authority to veto items in appropriations bills (see Table 1 below). With but one
exception of historic interest, these votes occurred in the last six Congresses
(98th-103rd Congresses). The period since enactment of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344, 99 Stat. 297 (as
amended)) is covered by these votes.
We have identified over thirty votes using CRS files and Library of
Congress databases. Although the listing is characterized as "selected," since the
method of its compilation could have missed possible instances, it should be
relatively comprehensive. Some of these votes are on procedural issues, as
indicated in the table, rather than on the proposal directly.
Five of the votes included are on or relate to measures identified as item
veto proposals. Nineteen deal with enhanced or expedited rescission proposals.
Such proposals typically seek to amend the Impoundment Control Act and
expand the President's rescission authority, whether supporters refer to them
as "Line Item Veto Rescission" measures or by some other term. Also counted
here are two votes in the 103rd Congress on an amendment to the Budget
Resolution for FY 1994, containing sense-of-the-Senate provisions in support of
expedited or enhanced rescission.
Under expedited rescission, congressional approval would still be necessary
to cancel the funding, but procedural changes would facilitate an up-or-down
vote on the proposed rescission. One such measure, H.R. 1578, which the House
approved in the First Session of the 103rd Congress, provided that a vote to
reject the proposed rescission must occur before the funds could be made
available again. In contrast, enhanced rescission proposals usually stipulate that
budget authority identified in the rescission message from the President is to be
This memorandum was prepared by the Government Division for distribution to more than one
client. The facts and premises included herein are current as of the date of preparation.
128
CRS-2
permanently canceled unless Congress acts to disapprove the request within a
prescribed period, thereby reversing the "burden of action" required for
rescissions in the current framework.
The remaining eight votes in the table had to do with separate enrollment
procedures. Of those eight, the Mattingly bills in the 98th and 99th Congresses
appear because their sponsors characterized their provisions as conferring item
veto authority. The bills would have required that each item of an
appropriation measure — i.e., "any numbered section or unnumbered
paragraph" — be enrolled as a separate bill. Other separate enrollment measures,
such as the Evans amendments in the 100th Congress, would have broken up
omnibus continuing resolutions into components akin to regular appropriations
bills. While such proposals may not, strictly speaking, constitute item vetoes,
they seem of some relevance and interest. In the 103rd Congress, the Bradley
amendment to the Budget Resolution for fiscal 1994 made explicit the
connection between the item veto and separate enrollment. The amendment
provided sense-of-the-Senate language that "the President should be granted
line-item veto authority over items of appropriations and tax expenditures," to
be accomplished by separate enrollment of each item of appropriation or tax
expenditure.'
Instances of floor votes on item veto, enhanced or expedited rescission, and
separate enrollment measures have become more frequent in recent years. Over
half of all such votes occurred in the last two Congresses, with the 103rd
holding the current record often such votes.
Floor Votes in the 101st Congress
There were two instances in the 101st Congress when the provisions of S.
1553, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 1989, were offered as an amendment
during floor debate in the Senate. After several unsuccessful attempts in the
fall of 1989, Senator Dan Coats (R-IN) sought to incorporate the provisions of
S. 1553 into an amendment offered during debate on November 9, 1989, on the
conference report for the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act for
FY 1990.^ However, the Senate rejected (51-40) a motion to waive section 306
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (which prohibits consideration of
budget process legislation not reported by the Budget Committee) for the
purpose, and the point of order raised against the amendment was sustained.
A second attempt to offer provisions of S. 1553 as an amendment, led by Senator
John McCain (R-AZ) on June 6, 1990, failed (43-50) on the same procedural
grounds.^
'Senate debate on S. Con. Res. 18. Congressional Record, Daily Edition, v. 139, March 25,
1993. p. S3686.
^Congressional Record, Daily Editor, v. 135, Oct. 9, 1989. p. S1533&-S 15358.
^Senate debate on S. 341, concerning air travel rights for blind individuals. Congressional
Record, Daily Edition, v. 136. June 6. 1990. p. S7457-S7478.
129
CRS-3
House and Senate Votes in the 102nd Congress
There were floor votes on nine propositions widely viewed as reflecting
support, at least indirectly, for item veto, enhanced or expedited rescission, or
separate enrollment approaches in the 102nd Congress. In all but one of these
cases, the substance of the expanded rescission, item veto, or separate
enrollment provision was offered as an amendment during floor debate on
another measure.
On February 26, 1992, Senator McCain offered an amendment containing
the provisions of S. 196 (the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 1991) during
debate on the National Cooperative Research Act. Extended debate ensued,
during which the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator
Robert Byrd (D-WV), spoke at length in opposition to the proposed amendment.
The following day the Senate rejected (44-54) a motion to waive Section 306 of
the Budget Act. Subsequently the point of order raised under Section 306
against the amendment was sustained.'*
On June 11, 1992, during debate on H.J. Res. 290, proposing a balanced
budget constitutional amendment, the House voted on an amendment containing
item veto authority for the President. Representative Jon Kyi (R-AZ) offered
the amendment (to the proposed constitutional amendment) to allow the
President to exercise item veto authority when signing any measure containing
spending authority (broadly defined), to limit total outlays for a fiscal year to
19 percent of the gross national product of that year, and to require a three-
fifths vote of the Congress to approve any additional funds. The House rejected
the Kyi amendment by vote of 170-258.^
Three times in July 1992 Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY) and others
attempted to have an amendment to provide "Legislative Line Item Veto
Rescission Authority" made in order during debate in the House on a certain
appropriation measure. Each attempt occurred as an effort to defeat the
previous question on the special rule, for considering the measure, which did not
make in order consideration of the Solomon amendment.^ As indicated in Table
1, the closest vote occurred on July 28, 1992, when the previous question was
ordered by a margin of less than ten votes (207-199). Although supporters of
the Solomon amendment sought to characterize the procedural vote as a
measure of sentiment on the item veto, the floor debate indicates that some
voted against moving the previous question on the rule for other reasons.
Likewise, some Members who favor enhanced rescission might have voted for
the previous question for reasons unrelated to their position on the item veto.
In brief, when evaluating the significance of these votes, one needs to keep in
* Congressional Record. Daily Edition, v. 138, Feb. 27, 1992. p. S2457-S2477.
^Congressional Record. Daily Edition, v. 138, June 11, 1992. p. H4595-H4605.
«Sec; Congressional Record. Daily Edition, v. 138, July 22, 1992, p. H6356-H6364; July 28,
1992, p. H6773-H6783; and July 30, 1992, p. H698&-H6999.
130
\ CRS-4
mind that they are imprecise measures of support for or opposition to enhanced
rescission or item veto measures as such.
On July 21, 1992, during debate in the House on H.R. 2637 (to withdraw
lands for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project), Representative Robert Walker (R-
PA) offered an amendment, which he characterized as an item veto effort (but
which is listed on the chart as a separate enrollment measure). The Walker
amendment sought to provide that the funds authorized by the bill subsequently
were to be appropriated only in an act or joint resolution containing no other
appropriation to carry out any other law. The House rejected the amendment
by vote of 144-248.''
In the Senate, Senator McCain and Senator Coats again tried to offer the
provisions of S. 196 as an amendment on September 17, 1992, during floor
debate on the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill for 1993. The needed
motion to waive section 306 of the Budget Act failed by vote of 40-56.*
On September 30, 1992, there was another effort in the House to offer the
enhanced rescission provisions as a floor amendment to an appropriations
measure, this time to H.J. Res. 553, the short-term continuing resolution
providing a five-day funding extension. Representative Solomon urged defeat of
the previous question on H.Res. 580 (the accompanying rule). However the
majority leadership apparently urged that those wishing to signify support for
the amendment effort oppose the rule itself rather than attempt to defeat the
previous question. Thus the vote on the rule was agreed to by less than ten
votes (213-204), while the previous question was agreed to by vote of 231-186.^
Shortly before the votes on the previous question and the rule occurred,
Representative Butler Derrick (D-SC), Chairman of the Rules Subcommittee on
the Legislative Process which had held two days of hearings on expanded
rescission and item veto measures spoke, concluding: T think that there is a
possibility that we might get a vote of some sort on this line-item veto proposal
before we get out of here, although I cannot say that definitely. There are
discussions going on about that."'"
The promised House debate and vote on an expanded rescission proposal
before adjournment of the 102nd Congress occurred in early October 1992. H.R.
2164, the Expedited Consideration of Proposed Rescissions Act (which had over
^Congressional Record, Daily Edition, v. 138, July 21, 1992. p. H6326-H6327.
^Congressional Record, Daily Edition, v. 138, Sept 17, 1992. p. S13684-S13697.
^Congressional Record, Daily Edition, V. 138, Sept 30, 1992. p. H9894-H9903.
'0 Providing for consideration of House Joint Resolution 553, Continuing Appropriations, 1993.
Debate in the House. Ibid., p. H9894.
131
CRS-5
220 cosponsors) was called up under a suspension of the rules on October 2,
1992. On the following day H.R. 2164 passed the House by vote of 312-97."
House and Senate Votes in the 103rd Congress
Once again in the 103rd Congress, on March 10, 1993, Senator McCain
attempted to offer an amendment containing the provisions of the Legislative
Line Item Veto Act (which had been reintroduced as S. 9). This efTort occurred
during floor consideration of S. 460, the National Voter Registration Act.
Following considerable debate on the amendment, the Senate rejected (45-52)
the motion to waive Section 306 of the Budget Act.'^
Initial 103rd Congress action in the House occurred on April 2, 1993, when
the House briefly considered H.R. 1578, a revised version of expedited rescission,
which had been reported by the Rules Committee with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute, but the rule providing for consideration of the bill
(H.Res. 149) was unexpectedly withdrawn without a vote. Action on the
identical rule and bill was scheduled to resume on April 21. But for the second
time. House leaders pulled the bill abruptly from the floor, apparently because
of continuing concern that a vote on the rule would not pass. On April 28, the
by now controversial rule again came to the floor, was debated, and voted upon,
ultimately passing by only four votes. On April 29, 1993, the House continued
consideration of H.R. 1578, eventually passing H.R. 1578 by vote of 258-157.
During the consideration of H.R. 1578, the Castle amendment in the nature of
a substitute, providing enhanced rescission authority, was rejected (198-219).'^
Meanwhile, on Mar. 25, 1993, the Senate adopted two sense-of-the-Senate
amendments relating to rescission reform as a part of the Budget Resolution for
FY 1994: the Bradley Amendment, regarding separate enrollment for items in
appropriations and tax measures, and the Cohen Amendment, supporting
expedited rescission authority with regard to items of appropriation, tax
expenditures, and direct spending. The former was approved by vote of 73-24
after Senator Robert Byrd, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, rather
unexpectedly stated his support: "I know what is in the amendment. It would
extend the veto to tax expenditures. I think we all ought to vote for this
amendment."''' The conference version retained a single sense-of-the-Senate
provision in this regard, stating the "President should be granted line-item veto
^^Congrvssinnal Record. Daily Edition, v. 138. Oct. 2, 1992, p. H10805-H10816; and Oct. 3.
1992. p. H10975-H 10976.
^^Consres.tional Record, Daily Edition, v. 139, March 10, 1993, p. S2576-S2601.
*^ Congressional Record, Daily Edition, v. 139, April 28, 1993, p. H2084-H2104, April 29,
1993, p. H2138-H2163.
^* Congressional Record, Daily Edition, v. 139, March 25. 1993. p. S3686.
132
CRS-6
authority over items of appropriations and tax expenditures" to expire at the end
of the 103rd Congress.
On June 24, 1993, during debate on S. 1134, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation measure, Senator Bradley again offered an amendment calling for
item veto authority by requiring separate enrollment of items in appropriations
bills and tax expenditures in revenue bills. This time, however, it was not sense-
of-the-Senate language, but rather an actual effort to amend the Impoundment
Control Act and create statutory authority for the new procedures. The motion
to waive the Budget Act point of order failed of the necessary three-fifths
majority by vote of 53-45; subsequently, a point of order was sustained, and the
amendment fell.'*
As adopted in May 1994, H.Con.Res. 218, the Budget Resolution for FY
1995, also contained sense-of-the-Congress provisions, including support for
expedited rescission. This provision was already in the resolution as reported
by the House Budget Committee.'^ The language reiterated that legislation
granting the President expedited rescission authority, such as H.R. 1578 already
passed by the House, should be enacted.'^
On June 23, 1994, the House Rules Committee reported H.R. 4600, the
Expedited Rescissions Act of 1994, which was identical to H.R. 1578 as passed
by the House on Apr. 29, 1993. The report accompanying H.R. 4600 explained
that by considering an identical measure in the second session, the "House hopes
to impress upon the Senate the importance of its own support for and action on
these budget process reforms" (House Report 103-557, Part 1, p. 2).
On July 14, 1994, the House passed H.R. 4600, with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute, by vote of 342-69. This Stenholm substitute amendment,
which expanded upon the existing provisions in the bill for expedited rescission
(e.g., adding "targeted tax benefits"), was agreed to by vote of 298-121. The
Solomon substitute amendment, which sought to give the President enhanced
rescission authority akin to an item veto, was rejected by vote of 205-218.
i^ Congressional Record, Daily Edition, V. 139. June 24. 1993. p. S7920-21.
»«See: House Report 103-428. p. 225.
'^ Since this language was contained in the measure as reported, there was no separate floor
vote on the sense of the Congress provision in support of expedited rescission, and hence no
mention of it in Table 1 below.
^^Congressional Record. Daily Edition, v. 140. July 14. 1994. p. H5700-H5730.
133
en *J =^ m
TT 3
-< O
a
w
o
D.
O
L-
o.
«M
o
E
OJ
y
-*j
Vi
o
O
Cfl
>
v
(A
2
u
">
&
o
c
o
U
1-
â– 0
u
-2
(e
n
£
«
o
e
^
-C
3
jr
O
a
*j
w
o
CO
C3
Q
S
C5
o
i"
6fi
o
••-1
_C3
3
^^
1)
<
O
ai
C
c
u
o
B.
o
'3
O)
c
U)
o
o
VI
cfi
u
u
tj
ci
>
T3
o
•a
c
C3
g-
"3
H
en
u
o
(^
^^
3
■i.»
OT
3
>
C3
C-
tn
E
O
O
I"! I
c
5 2 g
s el
:§
2^
wuSi wm£: u£
o
— o
9! c
<
CO Q)
c .t: •= .•=
c
c
:§
uc wti wu HS wn ut;
u 2:
u
00
in
C3
in
<N
bO
0)
o
in
3
m
â– <r
o
in
CJ
—
>T
r-
o
CJ
<M
01
(N
CO
s
CO
N
CO CO m
OS c^ S
CT> 3 in 2
CJ o CJ 2
^ — CO OT
in =
o r.
a.
C/2
5
CO
o
CO
03
a.
CO
2 -5
o
o
o
o
-o
o
o
o
CO
o
<
-o
CO
E <
CO
o
CO
o
c
<
CO
o
CO
CO CJ
Gi *j
in 2 o 2
c^ S r" m
CO CO CO CO CO CO
CO 3
2:g
o
o
u
o
o
o
c:
Oi
c
c
c
o
o
o
lO
O
O
U
CO
CO
CO
c:
o
o
o
â–ºt*
TT
o
o
O
O
o
o
CO
o
c
cq
o
O 3
CO o
o en
CO
in
in
m
Ci
-^
X
C
S 0)
a
« 3
X
^ oi
134
•o o
p
2t>
Sg
3 T
o >>
'W ■«-*
a 3
u <
ei c
«- .2
c -S
in u
:?^
o
- o
J >
a
J
a
â– 8
&l
â– s
u
a p E
Q. *- c
CO W a
to tfcO <u
S -a >
c~ o o
S i I
M -ir cr
« -^ to -^
a> 3 C ^ 3 C 00
o _o o r- o _o ^
O 5. 3 CO Q_ 3 TT
00
in
â– s
c
<
â– ?
u
"S
u
c
c
* 2
0) S
S-
a ^
L- —
u —
§.S
a p
a, c
a) "=
CO U
c/2 W
< <
El
05 C/3
O 3
CO O
00 3
CJ O
CS
^ s
CM 3
CM O
^3!
— 3
CM O
Si S
'-â– 3
— O
o 5
CM q,
C-l CO
§1
O CO
— CO
t- CO
co a,
^ c
CM (U
— CO
o
o
CO
o
CO
o
CO
a
a.
si""
c
o
c
_o
o
CO
>»
c
a
Q.
3
K
X r
c2 a;
X X
CO
X
o
it:
o
a
(SI
X
a
•o
•a
73
c:
c
C
CM
CM
CM
o
o
O
CO
o
00
o
o
<
c
CM
o
CO
CO
in
o
o
CO
«
X
o
CM
C71
O
>
>
u
Cd
in
•V
o
CM
CO
CO
ai
«7
Q
o
Ci
a
-s
X
X
o
o
135
-a o
2-=
3 •
5 -^
<9 -'
o >>
tx i:
o —
c
^
o
CO p
W U w U
CO
CO
0)
0)
u. -Co
c
O = IN i? o
^ ? 9 1 1
— -^
«= 2 c
Q C ^
W u i
o ,
c
a
c
J=:
U
o
G)
lO
Q>
o
G)
~a»
CO
CO
00
ffl
00
S
â– 5=
O
o
C
D
s
gj
3
-^
C
f^
OT
f^
w
o
CO
so S
5j o
fe;
e-
o
C O
CO
<
00
o
o
00
o
01
0)
Q)
o
O
o
^
«»
>
>
o
C
-«â–
o
o
41
"?
*^
CO
4.J
a.
O
o
in
3
o
a.
<
"o
>
CO
^ S ^ S CO «
~ ca SO g — 3
— . c/3 in c/3 — ■K
c
00
o
CO
CO
in
o
o
K
c^
•
-=
K
c^
CO
X
p:
00
00
o
o
oi
IT)
in
^
C^
•V
^
O
o
o
CJ
CO
ID
0)
o
-o
c
C
<v
o
T3
c
C
Q
â– ^^
JC
•o
u
&
c
c
o
c
O
C3
w
^
X)
c
IE
d
S
oT
to
S
a
a>
a
-c
4.J
c
*—
_ffl
o
0)
S
to
c
a
CO
W3
01
CB
(U
O. J=
a
c
â– s
â– I o
D. hb
£ =
J=
«J
c
(1>
B
0)
•a
c
>
a>
o
c
o
CO
o
,,
>
c
>.
p
J
5
-a
O
>
o
»
1-
j=
a.
E-
c
o
„^
s>
CO
CO
o
o
o.
•^
p
s)
C
w
a.
6
2
c
CL
in
a.
<
_a
z
m
c
E-
'«
•
c:
2
<*-
CO
O
S
J3
T3
136
SELECTED DEBATE FROM THE 102d CONGRESS
February 26, 1992
[From the Congressional Record pages S2268-2311]
AMENDMENT NO. 1698
(Purpose: To grant the power to the President to reduce budget authority)
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amend-
ment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] for himself, Mr. Coats,
Mr. Dole, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Simp-
son, Mr. Bond, Mr. Mack, Mr. Smith, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Warner,
Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Roth, Mr. Helms, Mr. Garn, Mr. Chafee,
Mr. Symms, Mr. LoTT, Mr. Kasten, Mr. Brown, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Thurmond, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Exon, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Lugar,
Mr. Burns, Mr. Boren, and Mr. Seymour, proposes an amend-
ment numbered 1698.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not want to object. The amend-
ment is short. It might make it a lot easier for all staff to have it
read through unless the Senator was about to describe it.
Mr. McCAIN. I was going to describe it.
Mr. LEAHY. Then I shall not object.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO ACT OF 1991.
(a) Short Title. — ^This section may be cited as the "Legislative
Line Item Veto Act of 1991".
(b) Enhancement of Spending Control by the President. —
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new title:
"TITLE XI— LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO RESCISSION
AUTHORITY
"Part A— Legislative Line Item Veto Rescission Authority
"grant of authority and conditions
"Sec. 1101. (a) In General. — Notwithstanding the provisions of
part B of title X and subject to the provisions of part B of this title,
the President may rescind all or part of any budget authority, if
the President —
"(1) determines that —
"(A) such rescission would help balsmce the Federal
budget, reduce the Federal budget deficit, or reduce the
public debt;
"(B) such rescission will not impair any essential Gov-
ernment functions; and
137
"(C) such rescission will not harm the national interest;
and
"(2)(A) notifies the Congress of such rescission by a special
message not later than 20 calendar days (not including Satur-
days, Sundays, or holidays) after the date of enactment of a
regular or supplemental appropriations Act or a joint resolu-
tion making continuing appropriations providing such budget
authority; or
"(B) notifies the Congress of such rescission by special mes-
sage accompan3dng the submission of the President's budget to
Congress and such rescissions have not been proposed pre-
viously for that fiscal year.
The President shall submit a separate rescission message for each
appropriations bill under paragraph (2)(A).
(b) Rescission Effective Unless Disapproved. — (1)(A) Anv
amount of budget authority rescinded under this title as set forth
in a special message by the President shall be deemed canceled un-
less during the period described in subparagraph (B), a rescission
disapproval bill making available all of the amount rescinded is en-
acted into law.
"(B) The period referred to in subparagraph (A) is —
"(i) a Congressional review period of 20 calendar days of ses-
sion under part B, during which Congress must complete ac-
tion on the rescission disapproval bill and present such bill to