[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1152-1176]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    EXPEDITED LEGISLATIVE LINE-ITEM VETO AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 2012

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 540 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 540

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, 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. 3521) to amend the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for a legislative 
     line-item veto to expedite consideration of rescissions, 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 among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget and Representative Simpson of Idaho 
     or his designee. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Budget 
     and Rules now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     112-12. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question

[[Page 1153]]

     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. 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. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of February 9, 2012, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though 
     under clause 1(c) of rule XV, relating to a measure 
     addressing securities trading based on nonpublic information.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.

                              {time}  1240


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm pleased to be down here with you today, Madam Speaker, because 
what we have an opportunity to do with this rule is bring another in a 
series of 10 fundamental reforms to the congressional budgeting 
process.
  Today, House Resolution 540 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 3521, the Expedited Line-Item Veto and 
Rescissions Act. And yet again today, with this rule we have made in 
order every single amendment by either Republicans or Democrats that 
was germane to the underlying legislation to give us an opportunity to 
make this bill better.
  Now, to be fair, Madam Speaker, H.R. 3521 is another example of 
bipartisanship in this House. It was introduced and sponsored by both 
the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, and the 
Democratic ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen, another opportunity of 
things that we can do here in this new Congress to bring common sense 
to our budgeting process.
  It's a bipartisan attempt, Madam Speaker, to provide both Congress 
and the President with all of the tools necessary to get our fiscal 
challenges under control. It exemplifies what can happen here in this 
body when we're willing to listen to folks back home and come together 
to try to make a difference here in Congress.
  In the 111th Congress, Madam Speaker, nondefense discretionary 
spending was increased by almost 25 percent. This Congress, this body, 
working with the Senate, increased nondefense discretionary spending by 
almost 25 percent. Now, if your constituents are like mine, Madam 
Speaker, had they had that budget around their family dinner table, 
they could have found some items that they could have done without. In 
exchange for not putting their children and their grandchildren further 
and further and further in the hole, further and further and further 
under the mountain of debt that this country has run up, they could 
have found some things to cut.
  Now, Congress in the past has tried to pass a line-item veto, line-
item vetoes that I would have opposed had I been in Congress, Madam 
Speaker, because they transferred our authority, our authority here in 
the U.S. House of Representatives, to the executive branch. I'm opposed 
to that.
  What we have today is not that process of days of old, not that 
process that has been tossed out by the Supreme Court as a violation of 
our House prerogatives; but what we have today is an expedited 
rescissions process that allows the President of the United States to 
go through those budget bills, those appropriation bills, those funding 
bills, to say, When I see this, it doesn't pass the smell test, let me 
give the Congress one more shot at it; send it back to Capitol Hill, 
where we accept it or reject it in its entirety.
  I confess, Madam Speaker, I'm not thrilled about involving this 
President in budgeting decisions any more than is absolutely necessary. 
But given the nature of our challenges, it's not about this President 
or the previous President or the next President. It's about the 
American people. It's about what are we going to do to fulfill our 
responsibilities to keep America strong. This is one of those bills, 
Madam Speaker, that will provide another arrow in the quiver of fiscal 
responsibility to this Nation, and I believe it's one whose time has 
come.
  Yesterday, we saw another bill in this budget reform process. Last 
week, we saw two other bills in this budget reform process. Each are 
coming to the floor, Madam Speaker, in as open and honest a process as 
we can bring the American people into this budget process, to make 
Congress' budget process as open and honest as it can be. As a proud 
member of the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, and of the Budget 
Committee, I am here today in strong support of this rule and in strong 
support of the underlying resolution.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today in opposition to this structured rule. This is yet 
another example of this Congress' remarkable ability to take 
commonsense measures and churn them, through partisan posturing, into 
measures that not only put in jeopardy broad, bipartisan support from 
this body, but significantly weaken them and reduce the quality of the 
work product for the American people.
  This rule that we're debating does two things. We'll have the 
opportunity in a moment to talk about the Expedited Line-Item Veto and 
Rescissions Act, an underlying bill that I strongly support, one that 
would empower the President of the United States to use the line-item 
veto on unnecessary expenditures to help reduce our deficit, subject to 
an en masse approval vote of the United States Congress. It 
fundamentally addresses some of the constitutional flaws with a broad 
line-item veto, which has been attempted in the past, that many 
Governors currently wield.
  So it's, I think, a good-faith effort by both sides to come to 
something that the American people think is common sense. Congress 
should not be able to force the President to spend money in areas that 
are unnecessary, that are earmarks, that are special interest 
expenditures. The President can then highlight those, bring them back 
to Congress, subject to an up-or-down vote.
  The bigger problem with this rule is the other component of this 
rule, which prevents Members from offering amendments that would 
strengthen the STOCK Act--a very significant piece of reform 
legislation offered by Mr. Walz and my Rules Committee colleague and 
ranking member, Louise Slaughter, which I proudly cosponsor.
  This bill, the STOCK Act, has been subject to a lot of media 
attention of late. It would ban insider trading in Congress, again, a 
commonsense approach and something that I think has broad, if not 
universal, support on both sides of the aisle.
  But a little bit of history of how we got here and why this 
particular rule many on our side and I myself see as an attempt to 
water down many of the critical provisions of the STOCK Act and make it 
less meaningful in responding to the public outrage about perceived 
behaviors that can occur, both among the Members and the staff in this 
body, as well as on the executive side of government.
  This bill has been introduced, the STOCK Act, by Representative 
Slaughter for 6 years now. I've been a cosponsor since last year. It 
has rapidly picked up cosponsors in the last year, including close to 
100 cosponsors from the other side of the aisle. It's a strong 
bipartisan piece of legislation with strong support.

                              {time}  1250

  First, this bill, the STOCK Act, was blocked by the majority leader. 
Now

[[Page 1154]]

it's being rewritten behind closed doors and without the input of Mr. 
Walz or Ms. Slaughter. We don't know what this so-called STOCK Act will 
contain. We have reason to believe it will water down a number of 
provisions of the STOCK Act.
  It's my understanding that at least the version of the STOCK Act 
released last night removed the requirement that political intelligence 
firms register as lobbyists. Now, what are political intelligence 
firms? They are firms that are hired by those who do financial 
transactions and effectively bet on stocks going up or down. Hedge 
funds, et cetera, would hire these political information firms to try 
to figure out, using their connections, what Members of Congress and, 
just as importantly, committee staff and staff members are thinking, 
and timing, with regard to hearings and the introductions of bills.
  Now, in an open system, obviously, discussion among people is 
certainly fine, but the issue is whether they have to register as 
lobbyists. Lobbyists have a registration process that critically 
includes who their clients are to provide visibility and transparency 
into who their clients are.
  Political intelligence firms do not need to register under current 
law. They would be required to register under the STOCK Act. But under 
the version, the weakening of the STOCK Act that Leader Cantor posted 
to the Web site, they would no longer be required to register. In fact, 
specifically, from the Web page of a political intelligence firm, it 
says that they, in fact, relish this ability to operate in secrecy. 
Quoting from their Web site it says: ``providing the service for 
clients who do not want their interest in an issue publicly known.''
  So again, there is this, I think, commonsense loophole that the 
American people are outraged over that allows people to avoid 
registering as lobbyists who are in the business of developing 
relationships with Members and their staffs for the purpose of seeking 
inside information for financial gain. And I would strongly recommend 
that any serious STOCK Act include a registration requirement around 
political intelligence firms.
  We also won't have the opportunity in the House, as the Senate did, 
to make the STOCK Act stronger and to strengthen the bill through the 
amendment process. Under this particular version of this rule that 
we're debating, there will be zero, zero amendments allowed--no 
amendments from Republicans and no amendments from Democrats to 
strengthen the STOCK Act.
  Now, even the Senate, which is hardly known for its legislative 
efficiency, was able to consider amendments and get the bill done and 
passed because of its bipartisan support. We should do so in the House 
under an open process, or even a controlled process, 10, 15, 20 
amendments.
  I know Members across both sides of the aisle have ideas about how to 
reduce the perceived inequities and conflicts of interest that exist, 
both among Members and appointees, and on the executive side of 
government. We owe nothing less to the American people.
  So I am terribly disappointed that this rule will not allow for any 
strengthening of the STOCK Act and, quite to the contrary, actually 
deals it a severe weakening blow by removing political intelligence.
  Furthermore, we don't know, at this point, what exactly will be in 
this STOCK Act that potentially could be under consideration tomorrow. 
Contrary to the promise that the Republican majority made to the 
American people about having time to read bills, it's my understanding 
that an initial version was posted last night. It's my understanding 
that a subsequent version weakening the STOCK Act was posted just an 
hour ago, which I don't think any of us have had the opportunity to 
read.
  We fear that this could be changed again; and, yet, under this rule, 
this Congress could be called on to act on this tomorrow, to vote on 
this tomorrow, with no opportunity to strengthen the bill, no 
opportunity to prevent the watering down of the bill by the majority 
leader of this body, which is occurring behind closed doors as we 
speak.
  Now, again, while I cannot support the rule for those reasons, I want 
to also discuss one of the underlying bills that this rule will bring 
to the House, which is the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions 
Act. This act is an important step, albeit a small step, a small but 
constructive step, towards the cause of deficit reduction and 
eliminating the wasteful spending and earmarks that have too often been 
the hallmark of this Congress and past Congresses.
  Now, Members on both sides of the aisle have disagreements about this 
bill. When you have a bill that impacts legislative prerogative, that's 
likely to be the case. I know some are concerned about 
constitutionality, generally, of line-item veto bills. I believe that 
this bill was carefully crafted to take into account those valid 
constitutional arguments about the separation of powers and the 
prerogative of the legislative branch.
  This legislation strikes the correct balance between the Framers' 
intent to place the power of the purse in the hands of Congress, which 
retains, under this bill, the ability to approve or disapprove of any 
Presidential line-item veto, with the need to cut out wasteful spending 
that piggybacks on larger, must-pass legislation which, whether it's an 
omnibus or an appropriations bill, we know that this body has been 
unable to produce, cleaner, leaner spending bills. And I think it can 
be a constructive step to enlist the help of the President of the 
United States in removing unnecessary and indefensible pork from 
spending bills.
  I would also add that this bill is a welcome change for many of the 
other so-called budget-reform bills that have been brought forward by 
the House Budget Committee. The House Budget Committee has brought 
forward bills to pretend that inflation doesn't exist. They've brought 
forward bills to have funny scoring, trick scoring, dynamic scoring, 
rather than the usual objective process of the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  But you can't pretend the deficit away. You can't pretend the deficit 
away by assuming there's no inflation. You can't pretend the deficit 
away by putting in wacky numbers that are whatever you feel like, based 
on your biases.
  So this bill is really the first budget bill that is a constructive 
step towards actually controlling spending, something that I've often 
heard Members of both parties pay lip service to, but this body has 
done relatively little to address that notable goal of budgeting our 
budget.
  However, there's a lot more to do. I've always maintained, as have 
many on my side of the aisle, that rather than talking about balancing 
the budget, rather than talking about what we want to do, and rather 
than trying to change the rules, let's balance the budget. The 
supercommittee had an opportunity to do that with a balanced approach.
  The President of the United States has called for a balanced approach 
to balance the budget. The President of the United States has convened 
the Simpson-Bowles Commission to outline specific plans around ending 
our budget deficit and returning our Nation to fiscal responsibility. 
That bill, from the Simpson-Bowles Commission, there were no bills that 
have been taken up by this body that would fundamentally address the 
very real budget problems that we face.
  And to be clear, we cannot simply pass this Expedited Line-Item Veto 
and Rescissions Act and say, problem solved, game over, let's go home. 
A constructive step towards balancing our budget, yes, but a small 
step, a baby step, a potential step in the right direction, but one 
that, by no means, should get Congress out of the responsibility of 
acting responsibly in a balanced manner to balance our budget, right 
our fiscal ship, ensure the long-term integrity of Social Security and 
Medicare, and balance our budget deficit.
  We need to use a balanced approach to budget challenges. The approach 
needs to be comprehensive and bipartisan. I would like to maintain some

[[Page 1155]]

hope and optimism that perhaps the Expedited Line-Item Veto and 
Rescissions Act would be a small first step towards a larger 
collaboration between the two parties to tackle the issues of the day.
  While not, in and of itself, the real progress we need to actually 
solve the budget item, the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act 
will assist lawmakers in targeting wasteful government spending. Unlike 
previous attempts at a line-item veto that have been ruled 
unconstitutional, the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act 
respects the careful system of checks and balances that our Framers 
established.
  Under this bill, the President can highlight unjustified government 
spending that's wasteful, and the President can then identify those 
items, but it has to come back to Congress to affirmatively approve, by 
majority, any cancellation of expenditures in those areas. Let them be 
debated and defended on their merits, rather than slipped in to 
thousand-page bills in the dark of night.
  Further, the President's withholding authority is limited. The 
President can only hold back on spending for 45 days after the 
appropriations bill has been enacted.
  I think this bill can be a step towards putting our Nation on a path 
towards fiscal discipline and a balanced budget. I am aware that there 
are those on both sides that, for constitutional or legislative 
prerogative reasons, feel differently than I do. But I think a ``yes'' 
vote on the underlying bill would be a small positive step towards 
combating the runaway spending that has characterized not only this 
Republican Congress, but prior Congresses controlled by both parties.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the gentleman for his kind words about the underlying bill.
  I say with the utmost sincerity that here in my freshman term in 
Congress, one of the Members I have enjoyed working with the most is 
Mr. Polis. You can always count on him in the Rules Committee to say 
something unexpected. You can't pigeonhole him as to where he's going 
to be on things because he's thoughtful about all of the issues. And I 
would hope that he would find that to be one of the highest compliments 
we can pay to a Member, to find a thoughtful Member here in this body, 
and it's certainly been my pleasure to work with him.
  I agree with him that we can't pretend the deficit away. We can't use 
wacky numbers, I think was his word, to wish the deficit away, though 
we do have a difference of opinion about where that pretending comes 
from and where the wacky numbers come from.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I will tell you that the steps 
we're taking this year are changing a historical process of pretending 
the deficit away, bringing in real accounting, changing a historical 
process of generating wacky numbers and bringing in new, honest 
accounting.
  But I also want to say this, Madam Speaker. As folks come to the 
floor to talk about whether or not we're actually saving any money 
today, whether we're cutting the budget today, whether we're creating 
jobs today, this is a Budget Committee bill.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I wish it were in my authority 
to cut spending and create jobs, because, by golly, I've got to tell 
you, I could do it, bring bills to the floor on a regular basis to 
promote those ideas. But it's not within the Budget Committee's 
authority.
  What is in the Budget Committee's authority to do is craft the most 
honest numbers possible to share with the American people to describe 
what it is that we're doing with their tax dollars day in and day out. 
That's exactly what this legislation is designed to do. That's exactly 
what the other nine pieces of budget reform legislation the Budget 
Committee is moving, what they are designed to do.
  It is really with great pride, again, as a new member to the Budget 
Committee, to have my colleague from Colorado say such nice things 
about this bipartisan work, about the hope that this presents for us 
moving forward, and I, too, hope we'll be able to build on that 
progress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to ensure that the House votes on the political intelligence 
provisions that are included in the STOCK Act written by Ms. Slaughter 
and Mr. Walz as a standalone bill. This bill will help shine sunlight 
onto political intelligence firms and require that they register as 
lobbyists. This provision already has the support of a majority of the 
Members of this body--285 Members, including 99 Republicans.
  The fact that the Republican leadership has weakened and watered down 
the STOCK Act by stripping out this provision we'll be considering this 
week is both shameful and wrong. It's clear that this House needs to 
act, and it will be my hope that we defeat the previous question and 
I'm able to offer this amendment.
  I am honored to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee and the sponsor 
of the STOCK Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, my colleague, for 
yielding to me.
  This is terribly important to me. I've spent 6 years of my life on 
this bill, so bear with me if I get a little emotional.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that 
we can strengthen the STOCK Act bill that has been weakened by House 
Republican leadership behind closed doors and in the dark of night. 
When writing their own version of the STOCK Act, Majority Leader Cantor 
and House Republican leadership did not consult the bipartisan 
coalition that has championed this bill and, over the week, neither I 
nor Mr. Walz were asked to contribute to the final product, nor was our 
leader consulted in any way. Despite championing the bill for 6 years, 
I was left completely out.
  As a matter of fact, the way the bill is structured, I won't even 
have an opportunity to offer an amendment to put back the political 
intelligence piece, which I think is really the heart of the bill. The 
bill was changed from a bill to a suspension, which means that the 
minority will have neither the right of a motion to recommit or an 
opportunity to amend this bill in any way. That contrasts completely 
with what happened over in the Senate when Members of the Senate were 
allowed to present amendments to this bill, and many of them did it 
successfully.
  But what we got here was a flawed bill last night and a need to 
reintroduce revised legislation earlier today. As a matter of fact, the 
bill they put out last night has already been superceded by one about 
45 minutes ago, which shows you that if you write something in the dark 
of night, you may not know what you wrote.
  Despite their many changes, the bill is weaker, not stronger, than 
before. The simple truth is that the bill introduced by House 
Republicans waters down government reform, particularly when it comes 
to regulating the political intelligence industry.
  Political intelligence is the latest scheme to profit from the Halls 
of Congress. The industry profits to the tune of $400 million annually, 
and that's all we know. That grew considerably this week from the 
information that we had previously. We don't even know where it is, but 
this is at least almost half a billion dollars a year. They glean 
valuable information and they sell that information to high-paying Wall 
Street clients.
  None of my constituents are able to do anything like that. They have 
no prior information, and they expect their Congress to be more decent 
and with more integrity than to be doing that.
  But like the lobbyists before them, political intelligence operatives 
use a proximity to power to serve high-paying clients. Unlike the 
lobbyists, they are nameless. Under the current law, they're not 
required to identify themselves as they go about their work. They're 
completely unregulated.

[[Page 1156]]

  America knows all too well what happens when Congress and K Street 
meet in the dark. From Jack Abramoff to Tom DeLay, corruption can 
spread through the highest reaches of Congress without the proper 
controls, and we know it. But with the STOCK Act, we have a chance to 
be proactive and simply require--no big whoop--the operatives to 
register as a lobbyist so we know who they are.
  This is not a radical idea, but over the last week the outcry from K 
Street has been deafening. Soon after they rang the alarm, the House 
Republican leadership locked themselves behind closed doors where they 
reworked my original legislation and removed the language that 
regulated the political intelligence community. We're now set to 
consider a bill that commissions a study on political intelligence, 
hardly the type of action that will restore America's faith in this 
institution.
  Did House Republican leadership return to their Abramoff-era ways and 
put the needs of K Street before Main Street? We will never know, 
because we don't know who they are and what they're doing, but we know 
that they're doing something.
  What we do know is that the regulation of the political intelligence 
community was supported by 285 Members of Congress who were cosponsors 
of our original bill, including 99 Republicans, to whom we are 
extremely grateful, and a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate. The 
bill, as you know, passed over there 96-3. What we do know is that 
after emerging from behind the closed doors, the bill introduced by Mr. 
Cantor does nothing to regulate the political intelligence community.
  The House leadership should have allowed this bill to be finalized in 
an open and transparent manner. It's that important. America is 
watching. I have never seen the editorial support or the outpouring of 
support like we have had on this measure. People want us to be doing 
this. It is really beyond my ken that we are doing this in such a 
hidden and weak way. But this has been allowed to come to the floor.
  I'm confident that my 285 colleagues who supported the original STOCK 
Act would have passed the tough regulations for the political 
intelligence community.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I would be happy to yield an additional minute to the 
gentlelady from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Instead, the majority continued their ``my way or the highway'' 
approach and shut out their colleagues and made partisan changes to a 
bipartisan bill. As a result, a bipartisan coalition in the House is 
left with one option: to reintroduce our political intelligence 
regulations by defeating the previous question. Putting Main Street 
before K Street starts here.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, reinsert 
language to regulate a growing K Street industry, and make the STOCK 
Act as strong as it was when I introduced it 6 years ago.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that I appreciate the gentlelady's work. I know that her effort 
on the STOCK Act comes from the heart. I disagree with a lot of the 
underlying crafting of that bill, but I know that the effort is to 
solve a very real problem and to solve it in a very genuine way, and I 
am grateful to her for that.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Florida, Sheriff Nugent, one of my 
freshman colleagues, who also comes to this issue with a pure heart and 
who has an alternative proposal here in the House to prevent insider 
trading, of which I am a strong supporter. He is also my colleague and 
seatmate in the Rules Committee.
  Mr. NUGENT. I want to thank my very good friend from the great State 
of Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for the time. As he mentioned, we both sit on 
the Rules Committee.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 540, and the issue 
we are talking about is whether or not the American people can trust 
us.
  Today, Congress has a job approval rating of--what?--10, 11, 12 
percent. The American people are pretty sick of us, and I don't blame 
them. Ms. Slaughter has been working on the STOCK Act bill for over 6 
years, which is commendable. Yet it's unfortunate that it never came to 
the Democratic Congress when it had control. That's very unfortunate 
that she was never able to move it forward. If anything, as we move 
forward here, I am amazed that 13 percent of folks actually approve of 
the work we're doing. I can't believe there is even 1 percent.
  It was only about a year ago that I was one of those people who was 
disappointed in this body, but my parents always taught me that, if 
you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. So, 
sure enough, I ran for Congress, and the people of Florida's Fifth 
Congressional District put their trust in me to represent them.
  One thing I promised the folks back home is that I was never going to 
use my service in the House of Representatives to enrich myself, which 
is why I turned down the congressional health benefits. That's why I 
introduced my bill, H.R. 981, the Congress is Not a Career Act, so that 
I could turn down the congressional pension that I am legally required 
to take. That's why I think that trading on any kind of insider 
knowledge received through the virtue of working in this office is flat 
out, downright wrong. Anybody who uses his office to get rich and game 
the markets should go to jail. It's that simple. I've put people in 
jail for doing things that were illegal.
  Madam Speaker, sometimes I wonder if folks right here in this very 
Chamber forget about what we're talking about. We're talking about the 
United States Congress. We're talking about the institution that makes 
up the first branch of government. We're talking about the people's 
branch. We're talking about the institution where men like Madison, 
Monroe, John Quincy Adams, JFK, and George H.W. Bush all served at one 
point or another in their careers.
  This is an institution that ought to be held to the highest 
standards, an institution that I, at least, expect more from, and we're 
failing--we're failing our constituents; we're failing ourselves; and 
we're just outright failing.
  What we need to do now is take deliberate steps towards making things 
better. We need to prove to the American people that we hear them and 
that they're right and that we're going to do better. One major step in 
the right direction would be in showing our commitment to ethics reform 
and in ensuring that we aren't using Congress as a way to line our own 
pockets.
  As the Tampa Bay Times wrote in an editorial just this morning, the 
United States Congress needs to ``finally address the exploitation of 
public office for individual financial gain.'' H. Res. 540 lets us 
bring that discussion to the floor of the House of Representatives, 
which is where it belongs.
  I've gotten up here, Madam Speaker, and have spent a lot of time 
talking about honesty and of doing better, so here is my opportunity to 
be honest with everyone here and with everybody watching us at home.
  If it were up to me, we wouldn't be voting on this bill that we'll be 
voting on tomorrow. As I see it, the STOCK Act we'll be voting on 
tomorrow has some problems. Transparency and openness mean that we'll 
be able to look at all of these problems and really think about if the 
benefits outweigh the costs. It means that we will be able to have a 
full and knowledgeable discussion about the STOCK Act on the floor of 
this House tomorrow.
  But I've got to tell you that the process that got us to where we are 
today and where we're going tomorrow is just wrong. Thirty-eight pages 
isn't a long bill in congressional speak, but it's 38 pages that never 
went through the normal legislative process, and it's 38 pages that we 
didn't get an opportunity to amend. Since I'm being honest, there are 
better alternatives out there than the STOCK Act, which is what we're 
going to be voting on tomorrow.
  One of those options is my bill, H.R. 3639, the Prevent Insider 
Trading by

[[Page 1157]]

Elected Officials Act. My bill is only 1\1/2\ pages long. It's quick; 
it's easy and to the point, and all elected officials both in the 
legislative branch and in the executive branch are required to put 
their stocks, bonds, securities--whatever you have--into a blind trust. 
It's just that simple. If you don't know what you have, you can't trade 
it based on insider knowledge. That's what a blind trust is all about. 
My bill is 1\1/2\ pages, and there is no room for loopholes. 
Legislation up here is written by attorneys that sometimes only 
attorneys can understand, and there are loopholes in all of this.
  If I had my way, the discussion we'd be having on the floor tomorrow 
wouldn't be about honest services provisions, IPO sales, or registering 
searchable mortgages and disclosures and whatnot online, but that's not 
my call. So we're here today, and at least we've gotten this far. I 
wish we were doing more.
  This is the United States Congress we're talking about. When I was 
growing up, it was supposed to mean something, and I'm hoping it still 
does. If it does, then we need to be holding ourselves to the highest 
of standards. The American people ought to know that they can have 
faith in the people who are serving them here in Washington.
  Do I think this is the very best step? No, I do not. Do I think it's 
better than the bill the United States Senate sent to us through that 
rushed process--a bill that has conflicting provisions and at its core 
doesn't, in fact, address the problem that the American people want 
fixed? No doubt about it.
  I wish the Senate hadn't rushed the STOCK Act. I suspect Harry Reid 
just really needed a shiny object he could wave and point to, hoping he 
could distract the American people long enough to forget that it has 
been over 1,000 days since the United States Senate passed a budget. He 
has already promised that they wouldn't even have one for this next 
year. If not for the rush, then we probably wouldn't be forced into 
acting on this at such breakneck speed.
  Do I think that this is a discussion we must have and need to have? 
Absolutely. That's why I'm going to support this rule.
  I'm being honest. I wish we'd done it differently, but we're here to 
work the will of the people, and that's the most important thing right 
now.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have to say, after hearing my colleague from 
Florida, I'm a little bit confused about where he stands.
  Certainly, his arguments were many of the same arguments that I and 
others have been making. In fact, Ranking Member Slaughter proposed in 
committee yesterday to strike suspensions authority specifically so the 
gentleman from Florida could offer his bill as an amendment to the bill 
and so we could have a discussion about this blind trust issue. I think 
that would have been a better way to have brought it to the floor.
  Yet the gentleman from Florida voted ``no'' yesterday to the 
provision that he is effectively trying to argue for on the floor 
today. He concluded his remarks by confirming that he plans to vote for 
a rule that fundamentally doesn't allow him to do what he thinks needs 
to be done to restore ethics and integrity to this body.
  So I think that that is an example of the type of contradictions that 
we're hearing, but I would urge the gentleman to be convinced by his 
own arguments so that he might join me in opposing the previous 
question and in opposing the rule.
  Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota, an original sponsor of the STOCK Act, Mr. 
Walz.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  As the American people watch us here, the previous gentleman from 
Florida was right in that the frustration levels are as high as they've 
been with this sacred institution, with this idea of self-governance. 
It would be a lot easier if we didn't have to go through all of this.
  I hear some of my constituents sometimes say, We need to get rid of 
some of you Members of Congress. There are too many of you.
  I say, Why think small? Get rid of all of us and name a king. Then we 
don't have to do a dang thing, do we? They can think for us.

                              {time}  1320

  The idea is coming here together to self-govern ourselves. And the 
gentleman and all the speakers were right: It's about the integrity of 
this institution. It will be here, and it will stand when we are long 
gone and forgotten. Our children will inherit this place and the things 
that happen here. The integrity of this institution stands above all 
else. That's why when I walked through this door, coming out of a 
classroom in Mankato, Minnesota, after a career in the military and in 
teaching, I was approached by Louise Slaughter who said, You were sent 
here to do things differently. It's about making this place work, and 
I've got a bill for you. And for 5 years, Louise and I and seven others 
have tried to make this case. So I am pleased today that it's here.
  It's not perfect. As one of our former colleagues, Dave Obey, used to 
say, Of course it's not perfect. You'll get perfect in heaven. And this 
place is a lot closer than hell, so let's take a compromise. Let's get 
something done for the American public that restores their trust, and 
then lets move on to debate the important issues of employment, of 
caring for our veterans, of educating our children, of securing our 
Nation.
  Louise Slaughter has been there every step of the way. This was not a 
twelfth-hour comeback to the righteousness thing. Louise has lived this 
way. When she says this issue of political intelligence and gathering 
here is undermining our markets and our trust, she knows something 
about it.
  We're going to make a compromise. We're going to move a piece of 
legislation forward that is a step on a journey, not a destination. It 
is a quest towards a more perfect union. This is one small step.
  This is the only place in the world where doing something right lets 
us pat ourselves on the back. This is what Americans do every day. We 
need to assure them we're there.
  But this offering of adding this piece is all part of the bigger 
puzzle. I am in full support. I am proud to serve with the gentlelady 
from New York. She has been a champion. And it's not about our 
political differences.
  I thank all the Members here who spoke eloquently about restoring 
faith in this. The public wants us to come here and debate differences 
for the direction of our country. They don't want us to tear each other 
down, and they don't want us to game the system.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend for his kind comments. I know that Mr. Walz and Ms. 
Slaughter have been working for years and years on this proposal. And 
again, I have some issues with this proposal. I do believe that there 
are some better options out there. But I must speak up on behalf of the 
leadership in this House.
  For Congress after Congress after Congress, Ms. Slaughter labored to 
bring this bill to the floor, labored to bring this bill to the floor 
to no avail, to no avail, through 4 years of democratically controlled 
Congresses--folks who have the deepest respect and admiration for the 
gentlelady and her legislation--failed to bring this legislation to the 
floor. And the rule we have here today does. It does. It's not the only 
way to bring this legislation to the floor. It's not even a requirement 
that the legislation come to the floor in this way. But what this rule 
does is it provides the first opportunity that this Congress has had to 
vote on the STOCK Act. Madam Speaker, that's not a topic for the 
gnashing of teeth. That's a topic for the clapping of hands.
  If you believe in this bill, if you believe, as Mr. Walz said, that 
this may not be the end-all/be-all, but it's a step in that direction, 
if we can move a little today and a little tomorrow and a little beyond 
that to ultimately get to where we need to be, this is a step in the 
right direction.

[[Page 1158]]

  As a member of the Budget Committee, Madam Speaker, it just happens 
to be my privilege that that opportunity was attached to the bottom of 
a budget rule because the truth is, the reason we are here today is not 
to talk about the STOCK Act and not to talk about ethics reform but to 
talk about budget process reform, budget process reform that was 
reported out of the Budget Committee in a bipartisan way, budget 
process reform that was sponsored by both the Republican chairman of 
the Budget Committee and the Democratic ranking member of the Budget 
Committee--budget process reform that makes sure that every little 
piece of the United States budget, every topic in an appropriations 
bill, doesn't just get examined in committee, doesn't just get examined 
on the House floor, doesn't just get examined at the White House, but 
gets examined one more time for those things that just don't pass the 
smell test, by coming back to this body for an up-or-down vote on that 
rescission.
  I would inquire of my friend from Colorado if he hasany speakers 
remaining?
  Mr. POLIS. Yes, I do. I have one further request for time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. It's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I'm always in awe at the gentleman from the 
Rules Committee who has just spoken so eloquently about consensus and 
coming together. I've seen him in action in the Rules Committee. And 
certainly we thank the members of the Rules Committee for their 
service. We know that his history brings him here after being a 
staffer, so he knows this institution. He knows where all the bathrooms 
are. He knows about how much good we can do. I'm grateful for him 
acknowledging our friends, Congresswoman Slaughter and Mr. Walz, who 
have been working and, of course, who wanted to have their bill come 
forward in a way that would be transparent and to have the opportunity 
for all facets of this bill to be understood. So I thank the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for his leadership. So it begs the question 
of how we have the cloak-and-dagger midnight legislation trick that 
really is not befitting of this carefully drawn initiative.
  Let me share with my colleagues why I am so concerned about good work 
that should be presented as good work. At this moment, we are trying to 
make sure that no one has insider trading. And if we had a sledgehammer 
here, we would go around and make sure to stamp it out. But we are 
doing it through legislation, and you can't do it by legislation and 
half-fix it. We can't misrepresent to our colleagues and the American 
people.
  Right now, the language that was in Ms. Slaughter's bill dealing with 
political intelligence firms that have grown dramatically over the last 
few decades and are now a $100 million industry and are sharing moneys 
and resources and information, intel, with Wall Street every single 
day, and investors who are unfairly profiting at the benefit or the 
loss of the American people----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield a total of 1 additional minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Some single mother, some hardworking parents are being taken 
advantage of because they--our friends on the other side--have taken 
language out that would deal with the transferring of political 
intelligence by political insiders.
  We need to be able to vote ``no'' on the previous question to allow 
this language to come up. And it's a closed rule, and it's by 
suspension. For those of you who know that, nobody gets a chance to do 
anything. It's a super majority. Then to add insult to injury, they've 
got an expedited veto bill in here that would take away the powers of 
the three branches of government, slam the Congress that should be here 
doing its work--that's what you asked us to come here to do--and allow 
this expedited veto to go forward and to undermine the give-and-take of 
the three branches of government, which is what the Constitution asks 
us to do.
  I would ask us to vote ``no'' on turning the lights out and using 
dagger politics to keep the American people from knowing what is going 
on. I ask for a ``no'' on this vote.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of my friend if he has 
any further requests for time.
  Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. I'm prepared to close as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act is a fiscally sound 
way for both Congress and the President to reduce wasteful government 
spending and ensure that American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. 
This legislation will help in a small way to address our budget crisis. 
Again, I want to be clear that the Expedited Line-Item Veto and 
Rescissions Act does not solve our deficit, does not restore fiscal 
discipline and fiscal integrity to our country, but is a step in the 
right direction that will produce savings that will all be applied to 
deficit reduction under this bill.

                              {time}  1330

  The bill is a balanced measure, and I know that there is some support 
and opposition from both sides of the aisle. I encourage my colleagues 
to seriously consider supporting this small, but important, step 
forward.
  The country's budget situation is dire. The supercommittee's failure 
and the threat of sequestration underscores the need to address our 
fiscal policies head on. The worst possible outcome is that we pat 
ourselves on the back and say ``job well done'' while this country 
faces record deficits of trillions of dollars over the next 10 years.
  We need a big and balanced budget compromise to reduce our Nation's 
debt. Passing the bipartisan Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions 
Act will be a small step and keep us on track to help restore fiscal 
integrity to our country; but we need to remind ourselves that it is 
only a small first step toward addressing our budget problem.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to extend the 
unemployment insurance and middle class tax cuts to reach a big, bold, 
and balanced solution to our Federal budget situation along the lines 
of the President's commission.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the 
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It really is a source of pride for me as a Budget Committee member to 
be a part of this. This is an effort, much like the STOCK Act, that did 
not begin in this Congress. The Expedited Line-Item Veto is an effort 
that has been going on for almost two decades here in this body. And 
previous attempts, Madam Speaker, I would argue, were in fact an 
unconstitutional delegation of our responsibility here in the House to 
legislate delegating that responsibility to the President.
  This underlying bill, however, looks less like a line-item veto and 
more like an expedited rescission, rescission authority that the 
President already has today, but ensures that when that rescission is 
presented, it actually gets a vote here on the House floor.
  If these were wonderful economic times, Madam Speaker, I don't know 
if I would be as enthusiastic about this legislation, but these are 
dire economic times. Our budget challenges here have

[[Page 1159]]

grown exponentially in my life time. And I think we must pull out every 
single stop that we can to make the situation better. Whether a little 
or whether a lot, every single opportunity we must seize. And this is 
one of those. I so appreciate, again, the work of Chairman Ryan and 
Ranking Member Van Hollen in bringing this forward.
  But I would be remiss, Madam Speaker, if given all of the talk about 
the STOCK Act today, I didn't speak up just a little on behalf of my 
colleagues. I have served now 13 months as a Member of Congress. I see 
good and decent, hardworking men and women trying to do the very best 
that they can for their Nation. I see men and women from different 
parts of the country whose constituencies have different hopes and 
dreams, and those Members coming here to advocate for those hopes and 
dreams as best as they can. And I see a population back home that has 
lost all faith in those good men and women here in this body. And I 
wonder what we do here in this body to perpetuate that stereotype.
  You know, the STOCK Act, Madam Speaker, has been characterized 
colloquially as the prevent-insider-trading-by-Members-of-Congress as 
if, as if Members of Congress are allowed to participate in insider 
trading today. And they are not. Insider trading was against the law 
yesterday, it was against the law a week ago, it was against the law a 
year ago, and it will still be against the law tomorrow. Do not let 
your constituents, Madam Speaker, believe for a minute that you have a 
right to insider trade when they don't. The laws of the land apply to 
us as well, and we owe it to this institution and we owe it to our 
constituents back home to tell them they are not being represented by a 
bunch of thieves and scoundrels, but they are being represented by 
their neighbors. Can we do even more? Must we do even more? We must.
  Thirty-eight pages in the STOCK Act of new criminal regulations, new 
sanctions. If you got bribed last week, you're going to go to prison 
for a number of years. If you get bribed next week, you're going to go 
to prison for more years. Folks, don't get bribed. It was wrong 
yesterday; it is wrong tomorrow. It's not more wrong because we're 
deciding this here today.
  We have a responsibility to do the job we have been entrusted to do, 
and we must punish the bad actors in this body, but we cannot let our 
constituents back home believe that this body cannot be saved. We 
cannot let our constituents back home believe that this body is being 
operated by folks who breach the public trust. We do America a 
disservice, Madam Speaker, when we allow that contention to go 
unchallenged.
  Are there bad apples here in this Congress? I don't know if they are 
here today. I know they have been here in years past. And we've sent 
those folks to prison. There are bad apples in my church; we've sent 
those folks to prison, too.
  This body is only as good as the American voter back home. And I tell 
you, Madam Speaker, if your district is like my district, the American 
voter back home is spectacular. The American voter back home is a man 
or woman of integrity. The American voter back home is a person with 
hopes and dreams for a better America tomorrow than we have today. We 
can deliver that on their behalf. We are the voice of those hopes and 
dreams in this body.
  The kind of bipartisan work that we've done on the Expedited Line-
Item Veto and Rescissions Act, I say that is exemplary. My colleague 
who chuckles, Madam Speaker, has been here longer than I. He's been 
here longer than I. I don't believe he's beyond saving, though. I think 
we can convince him that it's not a laughable matter to work together, 
that it's actually something that folks do. And I'm optimistic to be 
the carrier of that message today and tomorrow.
  With that, let me again urge strong support for the rule. The rule 
both allows the Expedited Line-Item Veto bill to come to the floor, as 
well as provides an opportunity for the very first time a vote on the 
STOCK Act here in this body. I rise in strong support of that rule and 
in strong support of the underlying provision.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 540 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon 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 a bill consisting 
     of the text specified in section 5, which will bear the title 
     ``to provide for disclosure of political intelligence 
     activities under the Lobbying Disclosure Act''. 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 between the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on 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.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
       Sec. 5. The text referred to in section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 1. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES UNDER 
                   LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' each place 
     that term appears the following: ``or political intelligence 
     activities''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``lobbyists'' the following: ``or 
     political intelligence consultants''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       (17) Political intelligence activities.--The term 
     `political intelligence activities' means political 
     intelligence contacts and efforts in support of such 
     contacts, including preparation and planning activities, 
     research, and other background work that is intended, at the 
     time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination 
     with such contacts and efforts of others.
       (18) Political intelligence contact.--
       ``(A) Definition.--The term `political intelligence 
     contact' means any oral or written communication (including 
     an electronic communication) to or from a covered executive 
     branch official or a covered legislative branch official, the 
     information derived from which is intended for use in 
     analyzing securities or commodities markets, or in informing 
     investment decisions, and which is made on behalf of a client 
     with regard to--
       ``(i) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal 
     legislation (including legislative proposals);
       ``(ii) the formulation, modification, or adoption of a 
     Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other 
     program, policy, or position of the United States Government; 
     or
       ``(iii) the administration or execution of a Federal 
     program or policy (including the negotiation, award, or 
     administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or 
     license).
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `political intelligence contact' 
     does not include a communication that is made by or to a 
     representative of the media if the purpose of the 
     communication is gathering and disseminating news and 
     information to the public.
       ``(19) Political intelligence firm.--The term `political 
     intelligence firm' means a person or entity that has 1 or 
     more employees who are political intelligence consultants to 
     a client other than that person or entity.
       ``(20) Political intelligence consultant.--The term 
     `political intelligence consultant' means any individual who 
     is employed or retained by a client for financial or other 
     compensation for services that include one or more political 
     intelligence contacts.''.
       (b) Registration Requirement.--Section 4 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting after ``whichever is earlier,'' the 
     following: ``or a political intelligence consultant first 
     makes a political intelligence contact,''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``such lobbyist'' each place that 
     term appears the following: ``or consultant'';

[[Page 1160]]

       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``lobbyists'' each 
     place that term appears the following: ``or political 
     intelligence consultants''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (i) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' each place 
     that term appears the following: ``and political intelligence 
     activities''; and
       (ii) in clause (i), by inserting after ``lobbying firm'' 
     the following: ``or political intelligence firm'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities'';
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     after ``lobbying activities'' the following: ``or political 
     intelligence activities''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activity'' the following: ``or political intelligence 
     activity'';
       (C) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities'';
       (D) in paragraph (6), by inserting after ``lobbyist'' each 
     place that term appears the following: ``or political 
     intelligence consultant''; and
       (E) in the matter following paragraph (6), by inserting 
     ``or political intelligence activities'' after ``such 
     lobbying activities'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     contacts'' the following: ``or political intelligence 
     contacts''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting after ``lobbying contact'' the following: 
     ``or political intelligence contact''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``lobbying contacts'' the 
     following: ``and political intelligence contacts''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities''.
       (c) Reports by Registered Political Intelligence 
     Consultants.--Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' the following: ``and political intelligence 
     activities'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     after ``lobbying activities'' the following: ``or political 
     intelligence activities'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--
       (I) by inserting after ``lobbyist'' the following: ``or 
     political intelligence consultant''; and
       (II) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' the 
     following: ``or political intelligence activities'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``lobbyists'' 
     the following: ``and political intelligence consultants''; 
     and
       (iv) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``lobbyists'' 
     the following: ``or political intelligence consultants'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting after ``lobbying firm'' the following: 
     ``or political intelligence firm''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``lobbying activities'' each place 
     that term appears the following: ``or political intelligence 
     activities''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     activities'' each place that term appears the following: ``or 
     political intelligence activities''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a political intelligence 
     consultant'' after ``a lobbyist''.
       (d) Disclosure and Enforcement.--Section 6(a) of the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting after ``lobbying 
     firms'' the following: ``, political intelligence 
     consultants, political intelligence firms,'';
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``or lobbying firm'' and 
     inserting ``lobbying firm, political intelligence consultant, 
     or political intelligence firm''; and
       (3) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or lobbying firm'' and 
     inserting ``lobbying firm, political intelligence consultant, 
     or political intelligence firm''.
       (e) Rules of Construction.--Section 8(b) of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1607(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``or lobbying contacts'' and inserting ``lobbying 
     contacts, political intelligence activities, or political 
     intelligence contacts''.
       (f) Identification of Clients and Covered Officials.--
     Section 14 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1609) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or Political 
     Intelligence'' after ``Lobbying'';
       (B) by inserting ``or political intelligence contact'' 
     after ``lobbying contact'' each place that term appears; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence activity, as the case may be'' after ``lobbying 
     activity'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or Political 
     Intelligence'' after ``Lobbying'';
       (B) by inserting ``or political intelligence contact'' 
     after ``lobbying contact'' each place that term appears; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence activity, as the case may be'' after ``lobbying 
     activity''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence contact'' after ``lobbying contact''.
       (g) Annual Audits and Reports by Comptroller General.--
     Section 26 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1614) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``political intelligence firms, political 
     intelligence consultants,'' after ``lobbying firms''; and
       (B) by striking ``lobbying registrations'' and inserting 
     ``registrations'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1 )(A), by inserting ``political 
     intelligence firms, political intelligence consultants,'' 
     after ``lobbying firms''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or political 
     intelligence consultant'' after ``a lobbyist''.


                         SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect at the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)


        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.''
       In 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 and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page 1161]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 184, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 43]

                               YEAS--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--184

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Akin
     Alexander
     Blumenauer
     Cassidy
     Fattah
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Roby

                              {time}  1402

  Messrs. HOYER, LANGEVIN, BOSWELL, Ms. WATERS, and Mr. KUCINICH 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GRIMM changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 175, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 44]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden

[[Page 1162]]


     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--175

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Akin
     Blumenauer
     Butterfield
     Cassidy
     Chu
     Cole
     Franks (AZ)
     Herrera Beutler
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Nunes
     Paul
     Payne
     Polis
     Roby
     Ruppersberger
     Sewell
     Stutzman

                              {time}  1408

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 44, the question of agreeing to 
the resolution (H. Res. 540) which provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions 
Act, had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. SEWELL. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 43, 44, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes,'' on both.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto 
and Rescissions Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 540 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3521.

                              {time}  1409


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3521) to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974 to provide for a legislative line-item veto to expedite 
consideration of rescissions, and for other purposes, with Mr. Denham 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Budget, and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen), and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I want to begin by thanking my friend, Chris Van Hollen, the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee. This is a collaborative effort. This is 
a bipartisan effort. It's not that often that we have a chance to do 
this. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for this collaborative effort. We believe whenever we can find the 
opportunity to reach across the aisle and work in a bipartisan fashion 
to go after wasteful spending we should do that, and that's what this 
effort is all about.
  I also want to thank the staffers who put a lot of work in this: Paul 
Restuccia, Nicole Foltz, and Jon Romito on the majority side. I want to 
thank Tom Kahn, Gail Millar, and Ellen Balis, for their hard work on 
the minority side; Chairman Dreier at the Rules Committee; Congressman 
Hensarling, who has been one of the forefathers of this effort.
  What this does is it is the expedited line-item veto and enhanced 
rescissions. This bill is constitutional, and I want to explain to 
Members why.
  The 1996 line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional because it 
delegated legislative power to the executive branch. This does not do 
that. This is quite the opposite. This simply says, after an 
appropriations bill has been passed, within a short period of time, the 
President can send up a new rescissions proposal to the House and the 
Senate to consider rescinding spending from that bill, and we have to 
simply have the vote. We can't hide from the vote. We can't duck from 
the vote. We have to have the vote.
  Here's why we're doing this, Mr. Chairman. Lots of bills from both 
parties over the years have had so many miscellaneous provisions 
stuffed into them without seeing the light of day, whether they even 
pass the House or Senate or not. The President has to sign the whole 
bill or nothing at all. This gives us the ability to pull those 
miscellaneous provisions out, send them back to Congress and have them 
vote on them on their individual merits.
  We believe what this will do will make every Member of Congress think 
twice before trying to insert, sometimes we call them airdrops or 
earmarks or pork or whatever you want to call it. We ought to have 
Members of Congress think twice that they might have to justify this 
provision on the spending bill on the merits by a stand-alone vote by 
their own peers. We think that act of sunshine, that act of 
transparency, that act of accountability will help improve the 
integrity of the spending process here in Congress.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 30 additional seconds to simply 
say this bill is bipartisan, it's constitutional, and it is yet one 
more tool in several that we are bringing to the floor to restore 
trust, accountability, and transparency to the way we spend hardworking 
taxpayer dollars.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me begin by thanking the chairman of the committee, Paul Ryan, 
and

[[Page 1163]]

our staffs for working together in a cooperative and bipartisan manner 
on what I think is a very important piece of legislation to bring 
before the House.
  While we have deep disagreements in this House over many policy 
issues, I know that we all agree that we should be responsible and 
careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. That's what this bill before us 
is all about. It creates new mechanisms for greater transparency and 
greater accountability in spending taxpayer dollars. I believe that it 
will, over time, result in a better use of those taxpayer dollars, and 
savings identified through this process will go to deficit reduction.
  For those of us who believe that government can play a positive role 
in people's lives by creating opportunities, like investing in 
education for our kids, like strengthening our economy through 
investments in infrastructure--our roads, our bridges, broadband--by 
making key investments in scientific research, for those of us who 
believe that, it is especially important that taxpayers have confidence 
that their tax dollars are being used wisely. To the extent they don't 
believe that, it makes it more difficult to invest in the common good. 
So we should take every opportunity in this body to make sure those 
taxpayer dollars are being well spent.
  Let's be clear about what this bill does and what it does not do.
  As the chairman indicated, it does not give the President unilateral 
line-item authority. The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that the line-item 
veto law that was passed by an earlier Congress was unconstitutional 
because it handed over that unilateral authority to the President of 
the United States. I think that was the right Court decision. I also 
think it was the right policy decision.
  This approach is entirely different. It's different because it 
expressly requires congressional action before any savings, sometimes 
called rescissions, proposed by the President can take place. It simply 
requires Congress to consider and vote on the President's proposed 
savings. Congress, by a majority vote in each House, can support the 
President's recommended savings or reject those savings. In the end, 
Congress has the final say.
  Now, I think everybody here knows we can do a better job in this 
Congress of scrutinizing spending bills. This bill provides a strong 
incentive to do that. Let's consider how the process worked just last 
December with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012.
  That bill was over 1,200 pages long and included over a trillion 
dollars in spending. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I've got that bill right 
here. It was submitted to this House at 10:47 p.m. on December 15, 
2011, and was voted on less than 15 hours later. No one can say they 
had an adequate opportunity to scrutinize that spending bill.
  Let me mention a couple facts about that bill. It included in it nine 
separate appropriation bills rolled into one. Of those nine bills, four 
had not been reviewed or voted on by the full House. The House had 
never had a chance to look at them or vote on them. Two of them hadn't 
even had a vote in the Appropriations Committee. One of those two, the 
Labor-H bill, $160 billion in taxpayer money, not voted on even in 
Appropriations Committee. The Foreign Ops bill, not voted in 
Appropriations Committee. Only one of those nine was voted on in the 
United States Senate before that last-minute decision.
  I want to make this clear. This is not a criticism of the 
Appropriations Committee. This is a criticism of the process that we've 
had in this Congress whether you have Democratic Houses in control or 
Republicans in control. What this bill does is try and provide a small 
fix to that process so that we have a little more scrutiny.
  Under current law, the President can already propose savings, but 
under current law, the Appropriations Committee can totally ignore it. 
All this does is say let's take up those recommended savings in the 
light of day. Let's have an up-or-down vote in the United States 
Congress and, you know what, if we agree the President's identified 
additional savings, that will help reduce the deficit.
  This is a good bill. It's a bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full Appropriations 
Committee, an individual who is trying to do more to reform the 
appropriations process by bringing individual bills to the floor.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  In article I, section 9, clause 7, the U.S. Constitution bestows upon 
Congress what we now call the ``power of the purse''--that the 
representatives of the people should distribute taxpayer dollars as 
warranted and needed. The line-item veto would weaken that power, 
shifting budgetary authority to the executive branch and giving the 
President a power that our Founding Fathers did not see fit to give to 
him. In fact, a previous effort to provide the President a line-item 
veto, as has been noted, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme 
Court in 1998.
  Two weeks ago, during his State of the Union address, we heard how 
the President would choose to spend our precious taxpayer dollars. The 
line-item veto would strengthen the President's ability to give 
preference to his spending priorities over those of the Congress and 
the constituents that you represent.
  Our Founding Fathers had seen firsthand what an absolute authority 
could do when wielding too much influence, particularly over spending 
and taxation, and they drafted our Constitution accordingly, providing 
for checks and balances to prevent too much power from falling into the 
hands of one branch of government, the executive. The Framers would 
surely shake their heads at the idea of transferring this much 
authority to the executive branch.
  So powerful was this defense of Congress' role that James Madison in 
Federalist Paper No. 58 stated:

       The power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the 
     most complete and effectual weapon with which any 
     constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the 
     people for obtaining a redress of every grievance and for 
     carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

  Not only does the line-item veto fly in the face of our Constitution 
and the Framers' protections, but budget experts also doubt its 
effectiveness as a spending reduction tool. Look back to Congress' 
experience with the line-item veto under President Clinton. He wielded 
this authority to little effect in saving taxpayer dollars. In fact, 
Congress declared that he ``misused'' that authority, and overturned 
nearly half of his cancellations. So, to summarize the line-item veto: 
It is a power likely to be abused and not likely to save money.
  In an effort to better this flawed bill, to at least improve its 
chances at having a tangible effect on government spending, we offered 
an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have made the bill also 
apply to tax benefits and runaway entitlement spending. However, that 
amendment was ruled out of order. The amendment wouldn't have made this 
bill perfect nor would it have solved the constitutional problem, but 
it would have at least increased the potential for achieving actual 
budget savings.
  Nearly 25 years ago, former CBO Director Rudolph G. Penner famously 
said in reference to our budget: ``The problem isn't the process. The 
problem is the problem.''
  Mr. Chairman, today's problem isn't with whether or not the President 
can veto budget line items nor is it even with annual discretionary 
spending. On that front, we've saved more than $95 billion over the 
last 2 years, thanks to the support of this House.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The real problem today lies with exploding 
and

[[Page 1164]]

unsustainable mandatory and entitlement spending, which the Budget 
Committee should be addressing forthwith. Mandatory spending comprises 
two-thirds of the Federal budget. We only deal with a third on 
discretionary--most of that military--and it continues to blow up the 
Nation's deficit and debt at these rapid rates, putting our economy and 
the stability of our Nation at risk.
  I urge my colleagues to look beyond the opportunity for the easy 
press release in order to see that the line-item veto does more harm 
than good. We can't dismiss the fundamental tenets of the Constitution, 
and we can't pretend that it will have any positive effect on the 
Nation's financial predicament. We must put an end to these budgetary 
smoke screens to find more appropriate and effective ways to address 
our budget crisis and focus our efforts on mandatory entitlement 
spending, which is where the real problem is.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that 44 State 
governments have the line-item veto in their constitution, but we're 
not proposing that here. We're proposing to keep the power of the purse 
with the legislative branch and not grant that to the executive branch. 
This bill does that.
  With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, a 
member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Flake.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong 
support of this legislation. I appreciate that it's a bipartisan piece 
of legislation.
  I lose no sleep at night over whether the President of my party or 
the other party can take action to send back some spending that we have 
done here and force Congress to reaffirm it. Had we had that over time, 
I think we would have saved considerable money. We've had the process 
here that the chairman of the Budget Committee has mentioned, the 
process of earmarking over the years. Tens of thousands of earmarks 
have been proposed by Members of this body unchecked. Oftentimes we 
would approve one bill with 6,300 earmarks in it. It would be wonderful 
to have somebody able to send one of those items back and at least 
force us to spend additional time on that item and to say, do we really 
want to spend that money or not? It provides some check on this 
process. We need more checks, not fewer.
  Like I said, I think that this is constitutional. It doesn't cede our 
power of the purse. It simply reconfirms our commitment to control 
spending, something that we have not had much control of lately as 
evidenced by the massive deficits that we've run.
  So I rise in support of that legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida, a member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Castor.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
bipartisan Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act. As 
a member of the Budget Committee and a cosponsor, I would like to thank 
Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen for their work and 
cooperation.
  I support a line-item veto because congressional appropriations and 
spending oversight is broken. They're broken. Almost every year 
appropriation bills are rolled into one massive package at the end of 
the year with little opportunity to review, debate, or amend the 
provisions. That means Members have little ability to eliminate a 
wasteful expenditure or program.
  This past year was a perfect example. Despite the expressed desire of 
Speaker Boehner that we would have open debate and open amendments on 
every appropriations bill, that did not happen. Instead, the bills were 
rolled into one huge package in the eleventh hour, released with, as I 
think Ranking Member Van Hollen said, 15 hours to review, and then 
Members were asked to provide an up-or-down vote. We had little ability 
or no ability to amend the bill. That is not how it is supposed to 
work.
  The Congress must endeavor to effectively exercise its 
responsibilities and scrutinize every appropriation and be able to 
debate and amend expenditures. The logrolling of appropriations bills 
that has become common practice undermines confidence in Government and 
permits wasteful spending to squeak through.
  Under this bipartisan line-item veto bill, we will establish a new 
layer of accountability in the budget process. The President, whether 
it is a Republican or a Democrat, will have a new critical look at a 
spending provision, a potential veto or veto of that provision, but 
then it will come back to the Congress, and then we can debate it and 
vote on it in the light of day up or down.
  Mr. Chairman, so far this congressional session has been described as 
a particularly difficult one, and it was highlighted by difficult 
debates of last year, and then we ended the year with a big 
appropriations package we were asked to vote on at the last minute with 
no review practically and no ability to amend it. So I have to say that 
it is refreshing that we can bring a bipartisan bill to the floor of 
the House that we agree on. Reform with a line-item veto bill today, 
hopefully the STOCK Act tomorrow.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan line-item veto bill 
and demonstrate to the American public that the Congress can work 
again.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my chairman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, while I am very hesitant to oppose my friend from the 
Budget Committee, he has been wrong in this subject area before. The 
line-item veto that the Supreme Court essentially set aside was an 
illustration that we are on dangerous ground when we presume, as the 
legislative branch, the people's House, that we are going to do 
something worthwhile but, in the process, exceed our authority and 
constitutional responsibility to the administration, any 
administration, whether it be Democrat or Republican.
  In the last go-around preceding the Court setting it aside, the 
administration had vetoed a number of items but, indeed, about 80 
percent of them were sponsored on one side of the aisle versus the 
other, essentially partisanizing that piece of the appropriations 
process. One way or another, this body has got to get away from those 
partisan extremes. In this case, you are going to have a bureaucrat at 
a third level within the administration deciding, ah-ha, there's an 
item there that we don't agree with in our bureaucracy, so let's send 
it back for very special attention, taking up the time of the Congress 
and essentially undermining the work of the Congress.
  Our responsibility within our subcommittees on the Appropriations 
Committee and in the full House is to legislate. Theirs is to review 
that which we direct them to do, not to either set aside or to veto 
that work. So for that reason, I strongly oppose the proposal by the 
Budget Committee chairman.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would simply say that the same majority that 
produces the appropriations bill can reject any rescission requests by 
the President in the same majority.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ribble), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member 
Van Hollen for bringing this very important piece of legislation.
  Spending has run rampant in Washington, and it's because ``no'' is 
not a word that Congress is used to when it comes to spending. For too 
long, Members have been able to take advantage of the system and spend 
taxpayer money on projects that have proved to be unnecessary and 
frivolous. There are far too many examples of spending absurdity to 
share today; but the fact is that needless projects are squandering 
away millions of dollars at a time when our country is facing a record-
breaking $15 trillion debt.
  It's time to start changing the way Congress budgets and spends 
taxpayer money, and the line-item veto is a positive step. I would 
contend to you it's

[[Page 1165]]

not that we have too much oversight. It may be that we have too little 
oversight. By allowing the President to target unjustified spending and 
send it back to Congress for a vote, we'll increase accountability and 
make Members think twice before they commit hardworking taxpayer 
dollars on some special interest project.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation and the 
sponsor of my own biennial budgeting bill which will help fix 
Washington's broken budget process. The time for change is now because 
if we don't strive to fundamentally fix this problem--not just some 
pretend fix--then it will be our children and grandchildren who will 
pay the price. Mr. Chairman, I urge my friends and colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), who has spent a lot of time focusing on budget 
issues.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
  There are two constitutional principles; there is one practical 
problem; and there is one democratic ideal. The most important 
constitutional principle is the power of the purse that must be 
retained by Congress. No one could give a better affirmation of why 
that's important than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
except for the author of the Federalist Papers who the gentleman 
quoted.
  Does this violate Congress' power of the purse? It reserves to the 
Congress the right to overturn by majority vote a recommendation by the 
executive that focuses on a single item of spending. Now, that may make 
life somewhat more difficult for those of us in Congress. It may make 
it particularly more difficult for the appropriators who have to deal 
with the incredible complexities of the large and multifaceted Federal 
budget; but in my view, it does not in any way violate the 
constitutional right that this House has over the power of the purse.
  The second constitutional provision is the right of the executive to 
exercise a veto. And that is part of the checks and balances where the 
executive, a Republican or Democratic President, is given the power to 
say ``no.'' And then it imposes on us a burden of coming up with two-
thirds votes in order to overcome it. A veto is not a practical tool. 
If the effect of that veto is a budget that keeps government going, 
that pays for our troops, that pays doctors who are providing Medicare 
services, that everything goes down with the ship, we're forcing the 
President to make what, in fact, is a radical decision to tear the 
whole thing down or to let some things go.
  The practical problem we have is the budget. And again, Mr. Rogers is 
right: process reform is not going to get us from where we are to where 
we need to be. The problem is the problem. But this is one budget 
reform that can't help because what it does ultimately lead to is the 
application of that great democratic principle of transparency. What 
this means is that if you or I voted for a budget and the President 
highlighted a few items where the President said, Hey, what's going on, 
we would have to stand up here--you and I--and vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' 
and then be able to defend that vote to the people who elected us.
  One of the challenges that I think we all know we have is that the 
confidence that people have in this institution is very low. So 
anything we can do--and transparency is the way to do something quite 
effective--we should do.
  So this simply means that at the end of the day, these budget bills 
that are complicated, that are big, that few Members really have an 
opportunity to review, when the President reviews them and identifies a 
few things that he wants to send back, we have to say ``yes'' or ``no'' 
in the full light of day.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. 
McCollum), a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget 
Committee.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the chairman.
  I respect the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the Budget 
Committee, but I oppose passage of H.R. 3521. This bill grants the 
executive branch more power, and it will do little to reduce our 
deficit. Make no mistake, this bill sacrifices congressional authority. 
If H.R. 3521 were a serious effort to reduce our deficit, it would 
address the hundreds of billions of dollars we currently spend through 
our Tax Code.
  In fiscal year 2010, tax expenditures constituted a bigger part of 
our budget than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and national 
defense. Tax expenditures were twice as large as all nondiscretionary 
spending combined. With the Federal budget on an unsustainable path, 
our country's fiscal problems need to be addressed in a way that is 
both effective and equitable. Scaling back and reforming tax 
expenditures must be an important part of the effort.
  The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles report explained that the spending in 
the Tax Code costs over $1 trillion every year. They call these tax 
earmarks. Why? Because they are special tax breaks granted to special 
taxpayers.
  Tax expenditures are not periodically reviewed; and unlike the 
budgets of individual Federal Government Departments and agencies, 
which are set by Congress and annually reviewed through the 
appropriations process, special interest earmarks in law today 
contribute directly to deficit spending. A report by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation says tax expenditures ``may be considered to be 
analogous to direct outlay programs, and the two can be considered as 
alternative means of accomplishing similar budget policy objectives.''
  Very few Members know what's hidden in our Tax Code because it's not 
subject to annual scrutiny like the budget. Special interest spending 
in our Tax Code does not deserve more protection in the budget process 
than public interest appropriations that support our local communities, 
our police and fire departments, and our schools.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. With that, I would urge colleagues to vote this bill 
down.


  February 8th, 2012, Remarks by Betty McCollum--Tax Expenditures and 
                      Budget Rescission Authority

  I respect the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the Budget 
Committee; I oppose passage of this H.R. 3521. This bill grants the 
Executive Branch more power and will do little to reduce our deficit.
  Make no mistake; this bill sacrifices Congressional authority, 
because we have failed to do our jobs by taking a balanced approach to 
deficit reduction.
  If H.R. 3521 was a serious effort to reduce our deficit, it would 
address the hundreds of billions of dollars we currently spend through 
our tax code.
  In fiscal year 2010, tax expenditures constituted a bigger part of 
our budget than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or national 
defense. Tax expenditures were twice as large as all non-security 
discretionary spending combined.
  With the federal budget on an unsustainable path, our country's 
fiscal problems need to be addressed in a way that is both effective 
and equitable. Scaling back and reforming ``tax expenditures'' must be 
an important part of that effort.
  The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles report explained that spending in the 
tax code cost over $1 trillion every year. They called these ``tax 
earmarks.'' Why? Because they are special tax breaks granted to special 
taxpayers.
  Tax expenditures are not periodically reviewed, unlike the budgets of 
individual federal government departments and agencies, which are set 
by Congress annually through the appropriations process.
  A report by the Joint Committee on Taxation says: ``Tax expenditures 
. . . may be considered to be analogous to direct outlay programs, and 
the two can be considered as alternative means of accomplishing similar 
budget policy objectives.''
  Very few Members know what is hidden in our tax code, because it is 
not subject to annual scrutiny like the budget.
  The hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on these ``tax 
earmarks'' must be addressed if we are serious about putting our 
country on a sustainable fiscal path.
  And without the opportunity to include tax expenditures, which are a 
larger part of our budget than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or 
national defense, we will not get our fiscal house in order. Therefore, 
I will vote no on H.R. 3521.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
simply say that what we are trying to do

[[Page 1166]]

here is add another layer of transparency and accountability. When an 
appropriation bill comes to the floor--at least under this majority--it 
comes under an open rule, which means that any Member can open it up to 
amendment, and we can have those up-or-down votes on individual items 
under consideration in this bill.

                              {time}  1440

  But what happens after that moment, after a bill has passed the 
House, after a bill has passed the Senate and then it's conferenced, a 
bill comes to the floor, up or down, take it or leave it. Lots of 
things go into those bills in those moments between House and Senate 
passage and final conference report passage.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds to say 
that this simply gives us that extra layer of accountability so that we 
can still consider individual items. And all we have to do if we don't 
approve of them is not pass them. We decide.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I had the honor to be part of the 
Republican Congress that produced the first balanced budget in nearly 
30 years. Part of that effort included providing the President line-
item veto authority. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled the line-
item veto unconstitutional. After the dot-com and 9/11 recessions, the 
deficit reemerged. Again, Republicans were making progress towards 
eliminating the annual budget deficit, reducing it down to $161 billion 
in 2007. But when the Democrats took over control of Congress, we now 
have a monthly deficit of over $90 billion.
  Since 2007, I've voted more than 700 times to cut over $2.6 trillion 
in spending, over 150 times in 2011 alone. This bill represents another 
effort to rein in spending and get our fiscal house in order. It will 
withstand constitutional scrutiny, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a former member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Maryland and I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for their bipartisan 
effort today.
  I'm pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Expedited Legislative 
Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  I'm listening to the concerns from our friends on both sides of the 
aisle, especially those on the Appropriations Committee, and I'm not 
unsympathetic to the constitutional concerns raised about what does 
this do to the balance of power. I believe our friend from Wisconsin, 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, very ably just explained how this 
framework takes cognizance of those concerns and guarantees that while 
we give the President an opportunity to take another look at the whole 
bill and make some excisions, it also gives us another crack, an up-or-
down on whether we agree or we don't. I believe that we as an 
institution cannot have it both ways. We can't say that we are obsessed 
with the national debt, but when a statutory remedy is at hand to try 
to address it, we say ``no'' because of an argument about prerogatives.
  The debt is so large and it isn't, I say to my friend from Illinois, 
a matter of Democrats or Republicans. No hands are clean when it comes 
to the national debt. But we have in front of us one more tool to add 
to PAYGO, to add to the sequestration process, and hopefully other 
debt-relief measures.
  Here is a tool right in front of us, a statutory tool, not a 
constitutional amendment, that actually can make an efficacious 
difference. I believe we should do that. I believe it will make a 
difference, and I believe that it doesn't compromise the balance of 
power between the executive and the congressional used the way it's 
designed.
  So I'm happy to rise in support of this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to think carefully before they vote about whether we say 
``yea'' or ``nay'' to this tool in a kit bag.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Expedited 
Rescission Act, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.
  It is no secret that if left unchecked, our federal deficit will 
cause lasting damage to our economy and to American families. No one 
action, and no one party caused the fiscal challenges we face, but it 
will take bipartisan efforts like this bill to put us back on the right 
path.
  Just as you cannot build a house with just a saw, there is no one 
panacea to correct the debt imbalance. The Expedited Rescission Act, 
however, is another tool in our toolbox for fixing the Nation's 
financial problems, and it builds upon our previous actions.
  As my colleagues will recall, we re-instituted the Statutory Pay As 
You Go Act in the last Congress. PAYGO is a simple concept that some 
here in Washington often forget--if you have a nifty idea, you have to 
find a way to pay for it first. The original PAYGO was a bipartisan 
bill enacted under a Democratic Congress and a Republican President in 
1990. A Republican Congress and a Democratic President then adhered to 
it throughout the 1990s, culminating in four straight surpluses 
starting in FY1998. Unfortunately, PAYGO was allowed to lapse in 2002 
until we revived it in 2010.
  More recently, we took another critical step in addressing our 
financial challenges when the bipartisan debt ceiling agreement was 
enacted into law last August, cutting $2.1 trillion of debt over the 
next decade. Although a number of my colleagues recently have suggested 
we retrench on that agreement, it represents the largest debt reduction 
in our Nation's history. While more must be done, this was a 
significant step.
  Today, Expedited Rescission presents us with another tool we can use. 
It gives the President and then Congress a second chance to review 
federal spending proposals and eliminate unneeded expenditures. 
Encouraging fiscal discipline and creating one more opportunity to cut 
unnecessary spending will help strengthen our Nation's financial 
foundation.
  The Expedited Rescission Act is a bipartisan effort that will move us 
closer to reducing the federal debt and building a stronger and 
sustainable fiscal future, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert), a member of the Appropriations Committee and, more 
importantly, the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Expedited 
Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act. While I think today's 
debate is valid and relevant, I have serious concerns about ceding more 
legislative authority to the executive branch.
  While I understand what my colleagues on the Budget Committee are 
trying to do, I fear we are tilting the constitutional separation of 
powers and giving even more authority to the executive branch that it 
will soon resemble a monarchy.
  Every budget reform exercise we go through, going back to the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, seems to 
strengthen the executive branch and weaken the legislative branch.
  This process has morphed into a yearly exercise in which Congress 
receives a 10-pound, five-volume, shrink-wrapped budget that is simply 
the executive branch's earmarks. Congress rarely challenges the bulk of 
the President's budget and is left fighting over the margins--a very 
small percentage of the total budget. When we do question the 
President's budget, we get push back from the executive branch agencies 
on any changes we want to make. Now we want to let ourselves off the 
hook from writing good legislation and forcing the President to either 
accept what Congress passes or veto it.
  If the point of this legislation is to reduce our overall spending by 
giving the President this power, then we are ignoring one of the 
biggest drivers of our debt, which is the Tax Code, which was mentioned 
earlier. Why leave out the loopholes and giveaways from Ways and Means 
which is permanent spending via the Tax Code?
  It was mentioned by the chairman that the appropriations bills are 
brought up under an open rule. I wonder why this bill wasn't brought up 
under an open rule. Again, the point here is that Congress should be 
doing

[[Page 1167]]

its duty, addressing Tax Code loopholes and writing thoughtful spending 
bills, not simply turning over the hard choices to the President.
  We are inserting the President in the legislative process. Congress 
giving up its authority under the Constitution, this will not resolve 
our budget problem.
  I urge my colleagues to preserve the constitutional right of Congress 
to appropriate and vote against this bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill presents us with a very simple question: Is 
it just conceivably possible that the Congress has, from time to time, 
passed a spending bill or two that ought to have had greater scrutiny?
  Now, the answer to that question may elude certain Members of this 
House, but I can assure them it is self-evident to everybody else. A 
country whose finances are as far out of control as ours suffers from 
not too many checks and balances on spending but from too few.
  Now the opponents discuss this bill as if it were some new and 
radical idea. The fact is many States operate with a genuine line-item 
veto and have for generations. For those States, it's been a vital tool 
to control their spending, and those provisions are far more stringent 
than what is proposed here.
  In conformance with our Constitution, this bill simply invites the 
President to call to Congress' attention those spending items that he 
recommends that we give additional thought to and puts a 6-week hold on 
those funds while we do so. In fact, from 1801 until 1974, the 
President had the recognized authority to impound excess spending 
indefinitely, a legitimate executive function first asserted by 
President Thomas Jefferson. The Budget Act of 1974 stripped the 
Executive of this vital check on congressional excess. I'd prefer to 
see us restore that fiscal safeguard; or, better still, amend the 
Constitution to provide the President with an actual line-item veto.
  But let's at least set up a process so the President can warn us when 
he believes that we have appropriated more money than he needs to 
execute the laws that we have passed. This bill is, frankly, a mouse 
when we need a lion. The fact that it has produced shrieks of horror 
from some quarters of the House is an exact measure of the extent and 
nature of our problem.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3521, the Expedited Line-Item 
Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011. This bipartisan legislation will cut 
wasteful spending and reduce the deficit by reestablishing the 
principal of a line-item veto.
  It should come as no surprise to anyone that occasionally an 
unnecessary or wasteful expenditure makes its way into a spending bill. 
This bill increases accountability over those expenditures by giving 
the President the authority to identify specific wasteful spending and 
make Congress take an up-or-down vote on its merits.

                              {time}  1450

  This legislation requires that all savings go directly toward deficit 
reduction. This legislation is a commonsense solution to cut wasteful 
spending and reduce our unsustainable deficit. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill. It's a step toward getting our economy back on track 
and getting people back to work.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole), a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget 
Committee that marked this bill up.
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of people have asked whether or not this bill is 
constitutional. Frankly, I think it is. I don't think there's much 
doubt about it. A lot of people have raised the point that it enhances 
the power of the Presidency. I don't think there is much question that 
it does do that.
  A lot of people have argued it's substantive, and there I have to 
respectfully disagree. There's nothing substantive about this 
legislation at all. We already have gotten rid of earmarks, don't use 
them anymore, and the Appropriations Committee has already shown that 
on its own it can cut spending. It's done it in 2 budget years in a 
single calendar year.
  The sad thing here is we had a chance to do something substantive. We 
had amendments offered by Ms. McCollum and myself that actually would 
have made tax expenditures in order to be reviewed, that actually would 
have looked at direct spending. Those amendments, unfortunately, were 
ruled out of order.
  Pursuing bipartisanship and providing Members with political cover at 
the expense of substantive policy, frankly, is unworthy of the 
Congress, in my view, and certainly of this majority. Our budget 
problems are serious. They deserve serious solutions. The Ryan budget 
is a serious solution. The 2006 legislative line-item veto bill, which 
included provisions to cover the very items that this bill does not, 
was a serious solution. This legislation, sadly, is not serious and 
ought to be rejected. We ought to be serious about the budget deficit 
we face.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to 
simply say I agree with a lot of what the gentleman said. He's a good 
friend. We don't have all spending in this bill, but that doesn't mean 
don't go after some of the spending that's passed by Congress. This is 
the kind of spending Congress passes annually every year. I think it's 
a good step in the right direction.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the 
House Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), 
who is one of the fathers of this idea and of budget process reform.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee for yielding and particularly for his leadership in being the 
number one budget hawk in the House.
  Mr. Chairman, hopefully by now, all Americans know we have a 
spending-driven debt crisis. We are now looking at the fourth--fourth--
trillion-dollar deficit in a row. Our debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds the 
entire size of our economy for the first time since World War II. 
Again, we are in the midst of a crisis. We are mortgaging our 
children's future, we are bankrupting a great nation, and we are 
hindering jobs and economic growth in this country.
  I've listened very carefully to friends--close friends--come to the 
House floor to argue against this bill, and I agree with much of what 
they say. This is one individual tool in a toolbox. They point out the 
absence of many more, and they are correct. And it is my hope and my 
aspiration that this House would take them up.
  I want to also congratulate the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking 
member of the House Budget Committee. It's not always easy in these 
times to work on a bipartisan basis. We had an opportunity to work on 
the Joint Select Committee, to which he was a positive force. We often 
disagreed, but he has commanded my respect, and he commands my respect 
today for his bipartisan work.
  I do want to congratulate the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee and the entirety of his committee. For the first time in my 
lifetime, under his leadership, discretionary spending will decline 2 
years in a row--an incredible achievement.
  I also want to thank our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, for his leadership 
on the entire subject of earmarks. Earmarks are not necessarily 
inherently bad. But, Mr. Chairman, we all know that too often they 
represented the triumph of seniority over merit and the triumph of 
local and special interest over national interest.
  Under the leadership of our Speaker, with a little help from the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), they are no more. But in a 
different time, a different era, they may return. This is at

[[Page 1168]]

least an insurance policy that the one individual who is elected to 
represent the entirety of the Nation, the President of the United 
States, can at least put a spotlight on that type of spending and just 
ask the United States Congress to take that up-or-down vote.
  It's about transparency, it's about accountability, and it's about a 
modest tool in a time of debt crisis to help with jobs, economic 
growth, and the survival of a great nation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for his words. I just want to hark 
back to what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) said, who's in 
opposition to the bill, but he did make clear that in his opinion this 
bill is constitutional. I really think we should put that question 
aside.
  As the chairman of the committee has pointed out on several 
occasions, Congress gets the last word on this issue. Congress gets an 
up-or-down majority vote. We're simply requiring that Congress take a 
vote on savings that the President recommends for the taxpayer. We 
believe we should do that in the light of day. It's a small step.
  It's a little curious to hear one of the solutions offered from some 
of the folks opposed to this bill is to give the President even more 
authority. On the one hand they say, well, we shouldn't do this because 
you're giving the President too much leverage. The amendment they 
mention, of course, would give the President even more leverage over 
tax expenditures and mandatory spending, so I'm a little puzzled there.
  Where I do agree with them is that if we're going to get a hold on 
this deficit situation, we've got to deal with mandatory spending as 
well, and we've got to deal with the revenue side of the equation--tax 
expenditures. And the bipartisan commissions, Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-
Domenici, all of them presented a more bipartisan framework for doing 
that. While I don't agree with every one of their recommendations, I 
think the framework they presented was the right one.
  I would agree with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Ryan, here: 
just because we're not able to tackle the whole thing as part of this 
reform effort doesn't mean we shouldn't try and tackle a piece of it. 
And I think this is a small piece, but I think it's an important piece. 
I think it will have a positive impact on how this body approaches the 
appropriations bills.
  Again, the way this process is driven now, it's not a criticism of 
the Appropriations Committee. They do the best they can under the rules 
as they exist now. What this bill does is just say let's have one more 
opportunity, an opportunity to take an up-or-down vote on savings that 
the President believes we can make toward deficit reduction. And it 
seems to me that's a positive step to take.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It is my 
judgment that--and I listened to the statement made by the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers from 
Kentucky, that this is unwarranted, especially now that Congress has 
decided, at least for the time being, that we're not going to do 
earmarks. This would get down to a situation where if, on the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, we added money for additional predator ISR 
vehicles, the President can as I understand it, take it right back down 
to his budget request.
  We've had a lot of experience, many Members of the Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. Young and I, have been here over 30 years and served on 
this committee over 30 years, and a lot of positive things have 
happened where Congress makes increases or decreases. Now, if you're 
going to give the President the authority to send up a bill undoing our 
work, especially after it's been voted on, the Appropriations Committee 
has gone through all these things. I just think it's wrong.
  In fact, on the earmark issue, I frankly think the solution that the 
Democrats had when we were in the majority was appropriate where we 
said you can't have earmarks for private companies unless it's 
competitively awarded, and then we took that away, but you still can 
help your schools.

                              {time}  1500

  You can still help your local governments. You can still help your 
universities, your NGOs that are doing work on meth for example--rather 
important issues. That would have been a better compromise, I think, 
than saying no earmarks under any circumstance.
  It is clear to me that over the years there were too many earmarks, 
and that became a problem. But to go beyond that now and say that we're 
going to have a line-item veto and Congress has to vote on this, I 
think, is a serious mistake; and I join my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee in opposition.
  I'll just say one final thing. I also think if you're going to do it, 
then you ought to do it for Ways and Means as well--that's where all 
the spending is--and not just pick on the Appropriations Committee. 
We've done our job. Ways and Means hasn't done their job.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto 
and Rescissions Act, and I thank Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van 
Hollen for their work on this important bipartisan legislation.
  At a time when we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend, 
there's no more important time for Congress to have an honest 
conversation about balancing our Federal budget and cutting wasteful 
government spending.
  It is clear that real reform is needed in our flawed Federal budget 
process. The real reforms that we have considered over the last 2 weeks 
seek to improve this flawed process by getting at the root of the 
Washington accounting gimmicks that have plagued Congress for years. 
These reforms will provide more Federal Government transparency and 
accountability and put an end to business as usual when it comes to 
out-of-control spending in Washington. That is why I support this line-
item veto legislation. This bill would give the President the ability 
to veto wasteful spending provisions as a part of the appropriations 
process.
  This bill and the remaining budget-reform bills will give the 
American people an honest picture of how their hard-earned tax dollars 
are being spent and will move us one step closer to addressing the debt 
crisis that threatens the very future of this great Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that both sides of the aisle have been a part 
of the problem when it comes to Washington's reckless spending habit. 
What we have failed to recognize is that both sides must be a part of 
the solution.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this line-item veto bill and 
the rest of our budget-reform proposals, proposals that hold a promise 
of a balanced and honest Federal budget and a brighter future for our 
children and our grandchildren.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, fellow colleagues, when you first 
took this office, you held up your hand and swore to uphold the 
Constitution of America. I hope you read the Constitution. You say it's 
not relevant. It is. What we're doing here is transferring the power--
and I've watched this for 40 years slowly creep into this body--
transferring the power to the President's regulatory law. Now we're 
going to give him the power to line-item veto. Shame on you. Shame on 
you. This is a Congress of the people. It's up to us to do the job, and 
the chairman has done the job this time.
  I'm looking down the road. The idea that we're going to let this 
House give this power to this President or any

[[Page 1169]]

other President in the future, you've lost the Constitution in America 
as we have today. Let's think about this, ladies and gentlemen. That's 
what you're doing. You're transferring it to a monarchy to control it 
by executive orders, and now control the purse strings of this great 
Nation to the Congress, saying you can't do it when we're the 
representative of the people.
  You talk about the debt. The debt is terrible; it's awful. But it 
would be worse to have our body, in fact, transfer the power of this 
House, under the Constitution, to the President of the United States.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, after that, I'd like to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), a 
member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, you know, this bill is called the 
Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act. I think it 
may be inappropriately named because it gives an illusion that this is 
a veto power as we're used to seeing a veto power in the Congress.
  This is not handing over to the President and saying, cut wherever 
you want and we have to override you. Instead, this is a Presidential 
handing to him and just saying, okay, check this. If he sees anything 
he doesn't like, he sends it back and we have to agree with it. If 
either the House or the Senate says, no, that should be there, it 
stays. It's not an override. It's actually an agreement with the 
President on one thing or another.
  Maybe this bill should have been called the ``second opinion'' bill, 
to be able to have what we put out of the House and out of the Senate 
and what we pass, pass onto the President. He takes a look at it and 
says, That all looks great, I'm signing off on it; or say, You know 
what, maybe we should take a look at this area.
  Currently, our appropriations team that we have in the House is doing 
a fantastic job of holding the line on spending. I am not as confident 
10 years from now that that may still exist. This is a check to that.
  Currently, this body has banned earmarks. It's not a permanent ban; 
it's in the rules for us for this current session. Will that still 
exist years from now? I don't know. This is a way to be able to deal 
with that issue to say if that were ever to slip back in, we can get 
that in. Maybe this bill should be called the ``trust but verify'' 
bill.
  I can tell you, even as a freshman House Member, there have been 
moments that I voted for something and then picked up the newspaper the 
next day only to read something that none of us were aware had slipped 
in. This provides that moment, that when we pick up the newspaper the 
next day after something has passed, to have another moment, to have 
that trust-but-verify moment to be able to look at it and say, Why 
don't we see if we can take another look at that. And if that came back 
to us in an individual form, I bet we would vote that down. This is one 
more tool in the toolbox of reducing spending.
  In a moment with $15.3 trillion in debt, in a moment with a deficit 
all of us have great disdain for, let's take every opportunity we can 
possibly take to find moments and places where we can reduce spending, 
to allow the President to take a look at it and say, Take a second look 
at this, and allow this body and the body on the other side of the 
rotunda to say we agree or disagree. If we disagree, fine. We voted for 
it the first time; let's vote it the second time. We may come back at 
it and say, You know what, when that comes back out in the light of 
day, I agree with you. Let's pull that out and let's find one more spot 
to do deficit reduction.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire--we're ready to close--how 
much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate the fact that some of my good friends have a different 
opinion about this than I do, particularly Chairman Ryan and Mr. Van 
Hollen. I appreciate the bipartisanship with which they have worked on 
this issue; but I will tell you, bipartisanship does not make something 
right which is fundamentally wrong, and this is fundamentally wrong.
  I also feel a little bit like Custer at the Little Big Horn. I know 
this is probably going to pass without much doubt, but it's still 
wrong.
  For 200 years, as the gentleman from Alaska said, Congress has been 
shifting more and more authority to the administrative branch of 
government. We are doing it again with this legislation.
  I keep hearing people talk about earmarks and airdropped provisions 
in appropriation bills. I would remind the Members, in the 2011 
appropriation bill there were no earmarks, there were no airdrops. In 
the 2012 appropriation bills there were no earmarks, there were no 
airdrops. We have changed the way we do business around here.
  Now, you might have had an argument several years ago when there were 
thousands of earmarks in the appropriation bill. That doesn't happen 
anymore. For the first time, we're trying to bring appropriation 
bills--for the first time in 5 years--bring appropriation bills to the 
floor under an open rule. We didn't get it all done last year. We ended 
up with an omnibus, as Mr. Van Hollen shows on his table. This year we 
are committed, given the floor time, we're going to bring every 
appropriation bill to the floor under an open rule so that every Member 
that has a problem with any provision can offer an amendment to have 
that removed.
  It's been said that this is constitutional, Mr. Van Hollen said, so 
let's take that argument away. Not necessarily and not so quickly. In 
conversations with members of the third branch of government, the 
judiciary, they have concerns that this may be unconstitutional, 
because what's required now is that the President presents the judicial 
request for appropriations, but he can't change it. He just passes it 
on to Congress. This gives the President a say in line-iteming specific 
provisions in the judicial request, which may violate both U.S. Code 
and be unconstitutional.

                              {time}  1510

  So that question is still out there about the constitutionality of 
this. But I will tell you, in times of extraordinary circumstances, as 
we currently have, with a $15 trillion debt, and everyone wants to 
reduce that debt, nobody more than the members of the Appropriations 
Committee have reduced spending in the last 2 years. But in times of 
extraordinary circumstances, we often do unwise things in the name of 
trying to address that problem. Such is this bill.
  Most Members have never negotiated an appropriation bill with the 
Senate. Let me tell you how it works. We would think that the President 
has no say in the appropriation process until we present him with a 
bill. When I was negotiating the Interior bill with the Senate, I was 
not negotiating with the Senate. I was negotiating with the White 
House. They did not approve anything that was not pre-approved by the 
administration.
  And we made some deals, and we got some priorities of things that we, 
on the Republican side, think are important, and the President got some 
priorities that he thinks are important on his side. That's called 
legislating.
  But now, what you are going to do is say, okay, you make those deals. 
You get an appropriation bill. There's going to be things in it I don't 
like. There's going to be things in it the administration doesn't like. 
There's going to be things in it that nobody in here likes.
  But now you're going to give the President a second bite at the apple 
to break that deal. And do you think he's going to take those things 
that Democrats think are not their priorities and take them out of the 
bill? Of course not. He's going to take out Republican priorities and 
put them for a second vote. And a Republican President would do the 
same thing to the Democrats.
  This is going to be partisan politics. And when you say it comes back 
for

[[Page 1170]]

Congress to have a final say, once it comes back to overriding a veto 
or overriding a rescission, it then becomes political. You, on your 
side of the aisle, in this case, are going to say we have to support 
our President. That's what happens. That's the reality. We, on our side 
of the aisle, would say the same thing if it were a Republican 
President. That's just reality.
  So what you're breaking down is that balance of power between the 
administrative branch of government and the legislative branch of 
government. This is, without a doubt, a step in the wrong direction.
  Voting for this bill will not make you a budget hawk. And frankly, I 
don't think it will save any money. But it will make for some good 
press releases.
  But don't go out and say that you've reduced Federal spending, and 
you've taken wasteful spending out of the Federal budget by passing 
this bill. You haven't. What you've done is said, I'm willing to 
sacrifice the legislative authority that was given to us in the 
Constitution and shift more power to the administrative branch of 
government.
  Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers would recognize 
what they built in the Constitution? Do you really think that they 
would look at the administrative branch of government and say we wanted 
this kind of Presidency and a weak legislative branch? I don't think 
so.
  This is a bad bill. I would vote it down if I were you.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is an important, bipartisan measure. It has 
bipartisan support here in the House. It has strong bipartisan support 
in the Senate where it's introduced by Senator Carper and Senator 
McCain and has strong bipartisan co-sponsorship. It's supported by the 
Obama administration.
  But Mr. Simpson is absolutely right: it's not the bipartisanship that 
makes this bill the right thing to do. It's the fact that it calls for 
greater transparency and greater accountability in our process. 
Everybody in this body has to concede that we can improve our budget 
process. Yes, we should work on the tax expenditure component. Yes, we 
should work on mandatory spending. Of course we should. But this is a 
simple bipartisan measure we can take to provide more transparency when 
it comes to over $1 trillion in discretionary spending.
  And I go back to where I started. Just look at this bill, 1,200-plus 
pages. This House took less than 15 hours, less than 15 hours to review 
this bill. Now, given the fact that we didn't have adequate time to 
scrutinize this, I don't see anything wrong with saying that if the 
President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, identifies some 
savings we can make for the taxpayer that go to deficit reduction, that 
this Congress should have to vote on that. You don't have to say yes. 
You just have to vote, up or down.
  And for those who argue otherwise, I have to say that I don't think 
putting turf over the taxpayer is a winning argument when it comes to 
dealing with our budget issues because, make no mistake, this is 
constitutional. It's been designed to be constitutional.
  Mr. Young said I said it wasn't relevant that it's constitutional. 
That's not what I said. It's totally relevant that it's constitutional. 
And it's designed that way; Congress has the final say. That's what 
makes this constitutional.
  Are we giving the President a little more power? Well, only if you 
say that it's more power to recommend to Congress some savings for the 
taxpayer and that we will then vote on them. It seems to me that's just 
basic responsibility. Well over a majority of Governors have total 
line-item authority. This is not line-item authority because it 
requires congressional vote and oversight.
  So I would say that the process is broken. It's not broken because of 
the Appropriations Committee. They do incredible, hard work and put in 
lots of hours. But at the end of the day, we just saw last December, 
less than 15 hours to review 1,200 pages of appropriations bills. Who, 
in this body, can say that they looked at everything, they scrutinized 
everything, that we can't find any additional savings for the taxpayer 
for the purpose of deficit reduction?
  So I ask my colleagues to support this bill, not because it's 
bipartisan, but it is; and I think that's an important reflection on 
the fact that people on both sides of the aisle, bringing their own 
independent judgment to bear on this, have concluded this would be in 
the best interest of the country.
  But, in addition to that, because it does take one measured, 
responsible step toward improving a broken budget process, and my 
goodness, at the end of the day, that would be a good day's work in a 
bipartisan Congress if we could get that done.
  I thank, again, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Ryan. I thank his 
staff and our staff, the Democratic staff on the committee, for working 
together.
  And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of 
our time.
  Let me, first of all, say the gentleman left the floor, I believe, 
but Mr. Simpson, I want to thank him for a civil and spirited debate. 
This is not an attempt to go after one committee, the Appropriations 
Committee. And I understand that this committee might feel that way. 
This is an attempt to take one more step on behalf of the taxpayer to 
clean up the system on how we spend hardworking taxpayers' dollars.
  Here's the issue, Mr. Chairman. When we pass large spending bills, we 
vote on things we're not even necessarily sure we're voting on. And I 
think the measure of success of this reform will not be measured by how 
many individual spending line items get voted out of spending by 
Congress, but how many items don't get put in these bills in the first 
place because this brings through to the final part of the process that 
extra level of transparency and accountability that has been lacking.
  I'll take a provision authored by a Republican a few years ago as an 
example: $40 million, I think that's the number, for a rainforest 
museum in Iowa in a spending bill for Labor and Health that didn't go 
through the House, didn't go through the Senate, but came at the last 
minute.
  And, yes, this Congress, through the rules of this House, is banning 
earmarks and airdrops, but who's to say they won't return under our new 
management some day?
  I think it would be helpful to the process to say, you know what, if 
we're going to put $40 million for a rainforest museum without real 
consideration before the House and the Senate, we ought to think about 
that individually. Or, more importantly, if I'm a Member of Congress 
and I want to put something like this in a spending bill, I ought to 
think twice about whether or not I'm willing to defend this kind of 
spending in the light of day on an individual vote among my peers, 
because that could happen under this reform.
  This is constitutional because the President signs this spending 
bill. He doesn't sign part of it. He doesn't rescind part of it. He 
signs it, and then this gives him the ability to create a new bill 
saying, vote on this piece of spending.

                              {time}  1520

  We have expedited procedures so we have to take a vote. It's no 
different than how Presidents send us trade agreements to vote on under 
expedited procedures.
  We're not saying the President can take a part of a bill and not sign 
it and then send us this. No. We're saying the President signs a big 
spending bill and then, if he wants, he can write a new bill within a 
tight time window saying cancel that spending. Then Congress makes the 
decision, the House and the Senate, by a simple majority vote, both 
Houses. They get to decide whether or not to reaffirm or to spend that 
money.
  All this does is it puts the taxpayer in front of turf, as my friend 
from Maryland says, and it gives Members of Congress the ability to 
have that extra

[[Page 1171]]

layer of accountability and transparency so that at the end of the day 
we are always thinking of the taxpayer first and special interests 
second in the way we spend taxpayer dollars.
  Will this fix all of our problems? No. But this, along with many 
other reforms we seek to bring to the floor, will hopefully turn the 
process by which we spend taxpayer dollars into one that is more 
accountable, more transparent, and more responsible.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I support H.R. 3521, the Expedited Line-
Item Veto and Rescissions Act, which creates a process enabling the 
President to propose the elimination of certain individual spending 
items that he deems unnecessary and to submit those eliminations to 
Congress for an expedited vote. This may prove to be a useful tool to 
ensure that our government closely stewards important taxpayer dollars. 
It is disappointing, however, that such a tool should be necessary.
  Our constitution vests Members of Congress with the responsibility to 
raise and spend revenue to provide for the general welfare of the 
United States. In other words, we are obligated to invest taxpayer 
dollars in ways that grow our economy, protect our environment and 
public health, defend our nation, educate our children, and build a 
strong infrastructure. In sum, Congress has the responsibility to keep 
America competitive in the 21st century.
  It is my hope that the President will not need to use this new power. 
Unfortunately, Congress has too often shown that it is unable to make 
the hard choices necessary--on unnecessary weapons systems, on 
subsidizing big agribusiness, on the provision of expensive tax 
benefits to the oil industry--to eliminate wasteful spending.
  I support H.R. 3521, but I remain hopeful that Congress finds the 
will to act responsibly and avoids use by the President of a line item 
veto.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, when this body last considered legislation to 
institute a ``line-item veto'' during the 109th Congress, I joined 171 
of my colleagues in voting against it. Today, we again find ourselves 
considering a similar measure, and, once again, I rise in opposition to 
this latest attempt to abdicate our responsibilities, H.R. 3521, the 
Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011.
  This legislation alters dramatically the balance of power that the 
framers so delicately established. It is an abdication of our 
responsibilities as Members of Congress. The separation and balance of 
governmental powers must be kept. We have heard proponents of this 
measure come to the floor and speak about how this bill provides us 
with another tool to ensure that we are spending taxpayer funds 
sensibly. Why do we need another tool in our toolkit, Mr. Chair? I 
would argue that if we are seeking ways to cut the deficit, let's do it 
by sending appropriate spending bills to the President's desk. We are 
not missing a tool in our toolkit; we are missing the political will to 
come together as members of this body to produce spending bills that 
accomplish this goal without prompting from The White House. If indeed 
political will is missing, this ``line item veto'' will not be the way 
to find it.
  Furthermore, this measure puts us in danger of losing funding for 
good programs in the midst of partisan bickering. Funding for 
International Family Planning, funding for public transportation's 
funding for the arts or any of countless valuable items in our country, 
could be jeopardized if this legislation is enacted and the political 
climate is such that the President has other ideological views.
  There is no evidence and no good reason to believe that this will 
actually succeed in reducing wasteful spending. Again, I would urge my 
colleagues to work together and produce common sense legislation that 
terminates wasteful programs and evaluate both our revenues and our 
spending to put our budget back on the right track. We have done it in 
the past and I believe that it is possible for us to do it again. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Budget 
and Rules, printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee print 112-12. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 3521

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Expedited Legislative Line-
     Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESCISSIONS 
                   AND DEFERRALS OF BUDGET AUTHORITY AND 
                   OBLIGATION LIMITATIONS.

       Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) is amended by striking all 
     of part B (except for sections 1015, 1016, and 1013, which 
     are transferred and redesignated as sections 1017, 1018, and 
     1019, respectively) and part C and by inserting after part A 
     the following:

   ``Part B--Congressional Consideration of Proposed Rescissions and 
        Deferrals of Budget Authority and Obligation Limitations


``congressional consideration of proposed rescissions and deferrals of 
              budget authority and obligation limitations

       ``Sec. 1011.  (a) Proposed Rescissions.--Within 45 days 
     after the enactment of any bill or joint resolution providing 
     any funding, the President may propose, in the manner 
     provided in subsection (b), the rescission of all or part of 
     any dollar amount of such funding.
       ``(b) Special Message.--If the President proposes that 
     Congress rescind funding, the President shall transmit a 
     special message to Congress containing the information 
     specified in this subsection.
       ``(1) Packaging of requested rescissions.--For each piece 
     of legislation that provides funding, the President shall 
     request at most 2 packages of rescissions and the rescissions 
     in each package shall apply only to funding contained in that 
     legislation. The President shall not include the same 
     rescission in both packages.
       ``(2) Transmittal.--The President shall deliver each 
     message requesting a package of rescissions to the Secretary 
     of the Senate if the Senate is not in session and to the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives if the House is not in 
     session. The President shall make a copy of the transmittal 
     message publicly available, and shall publish in the Federal 
     Register a notice of the message and information on how it 
     can be obtained.
       ``(3) Contents of special message.--For each request to 
     rescind funding under this part, the transmittal message 
     shall--
       ``(A) specify--
       ``(i) the dollar amount to be rescinded;
       ``(ii) the agency, bureau, and account from which the 
     rescission shall occur;
       ``(iii) the program, project, or activity within the 
     account (if applicable) from which the rescission shall 
     occur;
       ``(iv) the amount of funding, if any, that would remain for 
     the account, program, project, or activity if the rescission 
     request is enacted;
       ``(v) the reasons the President requests the rescission;
       ``(vi) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated 
     fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect 
     on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed 
     rescission;
       ``(vii) to the maximum extent practicable, all facts, 
     circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon 
     the proposed rescission and the decision to propose the 
     rescission, and the estimated effect of the proposed 
     rescission upon the objects, purposes, or programs; and
       ``(viii) if a second special message is transmitted 
     pursuant to paragraph (2), a detailed explanation of why the 
     proposed rescissions are not substantially similar to any 
     other proposed rescission in such other message; and
       ``(B) designate each separate rescission request by number; 
     and include proposed legislative text of an approval bill to 
     accomplish the requested rescissions which may not include--
       ``(i) any changes in existing law, other than the 
     rescission of funding; or
       ``(ii) any supplemental appropriations, transfers, or 
     reprogrammings.


         ``grants of and limitations on presidential authority

       ``Sec. 1012.  (a) Presidential Authority To Withhold 
     Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law and if 
     the President proposes a rescission of funding under this 
     part, the President may, subject to the time limits provided 
     in subsection (c), temporarily withhold that funding from 
     obligation.
       ``(b) Withholding Available Only Once Per Proposed 
     Rescission.--Except as provided in section 1019, the 
     President may not invoke the authority to withhold funding 
     granted by subsection (a) for any other purpose.
       ``(c) Time Limits.--The President shall make available for 
     obligation any funding withheld under subsection (a) on the 
     earliest of--
       ``(1) the day on which the President determines that the 
     continued withholding or reduction no longer advances the 
     purpose of legislative consideration of the approval bill;
       ``(2) the 45th day following the date of enactment of the 
     appropriations measure to which the approval bill relates; or
       ``(3) the last day that the President determines the 
     obligation of the funding in question can no longer be fully 
     accomplished in a prudent manner before its expiration.
       ``(d) Deficit Reduction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds that are rescinded under this part 
     shall be dedicated only to reducing the deficit or increasing 
     the surplus.
       ``(2) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget.--Not later

[[Page 1172]]

     than 5 days after the date of enactment of an approval bill 
     as provided under this part, the chairs of the Committees on 
     the Budget of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     shall revise allocations and aggregates and other appropriate 
     levels under the appropriate concurrent resolution on the 
     budget to reflect the rescissions, and the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     shall report revised suballocations pursuant to section 
     302(b) of title III, as appropriate.
       ``(3) Adjustments to statutory limits.--After enactment of 
     an approval bill provided under this section, the President 
     shall revise downward by the amount of the rescissions 
     applicable limits under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                ``procedures for expedited consideration

       ``Sec. 1013.  (a) Expedited Consideration.--
       ``(1) Introduction of approval bill.--The majority leader 
     of each House or a designee shall (by request) introduce an 
     approval bill as defined in section 1015 not later than the 
     fifth day of session of that House after the date of receipt 
     of a special message transmitted to the Congress under 
     section 1011(b).
       ``(2) Consideration in the house of representatives.--
       ``(A) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the House 
     of Representatives to which an approval bill is referred 
     shall report it to the House without amendment not later than 
     the fifth legislative day after the date of its introduction. 
     If a committee fails to report the bill within that period or 
     the House has adopted a concurrent resolution providing for 
     adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress, such committee 
     shall be automatically discharged from further consideration 
     of the bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate 
     calendar.
       ``(B) Proceeding to consideration.--Not later than 5 
     legislative days after the approval bill is reported or a 
     committee has been discharged from further consideration 
     thereof, it shall be in order to move to proceed to consider 
     the approval bill in the House. Such a motion shall be in 
     order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the 
     legislative schedule within two legislative days after the 
     day on which the proponent announces an intention to the 
     House to offer the motion provided that such notice may not 
     be given until the approval bill is reported or a committee 
     has been discharged from further consideration thereof. Such 
     a motion shall not be in order after the House has disposed 
     of a motion to proceed with respect to that special message. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of 
     shall not be in order.
       ``(C) Consideration.--If the motion to proceed is agreed 
     to, the House shall immediately proceed to consider the 
     approval bill in the House without intervening motion. The 
     approval bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against the approval bill and against its consideration 
     are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the approval bill to its passage without 
     intervening motion except 2 hours of debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and one 
     motion to limit debate on the bill. A motion to reconsider 
     the vote on passage of the approval bill shall not be in 
     order.
       ``(3) Consideration in the senate.--
       ``(A) Referral.--The approval bill introduced in the Senate 
     shall be referred to the committees having jurisdiction over 
     the provisions of law contained in the approval bill.
       ``(B) Committee action.--Each committee of referral of the 
     Senate shall report without amendment the approval bill 
     referred to it under this subsection not later than the fifth 
     session day after introduction. If a committee fails to 
     report the approval bill within that period or the Senate has 
     adopted a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment 
     sine die at the end of a Congress, the Committee shall be 
     automatically discharged from further consideration of the 
     approval bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate 
     calendar.
       ``(C) Motion to proceed.--Not later than 5 session days 
     after the approval bill is reported in the Senate or 
     committees have been discharged thereof, it shall be in order 
     for any Senator to move to proceed to consider the approval 
     bill in the Senate. The motion shall be decided without 
     debate and the motion to reconsider shall be deemed to have 
     been laid on the table. Such a motion shall not be in order 
     after the Senate has disposed of a prior motion to proceed 
     with respect to the approval bill.
       ``(D) Consideration.--If a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of the approval bill is agreed to, the Senate 
     shall immediately proceed to consideration of the approval 
     bill without intervening motion, order, or other business, 
     and the approval bill shall remain the unfinished business of 
     the Senate until disposed of. Consideration on the bill in 
     the Senate under this subsection, and all debatable motions 
     and appeals in connection therewith, shall not exceed 10 
     hours. All points of order against the approval bill or its 
     consideration are waived. Consideration in the Senate on any 
     debatable motion or appeal in connection with the approval 
     bill shall be limited to not more than 1 hour. A motion to 
     postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     other business, or a motion to recommit the approval bill is 
     not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     approval bill is agreed to or disagreed to is not in order.
       ``(4) Amendments prohibited.--No amendment to, or motion to 
     strike a provision from, an approval bill considered under 
     this section shall be in order in either the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives.
       ``(5) Coordination with action by other house.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, before passing the approval bill, 
     one House receives from the other a bill--
       ``(i) the approval bill of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee; and
       ``(ii) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the 
     same as if no approval bill had been received from the other 
     House until the vote on passage, when the bill received from 
     the other House shall supplant the approval bill of the 
     receiving House.
       ``(B) This paragraph shall not apply to the House of 
     Representatives if the approval bill received from the Senate 
     is a revenue measure or an appropriation measure.
       ``(b) Limitation.--Subsection (a) shall apply only to an 
     approval bill introduced pursuant to subsection (a)(1).
       ``(c) CBO Estimate.--Upon receipt of a special message 
     under section 1101 proposing to rescind all or part of any 
     dollar amount, CBO shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate an estimate of the reduction in budget authority 
     which would result from the enactment of the proposed 
     recisions.


                       ``treatment of rescissions

       ``Sec. 1014. Rescissions proposed by the President under 
     this part shall take effect only upon enactment of the 
     applicable approval bill. If an approval bill is not enacted 
     into law within 45 days from the enactment of the 
     appropriation measure to which the approval bill relates, 
     then the approval bill shall not be eligible for expedited 
     consideration under the provisions of this Act.


                             ``definitions

       ``Sec. 1015. As used in this part:
       ``(1) Appropriation measure.--The term `appropriation 
     measure' means an Act referred to in section 105 of title 1, 
     United States Code, including any general or special 
     appropriation Act, or any Act making supplemental, 
     deficiency, or continuing appropriations, that has been 
     enacted into law pursuant to article I, section 7, of the 
     Constitution of the United States.
       ``(2) Approval bill.--The term `approval bill' means a bill 
     which only approves rescissions of funding in a special 
     message transmitted by the President under this part and--
       ``(A) the title of which is as follows: `A bill approving 
     the proposed rescissions transmitted by the President on 
     ___', the blank space being filled in with the date of 
     transmission of the relevant special message and the public 
     law number to which the message relates; and
       ``(B) which provides only the following after the enacting 
     clause: `That the Congress approves the proposed rescissions 
     ___', the blank space being filled in with the list of the 
     rescissions contained in the President's special message, `as 
     transmitted by the President in a special message on ____', 
     the blank space being filled in with the appropriate date, 
     `regarding ____.', the blank space being filled in with the 
     public law number to which the special message relates.
       ``(3) Day.--Except as used in section 1013, the term `day' 
     means a standard 24-hour period beginning at midnight and a 
     number of days shall be calculated by excluding Sundays, 
     legal holidays, and any day during which neither chamber of 
     Congress is in session.
       ``(4) Rescind or rescission.--The terms `rescind' or 
     `rescission' mean to permanently cancel or prevent budget 
     authority or outlays available under an obligation limit from 
     having legal force or effect.
       ``(5) Congressional budget office.--The term `CBO' means 
     the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
       ``(6) Comptroller general.--The term `Comptroller General' 
     means the Comptroller General of the United States.
       ``(7) Deferral of budget authority.--The term `deferral of 
     budget authority' includes--
       ``(A) withholding or delaying the obligations or 
     expenditure of budget authority (whether by establishing 
     reserves or otherwise) provided for projects or activities; 
     or
       ``(B) any other type of Executive action or inaction which 
     effectively precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget 
     authority, including authority to obligate by contract in 
     advance of appropriations as specifically authorized by law.
       ``(8) Funding.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `funding' means all or part of the dollar amount of 
     budget authority or obligation limit--
       ``(i) specified in an appropriation measure, or the dollar 
     amount of budget authority or obligation limit required to be 
     allocated by a specific proviso in an appropriation measure 
     for which a specific dollar figure was not included;
       ``(ii) represented separately in any table, chart, or 
     explanatory text included in the statement of managers or the 
     governing committee report accompanying such law; or
       ``(iii) represented by the product of the estimated 
     procurement cost and the total quantity of items specified in 
     an appropriation measure or included in the statement of 
     managers or the governing committee report accompanying such 
     law.
       ``(B) The term `funding' does not include--
       ``(i) direct spending;
       ``(ii) budget authority in an appropriation measure which 
     funds direct spending provided for in other law;
       ``(iii) any existing budget authority canceled in an 
     appropriation measure; or

[[Page 1173]]

       ``(iv) any restriction or condition in an appropriation 
     measure or the accompanying statement of managers or 
     committee reports on the expenditure of budget authority for 
     an account, program, project, or activity, or on activities 
     involving such expenditure.
       ``(9) Withhold.--The terms `withhold' and `withholding' 
     apply to any executive action or inaction that precludes the 
     obligation of funding at a time when it would otherwise have 
     been available to an agency for obligation. The terms do not 
     include administrative or preparatory actions undertaken 
     prior to obligation in the normal course of implementing 
     budget laws.


                              ``expiration

       ``Sec. 1016. On December 15, 2015, the amendments made by 
     the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act 
     of 2012 shall be replaced by the provisions of part B of the 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 as in effect immediately 
     before the date of enactment of the Expedited Legislative 
     Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2012.''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--Section 904 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``1017'' and inserting 
     ``1013''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 1017'' and 
     inserting ``section 1013''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The last sentence of section 
     1(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 
     of 1974 is amended to read as follows: ``Sections 1011 
     through 1016 of part B of title X may be cited as the 
     `Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 
     2012'.''.
       (2) Section 1017 of such Act (as redesignated) is amended 
     by striking ``section 1012 or 1013'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``section 1011 or 1019'' and section 1018 (as 
     redesignated) is amended by striking ``calendar'' and ``of 
     continuous session''.
       (3) Section 1019(c) of such Act (as redesignated) is 
     amended by striking ``1012'' and inserting ``1011''.
       (4) Table of Contents.--The table of contents set forth in 
     section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking the items relating 
     to parts B and C (including all of the items relating to the 
     sections therein) of title X and inserting the following:

   ``Part B--Congressional Consideration of Proposed Rescissions and 
        Deferrals of Budget Authority and Obligation Limitations

``Sec. 1011. Congressional consideration of proposed rescissions and 
              deferrals of budget authority and obligation limitations.
``Sec. 1012. Grants of and limitations on presidential authority.
``Sec. 1013. Procedures for Expedited Consideration.
``Sec. 1014. Treatment of rescissions.
``Sec. 1015. Definitions.
``Sec. 1016. Expiration.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply to funding as defined in section 1015(8) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act and Impoundment Control of 1974 in 
     any Act enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. APPROVAL MEASURES CONSIDERED.

       Section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as 
     subsections (c) through (f) and by inserting after subsection 
     (a) the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Adjustments for Rescissions.--(1) Whenever an 
     approval bill passes the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on the Budget shall immediately reduce the 
     applicable allocations under section 302(a) by the total 
     amount of reductions in budget authority and in outlays 
     resulting from such approval bill.
       ``(2) As used in this subsection, the term `approval bill' 
     has the meaning given to such term in section 1015.''; and
       (2) in subsection (d) (as redesignated), by inserting ``or 
     (b)'' after ``subsection (a)''.

  The CHAIR. All points of order against that amendment in the nature 
of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House 
Report 112-389. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 112-389.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 2, line 8, strike ``45'' and insert ``10''.
       Page 3, line 21, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 3, line 23, strike the semicolon and insert a period.
       Page 3, strike line 24 and all that follows thereafter 
     through page 4, line 16.
       Page 5, line 21, strike ``45th'' and insert ``60th''.
       Page 6, line 9, strike ``5 days'' and insert ``3 days of 
     session''.
       Page 6, line 20, strike ``After'' and insert ``Not later 
     than 3 days after''.
       Page 7, line 4, strike ``fifth'' and insert ``third''.
       Page 7, line 14, strike ``fifth'' and insert ``third''.
       Page 7, line 24, strike ``5'' and insert ``3''.
       Page 9, strike lines 9 through 12.
       Page 9, line 13, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(A)''.
       Page 9, lines 13 and 14, strike ``Each committee of 
     referral'' and insert ``The appropriate committee''.
       Page 9, lines 15 and 16, strike ``referred to it under this 
     subsection'' and insert ``as defined in section 1015(2)''.
       Page 9, lines 16 and 17, strike ``fifth session day'' and 
     insert ``third session day''.
       Page 10, line 1, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
       Page 10, line 2, strike ``5'' and insert ``3''.
       Page 10, line 3, strike ``committees have'' and insert 
     ``the committee has''.
       Page 10, line 12, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       Page 10, line 22, insert ``equally divided in the usual 
     form'' before the period.
       Page 12, line 4, strike ``if'' and all that follows 
     thereafter through ``measure'' on line 6.
       Page 12, line 8, insert ``, as such term is defined in 
     section 1015(2),'' after ``approval bill''.
       Page 12, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(c) Extended Time Period.--If Congress adjourns at the 
     end of a Congress prior to the expiration of the periods 
     described in sections 1012(c)(2) and 1014 and an approval 
     bill was then pending in either House of Congress or a 
     committee thereof, or an approval bill had not yet been 
     introduced with respect to a special message, or before the 
     applicable 10-day period specified in section 1011(a) has 
     expired, then within the first 3 days of session, the 
     President shall transmit to Congress an additional special 
     message containing all of the information in the previous, 
     pending special message and an approval bill may be 
     introduced within the first five days of session of the next 
     Congress and shall be treated as an approval bill under this 
     part, and the time periods described in sections 1012(c)(2) 
     and 1014 shall commence on the day of introduction of that 
     approval bill.
       ``(d) Approval Bill Procedure.--In order for an approval 
     bill to be considered under the procedures set forth in this 
     part, the bill must meet the definition of an approval bill 
     and must be introduced no later than the third day of session 
     following the beginning of the period described in section 
     1013(a)(1) or the fifth day in the case of paragraph (1).''.
       Page 12, line 9, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       Page 12, line 11, strike ``dollar amount'' and insert 
     ``funding''.
       Page 12, line 20, strike ``45'' and insert ``60''.
       Page 12, line 23, strike ``Act'' and insert ``part''.
       Page 14, strike lines 5 through 10.
       Page 14, line 11, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 14, line 15, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 14, line 18, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 14, line 21, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 15, line 9, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 16, line 16, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(8)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need to spend a 
lot of time on this.
  This amendment makes technical revisions to certain procedures and 
definitions. The time period was reduced from 5 legislative days to 3 
legislative days for the introduction of an approval bill in the motion 
to proceed. The amendment clarifies that approval bills are described 
as discretionary bills only. Additionally, it includes a procedure that 
provides for the consideration of an approval bill should the previous 
Congress end before an up-or-down vote.
  All this simply does, Mr. Chairman, is clarify concerns raised by the 
Rules Committee so that we have consistent procedures and concerns by 
the minority that this bill simply does what it says it does and that 
it circumscribe to discretionary spending.
  With that, I really have no other things to say other than I'd be 
happy

[[Page 1174]]

to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to that and would 
urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chair, since 1999, the Committee on Rules has worked 
to standardize the practices related to expedited consideration of 
legislation. In general, the Committee believes that expedited 
procedures are unnecessary, particularly in the House. However, when 
necessary, the Committee strives to ensure that these procedures are 
uniform in application and agnostic toward the content of any measure 
considered thereunder.
  The circumstances surrounding consideration of H.R. 3521 are unique, 
and several changes are included in the manager's amendment that 
represent the uniqueness of this legislation. The procedures contained 
in the House-passed version of H.R. 3521 should not be viewed as a new 
standard for future expedited procedures the House may consider.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Alexander

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 112-389.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 24, add the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Exemption for the Corps of Engineers.--The President 
     may not propose the rescission under this part of all or part 
     of any dollar amount of funding for the Corps of 
     Engineers.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 540, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Alexander) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, as we decide whether or not the 
President of the United States should have the authority to propose 
cuts to funding that Congress appropriates money to, I cannot help but 
be gravely concerned about how he may use those powers.
  While I, as much as anyone here, agrees that our government must 
constrain and cut the unnecessary expenditures, I fear that giving the 
President certain powers to take away that which Congress has given 
would severely harm certain States and regions whose needs the 
President may not fully understand.
  Of particular concern to me, Mr. Chairman, is the importance of the 
water resources, the projects across this country that are vitally 
important to our national security and economy. With this in mind, I 
believe that a line must be drawn when it comes to the President's 
authority to propose a rescission to the budget of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, an agency that's older than our Nation itself.
  The Corps of Engineers helped General Washington win the 
Revolutionary War. The Corps of Engineers carries out water resource 
projects throughout the United States, including projects that protect 
citizens from flood hazards and keep commercial waterways navigable.
  These projects are important. They are important to lawmakers on both 
sides of the aisle. The congressional appropriations for the Corps 
typically exceed what the President's requests have been. I believe 
that we must prevent any President, Republican or Democrat, from having 
the authority to reduce funding for critical water resource projects. 
It is just too important to this Nation.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I won't take all of my time.
  The gentleman says the Army Corps clearly provides an extremely 
important function, a very valid Federal function to our government, to 
our country. I rise in opposition only that we shouldn't be carving out 
exceptions.
  The idea that we'll carve out an exception from appropriation bills 
for expedited rescission consideration to one government agency versus 
all of the other government agencies out there, I don't think that's a 
good precedent to set. What's to say that other agencies shouldn't be 
exempt in consideration? If Congress feels that these are important 
projects, which they clearly do when they pass these bills, then 
clearly they will affirm that if another vote ever does arise.
  For the sake of consistency, for the sake of treating all agencies 
equal, I would urge a rejection of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128, 
noes 300, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 45]

                               AYES--128

     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Critz
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Emerson
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Garamendi
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Landry
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nunnelee
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schwartz
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sires
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Turner (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     West
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--300

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Filner
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell

[[Page 1175]]


     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Blumenauer
     Cassidy
     McIntyre
     Paul
     Payne

                              {time}  1559

  Messrs. GALLEGLY, McCOTTER, AMODEI, Mrs. NOEM, Messrs. OLSON, GRIFFIN 
of Arkansas, JORDAN, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms. LEE of California, 
Messrs. LATTA, WOODALL, HIGGINS, BACA, BURGESS, GEORGE MILLER of 
California, LEWIS of Georgia, and KISSELL changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ROONEY, COLE, ALTMIRE, BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. EDDIE 
BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Messrs. CALVERT, LEWIS of 
California, TIERNEY, HOLDEN, Ms. DeLAURO, Messrs. REYES, GONZALEZ, Ms. 
MOORE, Ms. SEWELL, Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, BUTTERFIELD, Ms. 
BROWN of Florida, Ms. WATERS, Mr. HARRIS, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mrs. 
NAPOLITANO, and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). The question is on the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Denham) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3521) to 
amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to 
provide for a legislative line-item veto to expedite consideration of 
rescissions, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
540, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254, 
noes 173, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 46]

                               AYES--254

     Adams
     Akin
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--173

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Landry
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Palazzo

[[Page 1176]]


     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Blumenauer
     Cassidy
     Long
     McIntyre
     Paul
     Payne

                              {time}  1617

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


        Authorizing the Clerk to Make Corrections in Engrossment

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in 
the engrossment of H.R. 3521, the Clerk be authorized to correct 
section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such 
other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect 
the actions of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________