[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2884]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS ACT OF 2005--AN EFFECTIVE AND 
            CONSTITUTIONAL TOOL TO COMBAT WASTEFUL SPENDING

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 17, 2005

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to 
give the President and Congress new and effective--and, more 
importantly, constitutional--powers to weed out wasteful Government 
spending.
  Over the last four years, there has been a dramatic change in the 
federal budget--and it has been a change for the worse. It has gone 
from annual surpluses to annual deficits, meaning we have gone from 
debt reduction to increasing the ``debt tax'' that our children will 
have to pay.
  In part, this was the result of recession. In part, it was caused by 
the need to increase spending for national defense, homeland security, 
and fighting terrorism.
  And in large part it was the result of the excessive and unbalanced 
tax cuts that Congress passed in those same years.
  This bill does not directly address those major causes of our 
budgetary problems. Responding to them will require long-term work on 
several fronts, including tax policy. But I think this bill can provide 
one useful tool that will help in the larger effort.
  It deals with the increasing number of individual, earmarked items 
included in appropriations bills.
  Some people are opposed to all earmarks. I am not one of them. I 
think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and that 
Congress as a whole can and should exercise its judgment on how tax 
dollars are to be spent. So, I have sought earmarks for various items 
that have benefited Colorado and I will continue to do so.
  At the same time, I know--everyone knows--that sometimes a large 
appropriations bill includes some earmarked items that might not be 
approved if they were considered separately, because they would be seen 
as unnecessary, inappropriate, or excessive.
  That's why presidents have long sought the kind of ``line-item veto'' 
that is available to the governors of several states--and why Congress 
passed a law attempting to give that authority to President Clinton.
  The supporters of that legislation argued that making it possible to 
cut unnecessary individual items out of a spending bill could help make 
the government more prudent in the way we spend taxpayer money.
  But while the diagnosis was right, the proposed remedy of a line-item 
veto went too far--further than the Constitution permits. That's why it 
was struck down in court.
  My bill is a better prescription--one that will work and that will 
pass constitutional muster.
  Under this legislation, 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.
  That would be an important change, because while current law 
authorizes the president to propose rescissions--that is, deletions--
from appropriations that Congress has approved, there is no requirement 
that Congress take any action on those proposals.
  My bill would change that by requiring Congress to consider and vote 
on whether the president's proposed rescissions should be approved.
  So, like the line-item veto act, this 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.
  The bill is entitled the ``Expedited Rescissions Act of 2005.'' It is 
based on one introduced by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs 
which in turn was patterned after, but stronger than, legislation 
passed by the House in 1993.
  Unlike the bill that the House passed in 1993, my bill would 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. Instead, it would require 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, this 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 President and the Congress alike need to have an effective, 
constitutionally valid alternative to the line-item veto that can be 
used to revoke parts of a spending bill that could not withstand a 
separate up-or-down vote. This bill will meet that need.
  For the information of our colleagues, here is an outline of the 
bill's provisions:


              Outline of Expedited Rescissions Act of 2005

  The bill would amend the Budget Act by adding a new section providing 
for expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions.
  The new section would authorize the president to propose rescission 
of any budget authority provided in an appropriations Act through a 
special message that includes a draft bill to make that rescission. The 
new section would require the House's majority leader or minority 
leader to introduce that bill within two legislative days. If neither 
did so, any Member could then introduce the bill.
  The House Appropriations Committee would be required to report a bill 
introduced pursuant to the new section of the Budget Act within seven 
days after introduction. The report could be made with or without 
recommendation regarding its passage. If the committee did not meet 
that deadline, it would be discharged and the bill would go to the 
House floor.
  The House would debate and vote on the bill within 10 legislative 
days after the bill's introduction. Debate would be limited to no more 
than four hours and no amendment, motion to recommit, or motion to 
reconsider would be allowed. If passed by the House, the bill would go 
promptly to the Senate, which would have no more than 10 more days to 
consider and vote on it. Debate in the Senate would be limited to 10 
hours and no amendment or motion to recommit would be allowed.

                          ____________________