more 
efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before, and the 
line item veto will help in that regard.
  We can do more with less around here, and if we pass this line item 
veto, that will just be another part of the puzzle, another tool in our 
equipment to get a handle on the way we spend money. The American 
people deserve no less.
  So I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, excuse me. Will my colleague 
remain for me to use some of my time to ask him a question before I 
yield to my good friend Mr. Miller?
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes, sir.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And I might add my good friend and fellow 
Floridian, and he is my good friend.
  Let me ask you, Mr. Crenshaw, do you feel that this House of 
Representatives and the U.S. Senate, or the Congress, is in a deficit 
spending environment at this time? Can you answer ``yes'' or ``no''?

[[Page H4435]]

  Mr. CRENSHAW. I know this year there will be a deficit in terms of 
our overall budget and spending this year.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Right. And every year since the President 
has been in office, we have been in this deficit spending environment; 
would you agree?
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I think it is going down, and that is the good news, 
because the economy is growing.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Then tell me what is down and what is up? 
Did we not raise the debt ceiling twice?
  Mr. CRENSHAW. We raised the debt ceiling twice. And the economy is 
roaring, and we lowered taxes, and people are back at work, and the 
deficit is going down, down, down. And that is good news.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, you say that this will 
be a little bit more. Our good friend Paul Ryan, who is an author of 
this legislation, yesterday in my dialogue with him, he agreed that 
this legislation gives the President the power to do five messages in 
regular legislation and 10 in an omnibus. Do you think by any stretch 
of the imagination that the American public believes that this is going 
to reduce the national debt?
  Mr. CRENSHAW. For instance, I would say this: We had a transportation 
bill last time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Can you answer ``yes'' or ``no''?
  Mr. CRENSHAW. And you have heard of the ``bridge to nowhere''? That 
was about $300 million, and that kind of made its way through the 
process on to the President's desk. And I think if the President had 
had a line item veto, he might have said, You know what? I think you 
ought to take another look at that ``bridge to nowhere.'' And he could 
have exercised that line item veto. And maybe if that had gone away, 
then, yes, we would have spent less money, and the deficit would not be 
as large as it is today, and that is good.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, we do not live in 
Alaska, and no affront to you. I am delighted that we have $1.8 billion 
coming to Florida for coastal protection, but the President could have 
line itemed that, too.
  Mr. Crenshaw, you served in the State legislature. And under 
Democrats and Republicans that had the line item veto, the simple fact 
of the matter is they have used it in a partisan fashion more often 
than not. That is among the fears.
  Thank you for the dialogue.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good 
friend from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  It is fitting that we are talking about the line item veto when we 
are doing the estate tax. President Clinton left you guys an estate of 
$5 trillion, and like irresponsible relatives, you went off and blew 
it. And now you are saying to the country, like so often serial killers 
leave notes for the police, as the Son of Sam did, saying, ``Help me 
before I kill again,'' you are saying, ``Help me before I spend 
again.''
  You control all the mechanisms of spending. You control the House. 
You control the Senate. You control the Presidency. And you need help 
before you spend again. What is this, Comedy Central? What is it you 
are doing here? ``Help me, I can't stop spending. Give me a line item 
veto, and maybe the President will veto 1 million here or 10 million 
there or 5 million there.''
  We have an $8 trillion debt. You inherited a $5 trillion surplus. The 
money you are going to give to the richest families later today in this 
country, the richest 7,000 families, you are going to borrow from 
Social Security.
  Mr. Crenshaw says you are now being fiscally responsible because you 
have a rainy day fund. You are the only family in America that went out 
and borrowed money to put into a rainy day fund because you do not have 
any money. The American people do not have any money in this 
government. All they have is debt. And you want a bill to help you to 
keep from spending again. What you need is a 12-step program on 
spending.

                              {time}  1130

  It is called intestinal fortitude. It is called having a spine. It is 
called having some guts to do what is necessary. But the first thing 
you did was get rid of the discipline and pay-as-you-go. So now you are 
stuck.
  But more importantly, the Nation is stuck, and so we see this little 
plea, on the morning that we are going to give away almost $1 trillion 
to the richest people in the Nation, you have a plea here that maybe 
the President will stop the bridge to nowhere. How about Congress 
stopping the bridge to nowhere? How about doing what you were elected 
to do?
  You don't need a line item veto. This isn't about statutes. This 
isn't about vetoes. This is about what the Congress is to do. You 
walked in here fresh, newly elected, and you got handed $5 trillion. 
And now you can't stop yourself. You can't stop yourself.
  You can stop yourself from giving the people an increase in the 
minimum wage that hasn't increased since 1997. You can't give those 
people 70 cents more an hour. But you give it away to the richest 
estates, and then you can plead that but for the line item veto, we 
would somehow get to a balanced budget.
  Every dollar you are going to spend today, tomorrow, and every dollar 
you spent yesterday and the day before came out of the Social Security 
Trust Fund. I am sure that America, while you are putting away a rainy 
day fund on borrowed money, I am sure America is delighted that you are 
putting away the estate tax on their Social Security earnings, on their 
trust fund. You are taking their trust fund that belongs to all 
Americans called the Social Security Trust Fund and you are raiding it 
for the trust fund of the heirs of the richest estates in America. What 
a wonderful example today. What a wonderful example for young people to 
learn about our obligations to future generations.
  This is a theater of the absurd. You have run the country into the 
ditch financially. You got a $1 trillion war going that you can't 
figure out how to stop. You have stolen most of the money from Social 
Security Trust Fund. Every year we have a deficit. We have a $8 
trillion debt. And you want to talk about the line item veto.
  You know, the government is spending money like a drunken sailor, and 
Ronald Reagan said, well, at least the sailor was spending his own 
money.
  You are spending the public's money at a rapid, illegal, 
unconscionable, immoral rate, and you ought to stop, but the line item 
veto won't do it.
  Lots of things have changed since 1997, but the value of the minimum 
wage isn't one of them. Because of Congress' failure to act on behalf 
of the lowest paid workers in America, the minimum wage is still just 
$5.15 per hour. $5.15 per hour. Think about that. At $5.15 per hour, 
you would have to work all day just to fill a tank of gas at today's 
gas prices.
  At $5.15 per hour, you would have to work for at least 30 minutes 
just to afford a single gallon of milk.
  Democrats have a simple and reasonable proposal: We want to raise the 
minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years. Doing so would 
directly benefit 6.6 million American workers. The vast majority of 
those workers are adults. Hundreds of thousands of them are parents 
with children under the age of 18.
  We have all heard the well-worn economic arguments against raising 
the minimum wage, and we all know they simply aren't true. The truth is 
that raising the minimum wage won't hurt the economy, and can even help 
it.
  But forget about economics. That's not what this issue is about. This 
issue is about doing what's right. And it is just wrong that, in the 
wealthiest and most advanced country in the history of the world, 
millions of adults work full-time, all year, and yet still earn an 
income that leaves them deep in poverty.
  It is just wrong for the Republican leaders of this Congress to 
refuse to allow even a vote on raising the minimum wage. But what makes 
all of this far worse is that today, once again, as it has done so many 
times during the past several years, the leaders of this House are 
going to push tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country .
  You know, starting in 2009, only the largest and wealthiest 7,500 
estates nationwide will pay the estate tax. The Republican plan to gut 
the tax on these 7,500 estates will add three quarters of a trillion 
dollars to the federal budget deficit over the next decade. That's 
trillion with a T.
  Lee Raymond, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil, stands to save as much as 
$160 million if this estate tax repeal goes through. This is the same 
Lee Raymond who left his job with a $400 million retirement package.

[[Page H4436]]

  Why is the Republican leadership so worried about people like Lee 
Raymond? Why is the Republican leadership constantly looking for new 
ways to help the absolute richest people in the country? When is the 
leadership of this House going to do something for the lowest-paid 
families in America?
  If you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth and you stand to 
inherit millions or even billions of dollars that you did not work to 
earn, then this Congress wants to serve you. But if you get up every 
day and go to work to earn a living, then don't expect any help from 
this Congress. The message all of this sends could not be clearer. The 
Republicans value wealth, not work.
  If you hold up your end of the bargain and contribute to your 
community and our economy by working hard every day, then you should 
not have to live in poverty. It is well past time for this Congress to 
treat America's working families with the respect and dignity they have 
earned.
  The choice to provide hundreds of billions more in tax breaks for the 
ultra-wealthy is shameful. It's even more shameful to do it while 
steadfastly refusing to raise the minimum wage.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my friend that on the 
three previous occasions there has been an opportunity to vote on this 
issue, 173 Democrats one time, 173 Democrats another time and 45 
Democrats at another time all joined the cast members at his theater.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and certainly 
the underlying legislation as well.
  You know, President Reagan said the government is too big, and it 
spends too much. That is a very simple statement, but it really goes to 
the heart of why we need to have a line item veto.
  The American people are demanding something be done to get a handle 
on some of the out-of-control spending that does happen here, and the 
legislation we are considering today will go a very long way to bring 
fiscal restraint and greater accountability to government spending.
  The line item veto has actually worked in many, many States across 
our great Nation, including in my home State of Michigan, and I believe 
it can work here as well at the Federal level.
  Currently the only way that a President can make a stand against 
wasteful spending is to veto an entire bill, even though perhaps only a 
few provisions in that might be offensive. We have seen that not only 
this President, but others before him have been extremely hesitant to 
do so.
  So often we hear about some particular egregious pork-barrel spending 
slipped into what is otherwise a very good bill, and right now there is 
really nothing that can be done. This bill gives another tool. It is 
another way for the administration to work with the Congress to address 
spending in a responsible and a reasonable manner.
  This bill is common sense, and I think it will require lawmakers to 
be more careful about the spending that they are advocating and also to 
be able to justify that spending. I think this is a great start toward 
fiscal responsibility, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and again to support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good 
friend from Wisconsin, perhaps it would be helpful if we have a little 
bit of historical foundation. Sometimes we forget these great people 
that met and debated for a long time before they determined the form of 
government that we should have.
  But one of the things that they established most immediately in 
Article I, after the Preamble, ``We the People of the United States, in 
Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our 
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 
States of America,'' Article I, Section 1, colleagues: ``All 
legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the 
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of 
Representatives.'' Not a President.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, this rule is outrageous. We have a closed 
rule, no amendments, no substitute allowed in order. We had a serious 
discussion in the Budget Committee just last week over this legislation 
raising serious issues of concern about the body of this legislation. 
Now we come to the floor today, and we are completely foreclosed from 
having an honest debate about some of the fixes that I feel and many of 
my colleagues feel are necessary to improve this legislation.
  Now, I appreciate what the authors of the legislation are trying to 
accomplish, but let's not forget one fundamental fact: If there is a 
concern about overspending in this Congress, we already have a tool to 
address it. It is called stop spending.
  I guess I would have a little more confidence if the track record of 
this administration and this Congress was more serious about fiscal 
responsibility. This is the first President since Thomas Jefferson who 
has refused to veto one spending bill. He is not even using the 
rescission process that he already has authority to do.
  The last reconciliation measure before this Congress actually 
increased the national debt, rather than reducing the national debt, 
for the first time in our Nation's history.
  I am afraid this legislation today is nothing but a political fig 
leaf to try to cover up the complete breakdown in fiscal responsibility 
under this administration and this Congress. And that is unfortunate, 
because we owe a better work product to future generations, rather than 
leaving them a legacy of debt.
  Five debt ceiling increases in the last 6 years. They have presided 
over the quickest and largest expansion of national debt in our 
Nation's history, and the fastest-growing area in the Federal budget 
today is interest on the national debt.
  What is really unfortunate is we no longer owe this debt to 
ourselves. We are completely dependent on foreign countries such as 
China to be financing these deficits today, putting us in a security 
and an economically perilous situation dependent on other countries to 
be financing our books because we don't have the institutional will to 
do it ourselves.
  We had a viable and credible substitute that actually gets serious 
about fiscal responsibility. It reinstitutes pay-as-you-go rules, a 
tool that worked very effectively in the 1990s that led to 4 years of 
budget surpluses when we were actually paying down the national debt 
rather than increasing that debt burden to our children and 
grandchildren.
  We also called for a greater time to review spending measures before 
they are brought to the floor so we have a chance to dig into it and 
find out where the spending is going.
  We also had in our substitute an important provision that would 
prohibit any administration from using this line item power to 
blackmail Members of Congress in order to cajole votes from them to 
support other measures that are completely unrelated to the spending 
bill before us.
  These are serious deficiencies that many of us have in the bill, but 
we are foreclosed from discussing them with amendments or by offering a 
substitute today. I think that is an outrage.
  I would encourage my colleagues to reject this rule. Let's open it 
up. What are we afraid of? Let's have an honest debate. Let's have a 
debate of ideas, and let the votes fall where they may.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I sit here and I listened to what can only be termed as 
the height of hypocrisy. The gentleman who has just debated against 
this particular bill in fact 2 years ago voted for almost the same 
thing, and now today he is voting against it. I don't care what you 
say, that is pretty funny right there.
  Since 1991, Federal spending on special-interest projects has 
increased by 900 percent. We understand that. Congress is long overdue 
in extending the line item veto privileges to the President of the 
United States.

[[Page H4437]]

  This bill does not vest within the President the ability to solely go 
in and line item veto by himself. It comes back to the Congress. It 
gives him the authority to propose elimination of earmarks, but it 
leaves Congress the ability to give an up-or-down vote on the 
President's proposal.
  I served in the Florida State Legislature where there is a line item 
veto by the Governor, and it was inferred just a little while ago by 
one of the speakers that it was used politically. Yes, it was used 
politically in Florida, but only by the Democratic administration.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I don't believe he said that. I want to 
continue along those lines. Evidently the previous speaker doesn't know 
what Governor Jeb Bush just did, but that is another story.
  I want to keep the Constitution before us. What it says in that same 
article, which, incidentally, was the first article, the article 
creating the President was the second article, in the first article, 
``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of 
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the 
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from 
time to time,'' by the Congress.
  I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cooper).
  (Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, in the vain hope that there still is an 
undecided Member of this body, I think it is important that we look at 
the facts. I would encourage my colleagues to oppose both the rule on 
the line item veto and on the estate tax. Why? I am afraid people 
watching this debate are seeing Congress at a historical low point.
  On the estate tax, if you read the editorial in today's Wall Street 
Journal, the Wall Street Journal is claiming that King Bill Thomas' 
proposal is hardly an improvement over current law. Hardly an 
improvement over current law.
  So if you are for repeal, you better check with King Bill Thomas, 
because he has been given near royal powers by this House. Members of 
the vaunted Ways and Means Committee were denied an opportunity to even 
meet and discuss this legislation. So no one really knows what is in 
it, except perhaps King Bill Thomas.
  What an outrage. This is supposed to be a deliberative body, but 
because of this rule, the Pomeroy substitute was not allowed to be 
considered. What is King Bill Thomas afraid of? A debate? A discussion 
in the House of Representatives? This is a shameful moment in our 
history.
  But now turning to the rule on the line item veto, Mr. Spratt was 
denied an opportunity to offer a substitute. What is the Budget 
Committee afraid of? A debate? A discussion? The possibility we 
actually might know what we are voting on in this rubber-stamp 
Congress?
  Now, I am not a hard-core partisan. While I oppose repeal of the 
estate tax, I am planning on voting for the line item veto. I would 
suggest to my colleagues who care about budget deficits that that is 
the appropriate and consistent approach.
  But look at the line item veto. The only thing that that bill will do 
is deprive President Bush of his last excuse for accepting all 
congressional spending bills.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that this is the 
biggest spending domestic President since LBJ; in fact, probably 
exceeding even the Great Society spender himself.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that earmarks have 
proliferated. They are now up to some $50 billion a year. And what has 
the President done about it? He is the first President since Thomas 
Jefferson to never use his constitutional veto power, that chainsaw for 
cutting spending. President Bush has never touched it.
  There is a lesser power, more like a scissors cutting power, that 
President Bush has. Every President since Richard Nixon has had that 
power, and President Bush has never used that power.
  So what is he asking for here? Now it is called line item veto, but 
it is not really. That is a lie. Properly titled, the bill is expedited 
rescission. Why? Because line item veto is unconstitutional. The 
Supreme Court decided that in 1998. So all this bill is is a pair of 
sharpened scissors for the President, who has never used his regular 
scissors.

                              {time}  1145

  Well, I for one hope he will use those sharpened scissors. How are 
they sharper? Well, it does require that Congress actually vote. We 
can't blow off the President by delaying indefinitely a vote on his 
recommended cuts. And that is a small improvement.
  But you are telling me, with the Republican tyranny that we have 
today, Republicans in charge of all branches of government, that 
President Bush couldn't have forced a vote on his suggested cuts if he 
had dared bring them up in the last 6 years of his Presidency? 
Certainly the President could have gotten a vote on it, but he has not 
dared ask. This is the most feckless, cowardly administration in terms 
of cutting spending that we have witnessed in American history.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Tennessee I am 
sure he did not mean to impugn or personalize the debate against any 
given chairman in this Chamber.
  I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Schmidt).
  (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act. 
I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his work on this 
important legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor because I believe 
H.R. 4890 will be a useful tool to reduce the budget deficit, improve 
accountability, and ensure that our taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
  Unlike previous versions of the Line Item Veto Act, H.R. 4890 
preserves Congress' authority. This legislation would give the 
President the ability to identify unnecessary, duplicative, or wasteful 
spending provisions that have passed Congress, and send these specific 
line items back to Congress under an expedited procedure for an 
affirmative up-or-down vote by both the House and the Senate.
  When I was elected to Congress, I pledged to be fiscally responsible. 
The line item veto is a way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent 
wisely. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a 
distinguished member of long standing on the Ways and Means Committee.
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, we had in constitutional scholars that were all asked at 
the Budget Committee meetings whether or not Congress currently 
possessed the ability within its governing responsibilities to balance 
the budget, and the answer was ``yes.''
  This is a fake tool meant to cover the Republican Party. I opposed 
this with Ronald Reagan, I opposed it with George Bush, Sr., with Bill 
Clinton, and now with George Bush, Jr. And do you know what is 
regrettable about this debate, most regrettable about the debate? 
Conservatives won't stand up for principle.
  The idea of a running mate in 1215 was to keep King John from being 
an autocrat. When Prince Charles invaded the House of Parliament and 
arrested members who disagreed with him, it was time to take action.
  What do we do here? We cede more authority to the Executive. You put 
this tool in the hands of Lyndon Johnson, and you are going to regret 
it. You are going to regret the day you ever embraced this item. 
Calling down to the White House to see if your spending proposal was 
okay? As they say to you, Well, I was checking your voting record on 
some references you made to the administration recently. Now we will 
decide whether we are going to keep your item in. How ill-considered, 
how ill-timed in the middle of war that we would do this, to give the 
authority

[[Page H4438]]

to the Executive to make decisions that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson 
correctly believed belonged with this body. And conservatives violate 
that spirit today by giving more authority to the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Do you know what is going to happen? And you mark my words. The 
President will determine what spending priorities are and not the 
Congress according to our Constitution. Wake up to this issue and what 
we are about to do here today. The threats from the Executive are 
always a part of our lives in congressional reality, and everybody here 
knows it. I listened to that debate; it was the weakest debate I have 
heard. I had conservative Members come over and say, You are right. We 
agree with you, but we have got to do something.
  Do you know what to do? Add some transparency to this system. Stop 
issuing press releases in the appropriations process. That would take 
care of this issue overnight.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4890, the Legislative 
Line Item Veto Act of 2006.
  On April 27, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, which I chair, 
held a hearing on the issue and concluded that the bill Mr. Ryan has 
introduced will not only reduce frivolous spending, but will pass 
constitutional muster.
  The notion of a line item veto has intrigued those concerned with 
wasteful Federal spending for a long time. Presidents at least since 
Thomas Jefferson have asserted that the Executive has some discretion 
in the expenditure of monies appropriated by Congress. Forty-three 
Governors have some form of a line item veto to reduce spending, yet 
until 1996 no such mechanism existed at the Federal level. And that 
year, Congress enacted the Line Item Veto Act that was part of the 
Contract with America, and it had overwhelming bipartisan support.
  However, the United States Supreme Court ultimately held that the 
Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional because it gave the President 
the power to rescind a portion of the bill as opposed to an entire bill 
as he is authorized to do by article I, section 7 of the Constitution.
  Despite the Supreme Court's actions, the notion of a line item veto 
has remained very popular. During its brief life, President Clinton 
used the line item veto to cut 82 projects totaling over $2 billion. 
Most recently, line item veto proposals have been warmly received by 
such disparate editorial boards as The Washington Post on one hand and 
the Wall Street Journal on the other.
  In addition, Mr. Ryan's legislation addresses the constitutional 
concerns that were raised by the 1996 line item veto bill, and gives 
the President only the authority to recommend to Congress that it 
rescind money, and it provides for an expedited procedure for doing so.
  I would urge my colleagues not only to vote for this rule but also to 
support the underlying legislation. It is time that we get Federal 
spending under control, and this is a part of allowing us to do that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, because of the limited number 
of speakers that I have left, I will reserve my time and allow my 
colleague from Florida who has more time and maybe more speakers to 
proceed.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I too today rise in strong support of the rule 
for H.R. 4890, and I would urge my colleagues to support this.
  Some people are opposed to this bill and the underlying rule, because 
they fear that this rule gives too much power to the Executive. Well, I 
must respectfully disagree. This legislation is important because it 
forces Congress to be fiscally responsible. We simply must do a better 
job in reining in Federal spending.
  The line item veto is nothing new to the American political system. 
Many States, including my own of Pennsylvania, allow the Governors the 
opportunity to reject individual spending initiatives that are brought 
within a comprehensive budgetary package.
  Having served as a State representative and a State senator, I can 
assure you that the threat of an Executive's blue line, or blue pencil 
as we say in Pennsylvania, often forces smarter and more disciplined 
spending on the part of the legislative body. What is more, when the 
legislative body acts with greater fiscal restraint, the Executive is 
less likely to exercise that power granted under line item veto.
  And if the Executive acts in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the 
legislative body knows how to respond and retaliate, if necessary, 
through the budget process. Thus, the legislature and the Executive act 
as potential deterrent to one another's spending proclivities. I have 
seen this happen many times.
  This legislation as drafted does not, in my opinion, cede Congress' 
constitutionally mandated spending prerogative to the President. In 
this bill, the Chief Executive may designate for rejection up to five 
earmarks per spending bill, 10 in the case of an omnibus or 
reconciliation package. Congress, however, has the final say on those 
earmarks, as the legislation provides for an expedited process of 
returning them to Congress in order to have an up-or-down vote on those 
proposed rescissions. In this way, the spending proclivities of both 
sides are kept in check, and we will make important strides toward 
imposing a culture of fiscal restraint in Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to 
my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It is 
laughable to use this bill for our friends in the majority to preach 
about responsible budgeting. We have a huge budget deficit precisely 
because of Republican budget policy combining endless tax cuts with 
endless spending, including hundreds of billions of dollars in so-
called emergency spending.
  For example, last week the House spent another $94 billion off the 
books mostly to pay for the Iraq war. No offsets, nothing to pay for 
this spending, just pass the cost on to future generations to worry 
about it.
  Later today we are going to vote on another $300 billion tax bill. 
Again, no offsets. Is it any wonder that we have $300 billion to $400 
billion annual deficits as far as the eye can see? And this bill before 
us is supposed to rein in wasteful spending? This President hasn't 
vetoed a single bill or used the rescission powers he already has.
  I have a better idea, Mr. Speaker, than gimmicks like this bill. This 
Congress needs a new direction. We need new leadership. And there is a 
party that can and will do this job. We don't need to shift Congress' 
responsibility to control wasteful spending to the White House; we just 
need to change direction. We need new leadership, as I said, to have 
that responsibility reside right here in the Congress where it belongs. 
This weak and irresponsible legislation is just more proof. So I urge 
my colleagues to vote against the bill and against this gimmicky rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a leader on 
our Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once admonished: before you consult 
your fancy, consult your purse.
  It is the nature of all legislative bodies, including this one, to 
consult their constituents' fancies, but it is ultimately the 
responsibility of Chief Executives, including the President, to first 
consult the purse.
  What we propose to do in this legislation is give the President a 
power to consult the purse that is fundamental and is available to most 
current Governors, a line item veto mechanism which will allow for the 
elimination, the challenge of individual spending items.
  This is certainly a modest proposal, Mr. Speaker. It is not as strong 
as what we passed back in 1995 when I first came to Congress, but that 
was ruled unconstitutional after we gave President Clinton, a President 
of the other

[[Page H4439]]

party, the opportunity to use his line item veto authority 82 times.
  President Clinton, using the line item veto, was able to cut over 
$600 billion in Federal spending before that power was ruled 
unconstitutional. It was just a few years ago, in January of 1999, I 
came before this body and offered a constitutional amendment to provide 
a strong line item veto to the President. But that ultimately proved to 
be too heavy a burden to carry.
  We are considering a much more modest version of the line item veto 
today that would give the President the opportunity to veto entitlement 
changes and special tax breaks, as well as all discretionary 
appropriations. It would allow Congress to be able to act on veto 
packages within 10 days of the President's submission, and then 
Congress would have to hold up-or-down votes that would not be amended.
  This is a fundamental power. This is an important part of the checks 
and balances. This will allow the President to unpackage pork barrel 
spending, the results of log rolling, and identify potential wasteful 
spending. This is not a panacea, but it is a fundamental reform 
impregnate of a range of reforms necessary in order for us to get our 
budget under control. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for 
the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from 
Pennsylvania began his remarks by quoting Ben Franklin who also was 
from Pennsylvania. Let me also say to you what Mr. Franklin said. At 
the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in your home State and 
his, Benjamin Franklin was asked, What have you wrought? He answered, A 
Republic, if you can keep it. He did not say a monarchy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and 
this underlying bill, and I want to first of all commend Representative 
Paul Ryan of the Ways and Means Committee for bringing up this 
legislation.
  The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 takes a very measured 
approach that enables the President to recommend budget savings, but 
preserves the Congress' power of the purse.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of speeches this morning from the 
other side, and it is amazing how they are railing against two very 
strong, fiscally sound bills that we are going to vote on later today, 
a limited line item veto for the President and the virtual elimination 
of the death tax. Mr. Speaker, it gives them a great opportunity to 
rail against this Republican majority and this President, but I hope 
the American people are watching closely when they vote, if they vote 
against the virtual elimination of the death tax and against giving 
this President the limited power of a line item veto.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4890 will serve as an additional tool in our 
arsenal to reduce spending. This bill gives the Congress another set of 
eyes to review spending, with Congress still having the final say.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts, one of the previous speakers, said 
that, well, you know, some Member might have a really great project, 
but some President takes political retribution. The fact is, Mr. 
Speaker, that we Members on both sides of the aisle would recognize 
that, and with a simple majority would vote it down. Rather, what would 
happen is that some Member would have some earmark that is nothing but 
a bunch of junk, like another rainforest in Iowa or a buffalo museum 
somewhere. The President would recognize that; he would ask us to 
rescind it so that that money could buy yet one more up-armored Humvee 
to protect our soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I know some of my colleagues would prefer an even stronger bill such 
as a line item veto constitutional amendment, while others fear that 
even the underlying bill cedes too much power to the President.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, this bill, I believe, balances these concerns, 
allowing for an additional avenue to reduce the deficit with the 
approval of the Congress.
  However, even with the passage of the underlying bill, we must also 
redouble our efforts to continue the progrowth policies enacted over 
the past 6 years, to reduce the tax burden, which in turn increases tax 
revenues through a strong economy and an increased number of citizens 
participating in the American dream.
  At the end of the day, the American people, through their ingenuity 
and productivity, will fix this deficit with economic growth. We just 
have to continue to trust them and reject these calls from the other 
side to raise taxes.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman my good friend Dr. Gingrey from Georgia said we are 
over here railing while they are getting ready to pass later today the 
line item veto and repeal the ``death tax.''
  Let me tell you what we ought to be railing about. Yesterday, we 
pulled the Voting Rights Act, an opportunity for its reauthorization. 
This Nation has an immigration crisis, and you are getting ready to 
take a dog-and-pony show on the road.
  Fifty-five million Americans do not have health insurance, veterans' 
identities have been stolen because of incompetence, and gas prices are 
at an outrageous high, and here we are discussing something that ain't 
going to balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this 
time.
  I rise in support of the rule and also the underlying bill. It is 
interesting that the other side is trying to speak out of both sides of 
their mouth on the fact they rail on the President constantly for not 
having used his veto power, and yet the previous speakers also talk 
about vetolike power being somehow ceding congressional responsibility 
to the President. I do not think you can have it both ways.
  Support this decision line item veto because it does apply to all 
spending. In addition, the spending that would be singled out for this 
treatment would actually not be spent somewhere else if it were upheld, 
and it would actually go against reducing the deficit.
  In addition, just the threat of this would act as deterrent to those 
Members who would put things into a particular appropriations bill or a 
spending bill that would be embarrassing for the President to single it 
out during his line item veto process.
  So I rise in support of the rule and also the underlying bill and 
encourage my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time. I have no further speakers other than myself, and I 
am prepared to close.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Florida, and special thanks to Mr. Ryan for his hard work trying to 
thread the needle and bring forward a bill that is constitutional, 
which, while not perfect, certainly is an important step in the right 
direction.
  Why is this an important step? It shines the light on special-
interest spending, whether it is earmarks or whether it is special-
interest tax breaks.
  Citizens Against Government Waste estimated that there were nearly 
10,000 of these special-interest projects in last year's appropriations 
bill, totaling $29 billion, and so it is, in my opinion, extremely 
appropriate that we shine the light on this special-interest spending.
  The substitute, which our friends on the other side of the aisle have 
talked about, would have further restricted this bill to make it almost 
meaningless by exempting large swaths of the Federal spending from this 
rescission authority.
  We need to go forward with this bill. I would remind my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, it has bipartisan support. There were four 
members of the Budget Committee that voted for it.

[[Page H4440]]

Let us vote for it today and let the President have this opportunity to 
shine the light on unnecessary spending.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding this time to me.
  This is a very important bill offered by my colleague from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan). The legislative line item veto is something that is 
necessary for us to get our fiscal house in order. What this will do is 
enable Congress to work with the executive branch to root out special-
interest projects.
  Case in point. We just passed an emergency spending bill not 2, 3 
weeks ago on this House floor. It included $38 million for funding for 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to fund 
``activities involving oysters.'' This is an emergency spending bill. 
Certainly something that is not reasonable. I like oysters, I like them 
baked, I like them fried, I like them raw. They all really taste great, 
but does that mean that we should spend $38 million for this?
  That is a great case in point for the President to be able to use a 
legislative line item veto and for us to act to root out this wasteful 
spending.
  Washington big government has an infinite appetite for more, more 
programs, more spending, more taxes. We have to take a principled stand 
to reform this, to fix this problem, to root out that waste, and this 
will put us on a diet if we pass this legislative line item veto.
  I encourage the House to approve the rule today and to vote for the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker, and I would inform my 
friend from Florida that I have no further speakers and we prepared to 
close as well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 
amount of our time.
  During the course of this debate and discussion, I have cited to the 
United States Constitution frequently. I remind my colleagues that 
article I of the United States Constitution created the Congress. 
Article II created the President of the United States. Article III 
created the courts. The Founders must have had something in their mind 
as to what was first, and as it pertains to the power of the purse, 
they made it exactingly clear.
  In this same Constitution, there are four sections dealing with 
powers of the President, 10 sections dealing with the powers of 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so I can amend the rule to provide that immediately after the 
House adopts this rule, it will provide for separate consideration of 
legislation introduced by Representative Spratt that provides a 
comprehensive approach to controlling our spiraling deficits without 
stripping the House of Representatives of its power of the purse.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before we turn over our 
constitutionally granted power to the executive branch, let us vote on 
a measure that will actually reduce the deficit, rein in irresponsible 
spending and help to bring accountability back to the House's 
legislative process.
  Mr. Spratt's bill does many things to encourage deficit reduction. It 
reinstates pay-as-you-go rules for both mandatory spending and 
revenues. It amends the Congressional Budget Act to stop the 
reconciliation process from being used to make the deficit worse or the 
surplus smaller. It enforces the 3-day layover requirement in the House 
rules to give Members adequate time to review legislation. It adds 
earmark provisions. The bill protects important mandatory spending like 
Social Security, Medicare and veterans benefits from any expedited 
rescission process. It prohibits the President or executive branch 
officials from using the rescission authority as a bargaining tool or 
even a source of blackmail just to secure votes.
  In all fairness, when Mr. Clinton was the President of the United 
States, the first thing that he did with the veto power he had was veto 
something in toto.
  It will be used in a partisan manner.
  It is important for Members to know that defeating the previous 
question will not block the underlying bill, but by voting ``no'' on 
the previous question, we will be able to consider the Spratt 
alternative bill.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, this has been an important debate. It has 
been a good debate about an issue that has been around for a long time, 
and it has been around under a variety of iterations, the first version 
having been found unconstitutional, as my friend from Florida pointed 
out, and read to us from the Constitution. But because of that, the 
sponsor of this bill has adjusted it so that it is written in a 
constitutional form, and it is written in a constitutional form because 
it leaves the power of the purse in the hands of Congress, as the 
gentleman pointed out in article I of the Constitution.
  It says that we have yet another resource for the President and the 
Congress to work together to eliminate wasteful spending which we all 
know exists in this town, but it says that the final say-so rests with 
the Congress, so the final power of the purse remains in the 
legislative branch, a very important point.
  My friend also overlooks the fact that in these different versions 
that have been around and most recently have been around in almost 
identical form to what we are hearing and debating today, there has 
been support for the Democratic-sponsored version of 174 Democrats when 
President Clinton was the one who would get the line item veto; in 
1994, under the sponsorship of a Democrat, 173 Democrats supporting; in 
2004, a bipartisan-sponsored bill, 45 Democrats supporting. Apparently 
there was a change of heart depending on who the President was in 
office, whether there was Democratic support for the line item veto; 
174 votes for the line item veto when President Clinton was in office, 
only 45 when President Bush was in office.

                              {time}  1215

  But be that as it may, this remains a bipartisan issue. It is an 
institutional issue. And this effort is carefully crafted to protect 
this institution, this legislative branch, so that the power of the 
purse rests with us; but we have expanded the ability to root out 
wasteful spending.
  This is an important issue. I urge the House to adopt the rule and 
adopt the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of 
chairing the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the 
Rules Committee. My Subcommittee was the first to address this 
legislation with a hearing last March, shortly after the measure was 
introduced.
  During our hearing, we heard from two distinguished Members of the 
House, including the bill's sponsor, Representative Paul Ryan, as well 
as Chairman Lewis of the Appropriations Committee. And we heard the 
administration's position from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Deputy Director, now Deputy Chief of Staff for the President, Joel 
Kaplan. Finally, we received historical perspective on this issue from 
Donald Marron, the Acting Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
(CBO).
  Several problems were brought out with regard to the legislation. I 
believe that the Committees of jurisdiction have worked diligently with 
the author of the resolution to appropriately address most problems. 
Among the concerns brought out during our Subcommittee hearing were:
  The number of special messages that could be submitted by the 
President on each annual Appropriations law.
  The amount of time that the President could withhold funding for 
requested rescissions.
  The scope of the rescission request, specifically tax benefits and 
mandatory spending.
  I am pleased that input was welcomed by Representative Ryan and that 
these concerns

[[Page H4441]]

have been addressed. Parameters have been included that will lessen the 
potential legislative burden on the Congress and prevent the 
possibility of excessive delaying tactics by the President.
  I certainly do not believe that the underlying legislation is 
perfect. Despite the recent changes, I think that five special messages 
per bill may still be too many. Think about 50 possible expedited 
special messages that Congress would have to consider after passing 10 
appropriations bills. The legislative burden may be extraordinary.
  In balance, however, since the bill gives us another tool to promote 
good stewardship of the people's money, I urge my colleagues to support 
the Rule and the underlying legislation. I look forward to a full 
debate on efforts such as this to increase fiscal discipline in the 
Congress' budget process.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 886--The Rule Providing for Consideration 
                of H.R. 4890, Legislative Line Item Veto

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, 
     the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 5667) to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited 
     consideration of certain proposed rescissions of 
     discretionary budget authority, promote fiscal 
     responsibility, reinstate Pay-As-You-Go rules, require 
     responsible use of reconciliation procedures, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Budget. The bill shall be considered as read. 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 intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution of the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of Rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.''
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. PUTNAM: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________