Congress to sacrifice pork barrel spending. Each year Congress
passes appropriation bills that are laden with individual funding
for special projects, funding that is sought by specific Members. Al-
though each such item no doubt has its merits, there is little ques-
tion but that prime motive in many appropriation items is to en-
able a Member of Congress to bring home the bacon. We all seek
such funding and frankly we all like to receive it.
358
The result is that pork is often but a perk, a useful perk that
can readily be used in a reselection campaign. But, it is an expen-
sive perk that Congress can and should be willing to sacrifice for
the benefit of future generations.
Our current system works to fuel the flames of unlimited spend-
ing and needs to change. It is simply unrealistic to expect individ-
ual Members to volunteer not to pursue pork for his or her State
or district when others will continue their efforts in that regard.
Our President in determining whether to sign each bill must look
at each one as a whole and is forced to accept the bad with the
good.
The solution to this problem is to give our President the line-item
veto. As Grovemor of the State of Nebraska I was privileged to have
the line-item veto power. I used the line-item veto authority fre-
quently and found it to be very effective in controlling the spending
of my State legislature. I have long believed that our President
should have this power as well.
The line-item veto authority would give our President the ability
to attack pork barrel spending and would be an invaluable tool in
our President's efforts to limit governmental spending. It would
hardly solve our budgetary problems but it would certainly help.
Mr. President, in previous years, I have supported efforts to
change our Constitution to allow for a line-item veto. I have also
been a leader in congressional efforts to give our President en-
hanced rescission powers.
Over 6 years ago, I joined with former Vice President Quayle in
sponsoring an enhanced rescission proposal. Just last year. I sup-
ported an amendment offered by Senator McCain that would have
also given our President greater rescission powers.
It has become very clear through the years that we simply do not
have the votes in the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment
for a line-item veto. Further, Senator McCain's amendment gar-
nered only 40 votes for a proposal that would surely be filibustered
and would thus need at least 60 votes to pass the Senate.
The very clear writing on the wall is that propossds such as those
stand little, if any, chance of becoming law. But that hardly means
that nothing can be done to give our President greater power to
fight pork barrel spending.
The House of Representatives last year overwhelmingly passed a
proposal to require Congress to vote on rescission messages from
our President. That proposal was quite similar to the amendment
I cosponsored in 1986.
The key difference between the bill passed by the House of Rep-
resentatives and other enhanced rescission or line-item veto pro-
posals is that the former would require only a majority vote in Con-
gress to overturn a Presidential recommendation as compared to
the two-thirds super majority that would be required under the lat-
ter proposals.
Taking the majority vote approach strikes me as a reasonable
compromise and one that stands a better chance of serious consid-
eration by Congress. As such, I am today introducing the Enhanced
Rescissions Act.
This bill would change our current rescissions process by giving
our President the authority not to spend specific funding included
359
in our appropriation bills. Upon making a decision to rescind cer-
tain spending, our President would then be required to seek con-
gressional approval. If Congress does not agree by at least a major-
ity vote in both Houses, then the funding must be released.
It is certainly reasonable to force Members of Congress to pub-
licly vote on spending requests that our President views as unnec-
essary or inappropriate. Members of Congress will be much less
likely to add pork to our appropriation bills if they know that they
might be forced to defend each item individually on its own merits.
I urge each of my colleagues to take a close look at what I am
proposing. It is similar to the bill passed in the House last year,
yet I have eliminated the restrictions and loopholes included in
that bill so that our President will truly have the ability to force
a vote on each particular line item of each appropriation bill. As
such, this proposal is a responsible and fair approach and one that
would greatly assist our new President, and those who follow, in
his efforts to reduce our Federal deficit.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill
be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to the printed in
the Record, as follows: ,
360
February 25, 1993
[From the Congressional Record pages S2089-2091]
n
103d congress
1st Session
S.437
To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
to establish procedures for the expedited consideration by the Congress
of certain proposals by the President to rescind amounts of budget
authority.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 25 (legislative day, January 5), 1993
Mr. KrueGER introduced the following bill; which was read t\\ice and referred
jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on
the Budget and Governmental Affairs, mth instructions that if one Com-
mittee reports, the other Committee have thirty daj-s to report or be dis-
charged
A BILL
To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Con-
trol Act of 1974 to establish procedures for the expedited
consideration by the Congress of certain proposals by
the President to rescind amounts of budget authorit^^
1 Be it enacted by tJie Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act maj'' be cited as the "Expedited Consider-
5 ation of Proposed Rescissions Act of 1993".
361
2
1 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PRO-
2 POSED RESCISSIONS.
3 (a) In General.— Part B of title X of the Congres-
4 sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2
5 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) is amended by redesignating sections
6 1013 through 1017 as sections 1014 through 1018, re-
7 spectively, and inserting after section 1012 the follo^^^ng
8 new section:
9 "EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED
10 RESCISSIONS
11 "Sec. 1013. (a) Proposed Rescission of Budget
12 AUTHORiri'. — In addition to the method of rescindins:
13 budget authority specified in section 1012, the President
14 may propose, at the time and in the manner provided in
15 subsection (b), the rescission of any budget authority pro-
16 \-ided in an appropriations Act.
17 "(b) Transmittal of Special Message. —
18 "(1) At any time after the date of enactment of
19 an appropriation Act, the President may transmit to
20 Congress a special message proposing to rescind
21 amounts of budget authoritj' provided in that Act
22 and include wth that special message a draft bill or
23 joint resolution that, if enacted, would only rescind
24 that budget authority.
25 "(2) In the case of an appropriation Act that
26 includes accounts ^^^thin the jurisdiction of more
•S 437 IS
362
3
1 than one subcommittee of the Committee on Appro-
2 priations, the President in proposing to rescind
3 budget authority under this section shall send a sep-
4 arate special message and accompanying draft bill or
5 joint resolution for accounts within the jurisdiction
6 of each such subcommittee.
7 "(3) Each special message shall specify, with
8 respect to the budget authority proposed to be re-
9 scinded, the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)
10 through (5) of section 1012(a).
11 "(c) Procedures for Expedited CoNsroER-
12 ATION. —
13 "(1)(A) Before the close of the first day of con-
14 tinuous session of the applicable House after the
15 date of receipt of a special message transmitted to
16 Congress under subsection (b), the majority leader
17 or minority leader of the House of Congress in
18 which the appropriation Act involved originated shall
19 introduce (by request) the draft bill or joint resolu-
20 tion accompamnng that special message. If the bill
21 or joint resolution is not introduced as provided in
22 the preceding sentence, then, on the second day of
23 continuous session of that House after the date of
24 receipt of that special message, any Member of that
25 House may introduce the bill or joint resolution.
•S 437 IS
363
6
1 the Senate (in the case of a bill or joint resolution
2 a^eed to in the Senate) shall cause the engrossed
3 bill or joint resolution to be returned to the House
4 in which the bill or joint resolution originated.
5 "(3) (A) A motion in the House of Representa-
6 tives to proceed to the consideration of a bill or joint
7 resolution under this section shall be highly privi-
8 leged and not debatable. An amendment to the mo-
9 tion shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order
10 to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion
11 is agreed to or disagreed to.
12 "(B) Debate in the House of Representatives
13 on a bill or joint resolution under this section shall
14 not exceed 4 hours, which shall be divided equally
15 between those favoring and those opposing the bill
16 or joint resolution. A motion further to limit debate
17 shall not be debatable. It shall not be in order to
18 move to recommit a bill or joint resolution under
19 this section or to move to reconsider the vote bv
20 which the bill or joint resolution is agreed to or dis-
21 agreed to.
22 "(C) Appeals from decisions of the Chair relat-
23 ing to the application of the Rules of the House of
24 Representatives to the procedure relating to a bill or
•S 437 IS
364
7
1 joint resolution under this section shall be decided
2 Avithout debate.
3 "(D) Except to the extent specifically provided
4 in the preceding provisions of this subsection, con-
5 sideration of a bill or joint resolution under this sec-
6 tion shall be governed by the Rules of the House of
7 Representatives.
8 "(4) (A) A motion in the Senate to proceed to
9 the consideration of a bill or joint resolution under
10 this section shall be privileged and not debatable. An
11 amendment to the motion shall not be in order, nor
12 shall it be in order to move to reconsider the vote
13 by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
14 "(B) Debate in the Senate on a bill or joint res-
15 olution under this section, and all debatable motions
16 and appeals in connection thercAvith, shall not exceed
17 10 hours. The time shall be equally divided between,
18 and controlled by, the majority leader and the mi-
19 nority leader or their designees.
20 "(C) Debate in the Senate on any debatable
21 motion or appeal in connection \\ith a bill or joint
22 resolution under this section shall be limited to not
23 more than 1 hour, to be equally diAnded bet\veen,
24 and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the
25 bill or joint resolution, except that in the event the
•S 437 IS
365
8
1 manager of the bill or joint resolution is in favor of
2 any such motion or appeal, the time in opposition
3 thereto, shall be controlled by the minority leader or
4 his designee. Such leaders, or either of them, may,
5 from time under their control on the passage of a
6 bill or joint resolution, allot additional time to any
7 Senator during the consideration of any debatable
8 motion or appeal.
9 "(D) A motion in the Senate to further limit
10 debate on a bill or joint resolution under this section
1 1 is not debatable. A motion to recommit a bill or joint
12 resolution under this section is not in order.
13 "(d) Amendments Prohibited. — No amendment to
14 a bill or joint resolution considered under this section shall
15 be in order in either the House of Representatives or the
16 Senate. No motion to suspend the application of this sub-
17 section shall be in order in either House, nor shall it be
18 in order in either House to suspend the application of this
19 subsection bv unanimous consent.
20 "(e) Definitions. — For purposes of this section —
21 "(1) the term 'appropriation Act' means any
22 general or special appropriation Act, and any Act or
23 joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, or
24 continuing appropriations; and
•S 437 IS
366
9
1 "(2) continuity of a session of either House of
2 Congress shall be considered as broken only by an
3 adjournment of that House sine die, and the days on
4 which that House is not in session because of an ad-
5 joumment of more than 3 daj's to a date certain
6 shall be excluded in the computation of any period.".
7 (b) Exercise of RuLEMAiaNG Powers. — Section
8 904 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is amended — >
9 (1) by striking "and 1017" in subsection (a)
10 and inserting "1013, and 1018"; and
11 (2) by striking "section 1017" in subsection (d)
12 and inserting "sections 1013 and 1018"; and
13 (c) CONFOR^nxG A^iendments. —
14 (1) Section 1011 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 682(5))
15 is amended —
16 (A) in paragraph (4), by striking "1013"
17 and inserting "1014"; and
18 (B) in paragraph (5) —
19 (i) by striking "1016" and inserting
20 "1017"; and
21 (ii) by striking "1017(b)(1)" and in-
22 serting "1018(b)(1)".
23 (2) Section 1015 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 685)
24 (as redesignated by section 2(a)) is amended —
•S 437 IS
1
367
10
(A) by striking "1012 or 1013" each place
2 it appears and inserting "1012, 1013. or
3 1014";
4 (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking
5 "1012" and inserting "1012 or 1013";
6 (C) in subsection (b)(2), by striking
7 "1013" and inserting "1014"; and
8 (D) in subsection (e)(2) —
9 (i) by stinking "and" at the end of
10 subparagraph (A);
11 (ii) by redesignating subparagraph
12 (B) as subparagraph (C);
13 (iii) by striking "1013" in subpara-
14 graph (C) (as so redesignated) and insert-
15 ing"1014"; and
16 (iv) b}^ inserting after subparagraph
17 (A) the follo\nng new subparagraph:
18 "(B) he has transmitted a special message
19 under section 1013 nith respect to a proposed
20 rescission; and".
21 (3) Section 1016 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 686)
22 (as redesignated by section 2(a)) is amended by
23 striking "1012 or 1013" each place it appears and
24 inserting "1012, 1013, or 1014".
•8 437 IS
368
11
1 (d) Clerical Amendments. — The table of sections
2 for subpart B of title X of such Act is amended —
3 (1) by redesignating the items relating to sec-
4 tions 1013 through 1017 as items relating to sec-
5 tions 1014 through 1018; and
6 (2) by inserting after the item relating to sec-
7 tion 1012 the follo\\'ing new item:
"Sec. 1013. Expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions.".
•S 437 IS
369
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read
the first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as
indicated:
By Mr. KRUEGER:
S. 437. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget and Impound-
ment Control Act of 1974 to establish procedures for the expedited
consideration by the Congress of certain proposals by the President
to rescind amounts of budget authority; to the Committee on the
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursu-
ant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one
Committee reports, the other Committee has thirty days to report
or be discharged.
Federal GtOvernment Legislation
Mr. KRUEGER. Mr. President, I am today introducing two bills,
one that I would call the Federal Efficiency Improvement Act of
1993 and the other one to expedite consideration of proposed rescis-
sions.
I am introducing this legislation, Mr. President, because it seems
to me that this Nation is facing a time of loss of confidence in Gov-
ernment itself and in its efficiency in a time in which our own
budgetary pressures are perhaps unrivaled in recent years.
This is going to be, in my judgement, one of the most crucial leg-
islative sessions since the New Deal itself. Our task is not simply
to restore fiscal discipline to our Grovemment, but our task is to
help restore confidence in the American people themselves that we
are capable of dealing with very large and complex financial prob-
lems.
All over America, people are looking at business and saying,
business must become leaner, it must become more streamlined,
business has to become increasingly a high-quality, low-cost pro-
ducer. At this point, people are still inclined to feel that Govern-
ment itself is high cost, low quality, the opposite side of what they
are aspiring to.
Our President has indicated his willingness to address some very
tough fiscal questions, and he is also recognizing the need, as we
are in this body, to try to down size our own activities to make
them more prudent, more fiscally responsible.
To help carry out this mandate, I am introducing the Federal Ef-
ficiency Improvement Act that would allow for the appointment of
a special assistant to the President who would be empowered to
conduct a total performance audit of every Federal department, in-
cluding in fact the General Accounting Office itself. This special as-
sistant would independently manage a tough minded staff of 200
existing Federal employees, chosen for their prior experience with
Federal programs.
In many cases, the p>eople who best understand how to make
Government more efficient are the people who are front-line em-
ployees but sometimes are caught in circumstances in which there
are very few rewards for efficiency. In Government, there is so
often a tendency to reward spending rather than saving. If we look
at the many currently successful businesses in our country, compa-
370
nies like WalMart, there are companies that reward savings inside
the company rather than simply spending. A reward system that
would encourage the same thing of our Federal employees would,
I think, tap a reservoir of knowledge, experience, and capacity that
currently we are not tapping.
This audit team's main function would be to study the Federal
Government by function and not merely by agency. By concentrat-
ing on function, the audit team would be able to more effectively,
highlight wastefulness and inefficiency within Government agen-
cies.
I think it important as well that the audit team's responsibilities
go beyond simply identifying misused resources. I would expect it
to make recommendations for improving the effectiveness and qual-
ity of G<)vernment services, to suggest ways in which operations
could perhaps be restructured in order to bring about long-term
savings, to rationalize govemmentwide activities like procurement
and personnel and to try to establish incentives for bringing in re-
turns that were, in fact, under budget.
I think many of these recommendations could come from front-
line Grovemment employees. Others might come from people
brought in to assist not sort of high-powered consultants or aca-
demic types but entrepreneurs who have experience on how to
make companies run more efficiently.
Within 6 months of the bill's passage the audit team would be
required to submit a detailed set of findings and recommendations
to the President including specific rescissions of budgetary author-
ity and proposals for legislation to implement the recommenda-
tions. Within 60 days of submission of this report, the President
would be obliged to identify all rescissions of budget authority that
he deems necessary to implement the team's recommendations.
I make this suggestion in part because of the experience in my
own State of Texas. There, State comptroller John Sharp conducted
such performance audits and in 1991, these performance audits
rendered a savings of $2.4 billion out of a $30 billion budget; in
other words, there was a savings of about 12 percent. If a savings
of comparable sort might be found in the Federal Grovernment, it
would be $150 billion in the first year.
I am not expecting anything of that sort. But the important thing
is I think we direct ourselves toward the task of saving rather than
spending and that we direct ourselves toward creating a Govern-
ment again deserving of the people's trust.
The American people are fully willing to sacrifice but they are
willing to sacrifice for what they believe are worthy ends. If we
think of the stores with which we do business, the stores with
which we do business were providing services for which we were
not fully satisfied, then for those stores to raise the prices would
be simply unacceptable. I think that is the challenge we face right
now. To ask the American people to put in more taxes at a time
they do not feel their taxes are being well spent is to ask them for
something to which they will not readily respond. It seems to me
first we must make Grovemment sacrifice before we ask the Amer-
ican people to sacrifice further.
Therefore, the legislation that I am introducing today provides
for expedited rescission of wasteful Grovemment spending by the
371
President and the rescission authority would allow the President
more quickly to eliminate inefficiencies in Grovemment operations
such as those that were to be identified by these Federal audit
teams.
Both the bills that I am introducing today will address the criti-
cally important aspect of our obligation to the American taxpayer,
efficient and exemplary operation of the Federal Government. I
know that people in both Houses are proposing various ways to
eliminate wasteful Government spending. I am. certain that during
the course of this year we will have many suggestions and that
there will be fruitful ways to improve upon the legislation I am in-
troducing.
But I think it immensely important we convey to one another
and to the American people that we recognize their concern for how
we as stewards are spending their money. I think that this aspect
of stewardship is one which will be benefited by having perform-
ance audits which will allow us to identify what it is we are doing
in Grovemment with these resources which have been entrusted to
us.
I therefore look forward to seeking further support from my col-
leagues and to having this legislation considered by this body, be-
cause I am convinced that the American people beUeve it is indeed
a time ready for change and a time that is crucial in the very eco-
nomic and fiscal development of this country.
So I am pleased to be able to introduce this legislation and will
seek to bring forward the bills soon.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bills will be received and ap-
propriately referred.
372
April 1, 1993
[From the Congressional Record pages S4270-4273]
103d congress
1st Session
S.690
To amend the Congressional Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974
to estabUsh procedures for the expedited consideration by the Congress
of certain proposals by the President to rescind amounts of budget
authority.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 1 (legislative day, March 3), 1993
Mr. Craig (for himself, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Kempthornt:) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the
order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on the Budget and Govern-
mental Affairs, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other
Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged.
A BILL
To amend the Congressional Budget Control and Impound-
ment Act of 1974 to establish procedures for the expe-
dited consideration by the Congress of certain proposals
by the President to rescind amounts of budget authority,
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "Modified Line Item
5 Veto/Expedited Rescissions Act of 1993".
373
2
1 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PRO-
2 POSED RESCISSIONS.
3 (a) In General.— Part B of title X of the Congres-
4 sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2
5 U.S.C. 681et seq.) is amended by redesignating sections