majority in support of this significant budgetary procedural reform.
I challenge Republicans to rise above partisanship sind obstruction-
ist tactics to enact a proposal that they themselves have for years
been calling for. I hope they won't block this just for the sake of
making the Democrats look bad, or because they don't want to give
a Democratic President any support. That's just the same kind of
gridlock that people are saying they won't tolerate anymore.
True, Stenholm-Spratt is a compromise proposal. But it's some-
thing that will work, and it's within reach. Like many of the Re-
publicans, I have stood for a much stronger line-item veto and I
will vote for the Castle-Solomon amendment. But that proposal is
not likely to be enacted any time soon, while the modified line-item
veto has a real chance of passing. And the truth is, with some divi-
sion in the Democratic ranks, we need courageous Republicans to
cross party lines in the interest of breaking the gridlock.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposi-
tion to H.R. 1578, the Expedited Rescissions Act. H.R. 1578 was
supposedly crafted to reduce our $319 billion deficit while still
maintaining the balance of power between the executive and legis-
lative branches of this Grovemment. Unfortunately, it fails to
achieve either of its goals.
The rescission authority that H.R. 1578 seeks to expedite already
exists and has been regularly exercised by the President as well as
Congress since it became law in 1974. In fact, under the last ad-
ministration. President Bush requested $7.9 million in rescissions
and Congress enacted a total of $8.2 million in rescission savings.
During the 19-year history of the rescission authority, Congress
has used this budget-reduction tool to either approve or initiate a
total of $86.5 billion in savings.
Considering that H.R. 1578 simply expedites a budget rescission
authority that already exists and is used successfully, the effect
that this legislation is likely to have on the deficit or our $4 trillion
debt is limited. We therefore need to seriously consider the risk
that this bill poses to the carefully established balance between the
White House and Congress and question the worth of that risk. For
me, the minimal benefits of an expedited rescission authority sim-
ply do not outweigh the magnitude of altering the relationship be-
tween the executive and legislative branches. I am compelled to op-
pose this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me and vote
against H.R. 1578.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to H.R. 1578, the Expedited Rescissions Act. This legis-
lation is not only unwise and unsound policy, but more impor-
tantly, it is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Let me take a moment to discuss a little history for some of the
junior Members of the House. As you may know, the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which created the
583
Budget Committee and the entire budget process, established a
procedure for the President to suggest to Congress proposed rescis-
sions at any time throughout the year. The act, recognizing that
the Constitution grants the power of the purse to the Congress,
specified that if the House and Senate have not approved a pro-
posed rescission within 45 days of its submission, the funds are
automatically released.
The existing rescission procedures have worked very well. In fact,
and this may shock some Members on the other side of the aisle,
Congress has rescinded $17 billion more than the President has re-
quested be rescinded since the passage of the Budget Impoundment
Control Act of 1974.
The Expedited Rescissions Act would temporarily establish a new
process for consideration of presidential rescission proposals by
Congress. This bill seems simple enough on the surface — the House
of Representatives must vote within 10 days on proposals submit-
ted by the President to rescind appropriations. More specifically,
the House must vote on the President's proposal, without amend-
ment, and the rescissions would go into effect upon approval by
both Houses of Congress.
The Expedited Rescissions Act, however, would have the effect of
transferring power from the legislative branch to the executive
branch, without benefit of constitutional amendment, and weaken-
ing Congress' inherent constitutional power of the purse. In effect,
H.R. 1578 would grant the President added power to write appro-
priations bills because, using the veto threat, he could insist on re-
scissions of various congressional proposals before the bill even
reached him. Another important point is that this enhanced rescis-
sion process would not — even remotely — have a major impact on
the deficit, because the legislation does not cover the authorizing
committee's areas of jurisdiction, including contract authority and
tax provisions.
I want to remind my colleagues that the Constitution grants the
President an enormous amount of power. The President, in prac-
tice, already has two opportunities to significantly influence the
spending process, through the submission of an annual budget re-
quest, which is closely followed by the appropriations committees,
and through the power of the veto, which former President Bush
used to his advantage on a number of occasions. The Constitution,
in article I, section 8, mandates that Congress exercise the author-
ity and responsibility of raising revenues and appropriating funds.
Mr. Chairman, serving on the Appropriations Committee is an
arduous, time-consuming, and difficult task. The Appropriations
Committee, and its various subcommittees, spend almost every leg-
islative day, for approximately 3 months of the year, conducting
hearings with executive branch officials, and members of the gen-
eral public, and marking-up the spending bills. There is an enor-
mous amount of responsibility that goes with membership on the
Appropriations Committee, and many hours go into making the
tough, and always unpopular decisions to provide funds for one
Federal program to the exclusion of funds for another worthwhile
program. These decisions are never easy, and in recent years, have
become even more painful. To allow the President to void all this
work, and to reject with impunity the judgment of the elected rep-
584
resentatives sent to Congress by the American people, is terribly
wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot state strongly enough my serious objec-
tions to this legislation. It is unwise policy, an unjust usurpation
of congressional powers, and is in violation of the Constitution. I
strongly urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1578, and re-
ject this enhanced rescissions procedure.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition
to H.R. 1578, the Expedited Rescissions Act. I wholeheartedly
agree that we as a Congress must tackle the problems of the na-
tional debt and the budget deficits, but passing the buck is not the
answer.
While I trust our current President, past Presidents have not al-
ways exercised such good judgement. I am concerned that if this
legislation is passed, important funds may be held hostage by a
President who is searching for support on another project — or a
second-term President who isn't accountable to the public because
he/she will not run again. I believe that these are the concerns that
our founders had in mind when they structured our current politi-
cal system. Mr. Speaker, I believe that no one person should have
so much power over a $1.5 trillion budget.
As we look at ways to reduce the deficit, there is no doubt that
Congress must make difficult choices about where the Federal Gov-
ernment should, and shouldn't, be spending money. I believe that
we must accept these challenges and make those decisions. Passing
the buck is not the answer. Let's put an end to earmarking projects
that aren't making real investments in our future. Let's stop spend-
ing money on projects that haven't undergone review by the au-
thorizing committees. Why are we asking the President to do our
job for us?
As a member of the Budget Committee, I played a role in devel-
oping the budget agreement recently passed by Congress. I am
pleased that this budget fundamentally reorders our Nation's prior-
ities and that it sets strict spending limits for the next 5 years. We
made difficult, but responsible, decisions about where money could
be cut, and I look forward to working with the authorizing and ap-
propriating committees as specific decisions are made.
As a former small business owner, I know first hand the impor-
tance of making critical management and budget decisions that
will benefit a company and its employees. As a member of the
Petaluma City Council, I worked hard with my colleagues to make
decisions about how the city would spend its limited resources.
Never did I run from that responsibility, and I certainly don't plan
to start now.
Let's show the American people that business as usual in Wash-
ington is old news, and that we are going to make the difficult deci-
sions that we were sent here to malce. I urge my colleagues to op-
pose H.R. 1578.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, today we're discussing the rarely
broached topic of true budgetary reform. This is a subject that is
very close to my heart. I am the only Member of the House of Rep-
resentatives to have introduced legislation on enhanced rescission
authority in every Congress since 1985. I remember when myself
and perhaps only one other Member had the only rescission bills
585
in the House. Today it seems everybody has their own version. You
don't know how pleased I am to see not only how my idea has fi-
nally caught on in this body, but that the American people will fi-
nally get to hear debate on this important budget-cutting tool.
Paramount to any talk of budgetary reform has to be a discus-
sion about congressional accountability. Getting a grip on our mas-
sive and increasing Federal budget deficit won't be possible as long
as Congress continues to diffuse blame for our fiscal situation. It
has become a yearly ritual for the Democrats in Congress to shift
the blame onto the shoulders of the executive branch. We'll see if
they continue to do that with a Democrat in the White House. But
nevertheless, this disingenuous practice must end. If we are to be
serious about reform, we must be truthful about Congress' leading
role in the budget mess.
And if you don't think accountability is the problem, just ask the
voters. They just elected the largest freshman class in years. While
the Democrat freshmen have decided to play ball with their leader-
ship. Republican freshmen have been steadfast over the last few
months in pushing for true reform of the way Congress conducts
its business — only to be thwarted at almost every juncture by the
calcified majoritarian Democrats that run this Congress. Americans
feel disenfranchised and ineffectual in the ways of their representa-
tive Grovemment. We need real reform.
Mr. Chairman, the two legislative weapons that would most help
to both check Congress' spending habits and introduce accountabil-
ity for its spending decisions are the constitutional amendment to
balance the Federal budget and an enhanced Presidential budget
rescission authority. Maybe now that we have come to the point
where we are willing to debate enhanced rescission, it is time to
give the balanced budget amendment another look, considering the
close defeat it suffered last summer.
But as I said, I have long advocated a Presidential check on Fed-
eral spending. The fact that the President is now a Democrat
doesn't change my feelings on this one bit. As early as this past
February, I testified before the Joint Committee on the Organiza-
tion of Congress on my enhanced rescission bill, which I reintro-
duced in the 103d Congress as H.R. 666.
As you know, under current law, the President can ask Congress
to rescind funds for which he does not anticipate a need. But re-
scissions expire and funds are released unless both Houses of Con-
gress pass a bill specifically approving the rescissions within 45
days. In short, if Congress simply does nothing, the funds must be
spent. Today's bill is no improvement. H.R. 1578, the Stenholm-
Spratt Expedited Rescission Act, also only requires congressional
approval of the President's rescissions. In fact, the Democrats have
admitted that this bill is unenforceable, as the process it estab-
lishes would be subject to the same occurrence of being waived,
suspended, altered, or otherwise circumvented by the Rules Com-
mittee as current law. It is meant only as a strong suggestion from
the President to appropriators to find deeper cuts, and is powerless
as a budget-cutting tool.
H.R. 24, the Castle-Solomon Republican substitute, on the other
hand, closely resembles my own bill on rescission authority,
amending the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide that
586
any rescission of budget authority proposed by the President would
take effect unless specifically disapproved by the adoption of a con-
gressional joint resolution within 20 legislative days. The President
would then have 10 legislative days to sign this resolution. Thus,
if the Congress refused to act on a Presidential rescission request,
for whatever reason, the designated funds would not be spent. This
fair, but tough budget-cutting measure is referred to, curiously, by
some of my Democrat colleagues as an unwarranted intrusion into
the affairs of the legislative branch.
The Castle-Solomon substitute would simply reverse the bias in
the current system away from spending money and toward saving
it. It requires Congress to act to disapprove rescission, in accord-
ance with the legislative process, rather than rejecting savings by
inaction. This is very similar to the original House-passed Im-
poundment Control Act, which permitted Presidential rescissions
unless one legislative Chamber terminated the impoundment with-
in a 60-day period. Castle-Solomon merely shortens the disapproval
period to 20 days and corrects, as does my own bill, the constitu-
tional problems arising from the Supreme Court's Chadha decision,
which addressed the constitutionality of the legislative veto.
This is the most important benefit enhanced rescission has over
a straight line-item veto approach — it addresses the legitimate con-
stitutional questions involved. In fact, according to the Library of
Congress, enhanced rescission on this model — indeed, the Dornan
model — is constitutional and conforms to Supreme Court doctrine
on the legislative veto. The lack of such a constitutional clean bill
of health is specifically why I have not cosponsored line-item veto
legislation.
Enhanced rescission authority will be more effective in getting at
Government waste. It may be an obvious point, but for the line-
item veto to work there has to be a line item to veto. But as you
and I know, Mr. Chairman, the specific items that would most like-
ly be targets of the line-item veto are never found in individual ap-
propriations bills, but in conference reports. The only way around
this problem is to insert the conference reports in the appropria-
tions bills — and I think we can safely assume that this is unlikely.
On the other hand, to propose a rescission, the President must sub-
mit one or more rescission messages to Congress, specifying the
amount of budget authority he wishes to cut, the account, agency,
functions, and programs affected, the reasons for the rescission,
and the overall effect. In short, the President would have more
flexibility.
Mr. Chairman, there is a clear need to bring balance into the
budget process by giving the President a greater role. Impound-
ments of one sort or another have been used to good effect by Presi-
dents since the Jefferson administration to control Government
spending. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all used
their impoundment power to control Government spending. And in
1966, President Johnson impounded $5.3 billion to offset costs asso-
ciated with the Vietnam war.
But with the passage of the Impoundment Act in 1974 — a gut re-
action on the part of Congress against former President Nixon and
then President Ford — which took away the executive branch's im-
poundment power and set up the current rescission process, there
587
has been a steady trend away from approving any Presidential re-
scission. Since 1974, Congress has constantly ignored Presidential
rescission requests. Political pressure forced Congress to act last
year on the President's $7.9 billion rescission request, but the $8.2
billion that Congress rescinded was an aberration. Before that,
Congress had accepted only $402 million, or 1.2 percent, of the
$33.4 billion in Presidential rescissions requested since 1983.
Clearly some sort of impoundment authority for the President is in
order. Despite his presiding over the largest budget in the world,
the President has less control than any corporate CEO or the Gov-
ernor in any of 43 States. Enhanced rescission authority would
allow the President to have the same power a CEO has to ask his
board of directors, in this case Congress, "Is this specific expendi-
ture really necessary?"
Some opponents of enhanced rescission point to the GAO com-
parison of Presidential rescission requests and congressional action
on rescissions which appears to show that Congress actually re-
scinded more money than the President requested from 1981
through February 1992. But GAO's formula includes, among other
questionable entries, money Congress i*escinded that could not
have been spent. For example, if Congress appropriated $100 mil-
lion to build an airport, and the airport only cost $80 million to
build, that would leave $20 million that could be spent for no other
purpose. The GAO says that Congress rescinding that $20 million
so it could be spent elsewhere is a legitimate rescission. Tech-
nically, that may be a rescission, but it doesn't save any money.
Enhancing the President's rescission authority addresses one of
the major problems with the modem Congress — its tendency to cir-
cumvent the democratic process, especially when appropriating. We
spend money on projects that have never been authorized or even
the subject of a hearing in an authorization committee. Appropria-
tions that never appeared in a bill are added in conference. Appro-
priations with no meaningful relationship to the underlying bill are
added in the dead of night. We hastily pass catch-all appropriations
or continuing resolutions. It is only natural that a Member has a
strong preference to see funds directed to his or her constituency —
some more so than others, I am sure. But the sum of all the nu-
merous favors and deals of 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators can
work against our Nation's overall interest.
The President being elected by all of the people, has a better vi-
sion of what is good for the Nation as a whole. When these two vi-
sions collide, I believe the Nation's needs must come first and that
the President, whether Democrat or Republican, is in the best posi-
tion to make that determination. And somewhere along the way,
the Congress should be required to speak on these issues.
It is important to note that I am under no illusion that enhanced
rescission will solve the deficit crisis and bring the budget into bal-
ance. It would likely apply to only a small part of the budget and
realistically we could only expect savings of maybe several billion
dollars a year. Indeed, a GAO study stated that if Presidents Bush
and Reagan had had the line-item veto from 1984 to 1989, savings
would have been at least $70 billion, and given the generous as-
sumptions used by GAO, actual amounts would probably have been
far lower. But this is not to say that I belittle saving the taxpayers
588
several billion dollars a year. I am one of those few here, Mr.
Chairman, who still thinks a billion dollars is a lot of money. But
it will take a lot more than that to balance the budget. What it will
take to dig us out of our budget hole is a combination of reforms,
including a balanced budget amendment with a tax limitation fea-
ture, a flexible spending freeze, budgetary process reform, and enti-
tlement reform.
Some might say that an enhanced rescission authority would
make Congress even less responsible. I have heard a few Demo-
crats who oppose this change argue the truly cynical point that en-
hanced rescission authority would actually increase the deficit by
giving Congress the incentive to present larger budgets to protect
against the Presidential power to rescind. Mr. Chairman, this is
truly an insightful look at what many of the House's majoritarian
Democrats view as their role in our representative Grovemment —
big spenders of pork. But we have had almost 200 years of experi-
ence with Presidential impoundment and did not experience such
problems. A 1987-88 study on the line-item veto at the State level
concluded that expenditures were lower in those States with the
line-item veto. Those 10 States that have special line-item author-
ity, which allows a Governor to reduce dollar amounts rather than
zeroing an appropriation out completely — enhanced rescission
would allow for this — saw spending average 14 percent lower than
in the States with no line-item veto authority.
Mr. Chairman, it is paramount that we adopt a Presidential
check on spending to restore accountability to the spending process.
And if we get some spending relief in the process, then so much
the better. We have created a culture of perpetually increasing
spending. We need to rein it in.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that we, as a body, have not done
enough to deal with out Nation's mounting budget deficit. Our true
crisis is the uncontrolled propensity to spend and waste Federal
tax dollars. Unless we are willing to hold ourselves accountable for
our own actions, and remain accountable to the American people,
we will be shirking our constitutional duty to secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, meaning our children and
our grandchildren. Mr. Chairman, you may know that I have re-
cently helped to establish a grandparents caucus here in the House
as a reminder to those of us who have grandchildren exactly why
we fight so hard in this body on the various issues we face. As a
Member of Congress, I do not want my legacy to my grandchildren
to be irreconcilable debt and an entrenched, unresponsive political
bureaucracy. It is bad enough that Congress systematically at-
tempts to erode the moral underpinnings of our legal code. Mr.
Chairman, we must leave our grandchildren more than a bill.
Accountability should be the order of our reform. By destroying
our competitiveness and cheapening the legacy we leave to future
generations, we prove ourselves ineffective, and more disturbingly,
possibly incompetent in dealing with the true problems of our Na-
tion. We must return our Federal Government to the citizens of
this country, and place it back on a track of fiscal responsibility.
The decisions we make will profoundly influence the way Congress
conducts its business in the coming century. True reform is not
merely for the sake of change. Change, as envisioned by our Presi-
589
dent is not what is needed. Rather, a fundamental reorganization
of Congress' role in governing the Nation is in order. I, for one, am
proud of my own role in this process, and I am pleased to finally
see my colleagues climb aboard a good idea.
Mr. Chairman, it is for these reasons that I urge my fellow mem-
bers to support the Castle-Solomon substitute on enhanced rescis-
sion authority, and institute real reform of the budget process. I
also urge my colleagues to support the Michel amendment, which
would apply the same principle to the various tax breaks that the
Congress likes to dole out to their favorite special interests. We
need both these reforms if we are to finally bring some accountabil-
ity back to the process.
Vote "yes" on Castle-Solomon and "yes" on Michel. If they fail,
vote "no" on Stenholm-Spratt.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairmgin, today, the House considered
House Resolution 149, the rule for the consideration of H.R. 1578,
legislation to provide expedited rescission authority for the Presi-
dent.
The Rules and Government Operations Committees have worked
together for some time to bring to the floor, legislation to permit
the expedited consideration of Presidential rescissions. The Rules
Committee is to be commended for their fine work in crafting a