ment of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of cer-
tain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules (Rept. 103-
53). Referred to the House Calendar.

April 2, 1993

[From the Congressional Record pages H 1867- 1876]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1578, EXPEDITED

RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1993

Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 642, and ask for its immediate
consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). The gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 149 makes in order the consider-
ation of H.R. 1578, the Expedited Rescissions Act of 1993. The reso-
lution provides for 2 hours of general debate, 1 hour equally di-
vided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority mem-
ber of the Committee on Rules, and 1 hour equally divided and con-
trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Com-
mittee on Government Operations.

The resolution makes in order as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed
in part 1 of the report accompanying the resolution.

No other amendment is in order except those printed in part 2
of the report, which shall be considered as read and considered
only as follows: First, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
by, and if offered by Representative Castle or Representative Sol-
omon, or a designee, debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and con-
trolled by the proponent and an opponent; and second, an amend-
ment to the Castle-Solomon amendment by, and if offered by Rep-
resentative Michel or a designee, debatable for 30 minutes, equal-
ly divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

The amendments are not subject to amendment or to a demand
for a division of the question in the House or the Committee of the
Whole. The resolution waives all points of order against the amend-
ments, and provides that any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment to the bill or the amendment in
the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.

A waiver of clause 7 of rule 16 — germaneness — is provided to the
Michel amendment to the Castle-Solomon substitute printed in the



1481

report accompanying this resolution. This waiver is solely provided
to the Michel amendment as it pertains to the Castle-Solomon sub-
stituted.

Finally, the resolution provides for one motion to recommit, with
or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, in the publication entitled "A Vision of Change for
America," the President outlines a plan to restore the American
dream for us and our children.

The President's plan represents a drastic change from the status
quo. The President wants to reject the policies and practices of the
past which have quadrupled our debt and left many Americans be-
lieving their Government doesn't work. The people want change,
and the President's program offers change for the betterment of our
Nation.

The legislation made in order by this rule would give the Presi-
dent one of the key changes he has sought, and which I believe we
desperately need: a modified line-item veto.

Mr. Speaker, we all know wasteful spending sometimes occurs
because individual items escape scrutiny by being submerged in
large appropriations bills.

Under current procedures a President cannot strike out individ-
ual items in appropriations acts. He must sign or veto the whole
act, whatever the consequences. H.R. 1578 would give the Presi-
dent an option he does not now have.

Under H.R. 1578, within 3 days of signing an appropriations act
the President could spend the House a message and bill proposing
to rescind, or cancel, individual spending items in that act.

The President's proposal would be referred to the Appropriations
Committee. That committee must report it to the floor without
amendment within 7 days. The House must vote, up or down, on
the President's bill within 10 days of introduction. During this time
the funds would not be spent. If the bill passed the House, it would
go to the Senate for expedited consideration there, and if passed by
the Senate, on to the President for his signature.

To avoid the possibility a President might use this procedure not
primarily to reduce the deficit, but instead to promote his own pet
projects, H.R. 1578 would allow the House Appropriations Commit-
tee to report to the House, simultaneously with the President's bill,
an alternative. To qualify for expedited consideration, the commit-
tee's bill must propose to cancel spending from the same appropria-
tions act the President drew his rescissions from, and it must pro-
pose to cancel an amount of spending equal to or exceeding the
President's total.

If the committee reported an alternative, the House would first
vote on the President's bill; if adopted by a majority vote, the Presi-
dent s bill would go to the Senate for expedited consideration and
the alternative would not be in order. If the House rejected the
President's bill and passed the alternative, that bill would got to
the Senate instead.

The Senate Appropriations Committee could also report an alter-
native bill. But it would not be in order to consider anything but
the President's bill until the Senate first voted on and rejected the
President's bill. The President is thus guaranteed a vote on this
proposal.



1482

If both Houses ultimately passed an alternative bill instead, then
those funds would be canceled. Thus, under H.R. 1578, if either the
President's bill or an alternative bill passed both Houses, spending
will be cut and the American taxpayer would be the big winner.

Mr. Speaker, the President supports H.R. 1578 because he be-
lieves with a modified line-item veto like this in place millions and
perhaps billions of dollars might be saved. These are dollars which
our taxpayers worked and earned by the sweat of their brows and
sent to Washington to fund the essential activities of Government,
not to be squandered on ridiculous pork-barrel projects.

This bill gives the President the tool he needs to block pork-bar-
rel projects like asparagus research, renovating Lawrence Welk's
birthplace, or studying the well-being of middle-class lawyers or the
aggressive tendencies of fish in Nicaragua. It will let the President
force Congress on the record regarding researching cockroaches, or
why people fall in love, or building schools for North Africans in
France.

Mr. Speaker, these kinds of pork are an embarrassment which
we can clearly not afford. The American people won't stand for
them, and we don't have any business asking them to do so.

Quite simply, H.R. 1578 will create accountability. No longer will
a President be able to sign an appropriations act containing waste-
ful items and claim he was powerless to block them.

No longer will Congress be able to force upon the President the
dilemma of vetoing an entire act and shutting down the Govern-
ment, or signing the whole thing, bacon and all. If Congress wants
to appropriate funds for these purposes, then a majority of either
House need only stand up and be counted. If the President does not
want them, then he has the responsibility to send them back. It is
that simple, and I believe it will work.

Mr. Speaker, last year I held extensive hearings in my sub-
committee on various legislative line-item veto proposals, and
brought the forerunner of H.R. 1578 to the floor, where it passed
by a vote of 312 to 97. The bill before us today is, in my opinion,
a better bill than last year's. It deserves our strong support.

A waiver of clause 7 of rule 16 — germaneness — is provided to the
Michel amendment to the Castle-Solomon substitute printed in the
report accompanying this resolution. This waiver is solely provided
to the Michel amendment as it pertains to the Castle-Solomon sub-
stituted.

Finally, the resolution provides for one motion to recommit, with
or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, in the publication entitled "A Vision of Change for
America," the President outlines a plan to restore the American
dream for us and our children.

The President's plan represents a drastic change from the status
quo. The President wants to reject the policies and practices of the
past which have quadrupled our debt and left many Americans be-
lieving their Government doesn't work. The people want change,
and the President's program offers change for the betterment of our
Nation.

The legislation made in order by this rule would give the Presi-
dent one of the key changes he has sought, and which I believe we
desperately need: a modified line-item veto.



1483

Mr. Speaker, we all know wasteful spending sometimes occurs
because individual items escape scrutiny by being submerged in
large appropriations bills.

Under current procedures a President cannot strike out individ-
ual items in appropriations acts. He must sign or veto the whole
act, whatever the consequences. H.R. 1578 would give the Presi-
dent an option he does not now have.

Under H.R. 1578, within 3 days of signing an appropriations act
the President could send the House a message and bill proposing
to rescind, or cancel, individual spending items in that act.

The President's proposal would be referred to the Appropriations
Committee. That committee must report it to the floor without
amendment within 7 days. The House must vote, up or down, on
the President's bill within 10 days of introduction. During this time
the funds would not be spent. If the bill passed the House, it would
go to the Senate for expedited consideration there, and if passed by
the Senate, on to the President for his signature.

To avoid the possibility a President might use this procedure not
primarily to reduce the deficit, but instead to promote his own pet
projects, H.R. 1578 would allow the House Appropriations Commit-
tee to report to the House, simultaneously with the President's bill,
an alternative. To qualify for expedited consideration, the commit-
tee's bill must propose to cancel spending from the same appropria-
tions act the President drew his rescissions from, and it must pro-
pose to cancel an amount of spending equal to or exceeding the
President's total.

If the committee reported an alternative, the House would first
vote on the President's bill; if adopted by a majority vote, the Presi-
dent's bill would go to the Senate for expedited consideration and
the alternative would not be in order. If the House rejected the
President's bill and passed the alternative, that bill would go to the
Senate instead.

The Senate Appropriations Committee could also report an alter-
native bill. But it would not be in order to consider anything but
the President's bill until the Senate first voted on and rejected the
President's bill. The President is thus guaranteed a vote on his pro-
posal.

If both Houses ultimately passed an alternative bill instead, then
those funds would be canceled. Thus, under H.R. 1578, if either the
President's bill or an alternative bill passed both Houses, spending
will be cut and the American taxpayer would be the big winner.

Mr. Speaker, the President supports H.R. 1578 because he be-
lieves with a modified line-item veto like this in place millions and
perhaps billions of dollars might be saved. These our dollars which
our taxpayers worked and earned by the sweat of their brows and
sent to Washington to fund the essential activities of Government,
not to be squandered on ridiculous pork-barrel projects.

This bill gives the President the tool he needs to block pork-bar-
rel projects like asparagus research, renovating Lawrence Welk's
birthplace, or studying the well-being of middle-class lawyers or the
aggressive tendencies of fish in Nicaragua. It will let the President
force Congress on the record regarding researching cockroaches, or
why people fall in love, or building schools for North Africans in
France.



1484

Mr. Speaker, these kinds of pork are an embarrassment which
we can clearly not afford. The American people won't stand for
them, and we don't have any business asking them to do so.

Quite simply, H.R. 1578 will create accountability. No longer will
a President be able to sign an appropriations act containing waste-
ful items and claim he was powerless to block them.

No longer will Congress be able to force upon the President the
dilemma of vetoing an entire act and shutting down the Govern-
ment, or signing the whole thing, bacon and all. If Congress wants
to appropriate funds for these purposes, then a majority of either
house need only stand up and be counted. If the President does not
want them, then he has the responsibility to send them back. It is
that simple, and I believe it will work.

Mr. Speaker, last year I held extensive hearings in my sub-
committee on various legislative line-item veto proposals, and
brought the forerunner of H.R. 1578 to the floor, where it passed
by a vote of 312 to 97. The bill before us today is, in my opinion,
a better bill than last year's. It deserves our strong support.

The rule also deserves our strong support. It makes in order a
Republican substitute, an amendment thereto offered by the minor-
ity leader or his designee, and it does not restrict the motion to re-
commit. Many issues have already been worked out; the rule will
allow a full airing of the remainder. I urge all Members to support
the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gen-
tleman from South Carolina, for yielding us half of his time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that in the next 5 hours that we are going
to be able to enlighten the American people on the need for a true
line item veto and the problems that led up to the need for it.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us which makes in order this
expedited rescission bill, is the tenth consecutive modified closed or
closed rule reported in this Congress. Not one rule has been open
unfortunately.

Over the last 3 months, we on the minority side have been trying
to impress upon our Democrat colleagues and on the American peo-
ple back home as well that when we complain about closed rules
we are not simply engaging in some kind of procedural or partisan
tantrum. We are instead trying to warn against what we perceive
as the deliberate decline of democracy in this House.

Now I will readily admit that to the average American a closed
rule probably does not mean anything, but, if we ask that same cit-
izen taxpayer how he or she would feel if they knew that their
elected Representative was not allowed to fully participate in the
legislative process in the House of Representatives, the anger
would begin to rise, and it is beginning to rise, my colleagues. I
suspect that their first reaction would be, "Why are we paying
them those big salaries if they can't even offer amendments to leg-
islation on behalf of me, our town, our State and our country?"

Why do we call them lawmakers if they do not have any real
voice in making laws? And that is what is happening on this floor,
ladies and gentlemen.

So all of a sudden the term "closed rule" has some reel meaning
for the people back home, when they realize that individual people



1485

sitting here to represent them cannot even offer amendments on
the floor of this House. They begin to reaUze that their Representa-
tive really has no say about what goes on here in Washington. Boy,
I would be ashamed if that were me.

Today we have a modified closed rule that allows for just two
amendments. And, while one of those two amendments has my
name on it along with a group of our freshman Republicans, and
is a true line-item veto, I just cannot support this rule.

Instead, I offered in the Rules Committee a substitute open rule
that would have specifically allowed our Republican leader to
amend the so-called Spratt bill by including tax provisions under
the President's expedited rescission authority.

It would also have allowed the freshman Democrats to offer a
substitute extending that authority to all tax expenditures and
make this rescission authority permanent. Not just 2 years, but
permanent, no matter who the President is. That amendment was
presented to the Rules Committee on the debt limit bill by Rep-
resentatives MiNGE, Deal, and Inslee as an alternative to the
Stenholm-Spratt approach.

In other words, they were attempting to put some teeth in this
toothless tiger. I was excited and I commended them for being up
there testifying before our Committee on Rules. But they were de-
nied the right by their own Democrat Party to offer that amend-
ment, because the Democrats killed my request for an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, that is the way the House use to operate, full and
open debate on amendments and deliberation, and we used to
produce good legislation. The American people at that time held us
in such esteem that about 85 percent of the American people ap-
proved of what we were doing here. Now look at the esteem they
hold us in. Sometimes it is embarrassing to go home.

Nowadays, however, we are being asked to confine ourselves to
partisan boxes. You can have your one partisan amendment, we
will have our one partisan alternative, and heaven forbid if any
other Member of this House should have an independent idea.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is unreasonable on something as
important as the issue of the expedited rescission versus the true
line-item veto to have an open amendment process. I do not think
it is unreasonable to have a process whereby we try to reach a con-
sensus approach that takes the best from both parties and from all
Members regardless of political party. Really, that is what rep-
resentative government is.

And yet, we are told that this rule and the bill it makes in order
was in truth brought to this floor as a trade-off to gain votes for
the debt limit bill yesterday.

The truth in that is evident when you consider that the main
amendment made in order by this rule as the base bill was not
even before the Rules Committee when we took testimony yester-
day. It was not the subject of hearings in the Government Oper-
ations Committee earlier this year, and I see the ranking Repub-
lican sitting over there, or in the Rules Committee late last year
that I am the ranking Republican on.

No, this amendment, which showed up on the Rules Committee's
doorstep late in the day yesterday, like an abandoned baby of un-
known parentage, was suddenly embraced by the majority as a



1486

long lost son, though it bears little resemblance to any of the family
members that were paraded before our committee earlier in the
day.

I am not exactly sure what that makes this new bill, though I
am told this bird of a different feather strongly resembles a car-
dinal. You know what a cardinal is. It has a red hat.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on the substance of this new
bill, in part because no one testified on its behalf to describe it for
us, so I don't think there is anybody here that can explain it today.

Even the chairman of the Rules Committee admitted to me dur-
ing debate yesterday that he doubted there was any knowledgeable
authority who could explain this to our satisfaction or understand-
ing. Yet it is in the base text of this bill.

Ironically, this new bird which was reportedly hatched in a car-
dinal's nest, and for those people who might be listening, you know
cardinals are referred to in this House as appropriators, they set
up a system which could ultimately lead to violating the rules and
precedents of this House which recognize the supremacy of who,
the College of Cardinals, the House Committee on Appropriations.

The reason is that under the House rules all appropriation bills
must originate in the House. You all know that. You have read the
Constitution. Like appropriation bills, rescission bills which strike
previously appropriated funds originate under the jurisdiction of
the House Committee on Appropriations.

That is not only how we have operated historically, but that is
what the Constitution says.

While this bill initially recognizes that any Presidential rescis-
sion bill must originate in the House of Representatives, all that
changes if the House passes the President's rescission bill and the
Senate does not.

You folks had better go back and think about that, especially you
appropriators. You have bitten off more than you can chew.

When that happens, it is in order for the Senate to originate an
alternative rescission bill. That means that the Senate bill could be
"blue slipped" back to the Senate without a vote because it violates
the constitutional prerogatives of this House.

In short, we would be left with no rescission bill at all. The Presi-
dent's rescission bill would be dead. The Senate rescission bill could
well be in violation of the Constitution.

And the only real winners would be those who have a voracious
appetite for pork. That's spelled o-i-n-k, and is pronounced: "Oink,
oink, oink."

Do I make myself perfectly clear?

This new bill, in short, is a gotcha bill. And the reality of this
rule is that you now have a choice between a real line-item veto
preferred by our side, and by many Members of your side of the
aisle as well, and I see some of them sitting over there, and I ap-
plaud them for it, and the fiscal equivalent of what I call hog
steroids on your side. In clearer terms, that means hog wash.

Mr. Speaker, I tend to doubt that House appropriators seriously
intend to give away this important constitutional prerogative, but
that is exactly what this bill does. This bill really ought to go to
the Committee on the Judiciary and let them study that ramifica-
tion.



1487

Mr, Speaker, I would therefore urge my colleagues to vote down
this rule. I am one of the Members that came here 15 years ago
fighting for a line item veto and am still here 15 years later doing
the same thing. I would urge Members to vote down this rule and
put pressure on your Democratic leadership and Democratic Com-
mittee on Rules to bring us an open rule that will allow us to reach
a bipartisan consensus approach to a meaningful line item veto bill
that is in the best interests of the American people, 80 percent of
whom favor not this bill, but a true line item veto bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members to please vote no on the rule
and let us go back upstairs and let all factions in both political par-
ties be represented here on the floor. That is what America is all
about.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the record the rollcall votes taken in
the Committee on Rules last night on this rule, some updated data
on open versus restrictive rules, and a copy of the open rule we of-
fered in the Committee on Rules last night.

Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to
Draft Rule on H.R. 1578, Spratt Expedited Rescission Bill

1. Open Rule. — Two-hours of general debate (divided equally be-
tween Rules & Govt. Ops.); Castle-Solomon amendment in the na-
ture of a substitute, subject to amendment by Michel targeted tax
provision amendment; and, if Castle-Solomon is rejected, Michel
amendment would be in order to bill, followed by consideration of
the Minge substitute for Spratt. All amendments would be subject
to debate under the five-minute rule under the normal amendment
process meaning other amendments could be offered when amend-
ment tree allows. Points of order would be waived against amend-
ments. Rejected: 3-7. Yeas: Solomon, Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moak-
ley. Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Gordon and Slaughter.

2. Michel Amendment to Spratt. — Adding rescission authority for
targeted tax provisions to Stenholm's expedited rescission approach
(30-minutes of debate, appropriate waivers). Rejected: 3-8. Yeas:
Solomon, Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson,
Frost, Bonior, Wheat, Gordon and Slaughter.

3. Minge-Deal-Inslee Substitute Amendment. — Modified line-item
veto — permanent authority to rescind budget authority and tax ex-
penditures, subject to majority approval by both Houses (one-hour
of debate; appropriate waivers). Rejected: 3-8. Yeas: Solomon,
Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior,
Wheat, Gordon and Slaughter.