beginning of the One Hundred Fourth Congress, the President may
retransmit a special message, in the manner provided in section
1013(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act
of 1974 (as added by section 2), proposing to rescind only those
amounts of budget authority that were contained in any special
message to the One Hundred Third Congress which that Congress
failed to consider because of its sine die adjournment before the
close of the time period set forth in such section 1013 for consider-
ation of those proposed rescissions. A draft bill shall accompany
that special message that, if enacted, would only rescind that budg-
et authority. Before the close of the second legislative day of the
House of Representatives after the date of receipt of that special
message, the majority leader or minority leader of the House of
Representatives shall introduce (by request) the draft bill accom-
panying that special message. If the bill is not introduced as pro-
vided in the preceding sentence, then, on the third legislative day
of the House of Representatives after the date of receipt of that
special message, any Member of that House may introduce the bill.
The House of Representatives and the Senate shall proceed to con-
sider that bill in the manner provided in such section 1013.
SEC. 4. TERMINATION.
The authority provided by section 1013 of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as added by section
2) shall terminate 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Expedited Review. —
(1) Any Member of Congress may bring an action, in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on the ground that
any provision of section 1013 (as added by section 2) violates
(2) A copy of any complaint in an action brought under para-
graph (1) shall be promptly delivered to the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and
each House of Congress shall have the right to intervene in
(3) Any action brought under paragraph (1) shall be heard
and determined by a three-judge court in accordance with sec-
tion 2284 of title 28, United States Code.
Nothing in this section or in any other law shall infringe upon the
right of the House of Representatives to intervene in an action
brought under paragraph (1) without the necessity of adopting a
resolution to authorize such intervention.
(b) Appeal to Supreme Court. — Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, any order of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia which is issued pursuant to an action brought
under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be reviewable by appeal
directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such ap-
peal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10 days after
such order is entered; and the jurisdictional statement shall be
filed within 30 days after such order is entered. No stay of an order
issued pursuant to an action brought under paragraph (1) of sub-
section (a) shall be issued by a single Justice of the Supreme Court.
(c) Expedited Consideration. — It shall be the duty of the Dis-
trict Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of
the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the
greatest possible extent the disposition of any matter brought
under subsection (a).
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except the
amendments printed in House Report 103-565, which may be of-
fered only in the order printed and by the Member designated in
the report, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to
amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be sub-
ject to a demand for division of the question.
Debate on each amendment will be equally divided and con-
trolled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
amendment offered by MR. DERRICK
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DERRICK: Page 10, line 17, insert ",
unless the House has passed the text of the President's bill trans-
mitted with that special message and the Senate passes an amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute reported by its Committee on
Appropriations" before the period.
Page 11, line 21, insert 'Wd by striking '1012 and 1013' and in-
serting '1012, 1013, and 1014'" before the semicolon.
Page 12, line 1, strike "(2)" and insert "(1)".
Page 14, strike lines 7 through 11 and on line 12, strike "5" and
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
South Carolina will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member op-
posed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Mr. DERRICK Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 90 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, this technicsd amendment would make three
clarifications and corrections to the bill. First, the amendment
would clarify that the funds proposed to be rescinded remain un-
available for obligation so long as approval legislation remains via-
ble. Under the bill as reported, funds would be released after Sen-
ate i ejection of the President's rescission bill even if the Senate in-
stead passed an alternative measure.
Second, the amendment corrects two simple drafting errors in
the conforming amendments subsection.
Finally, the amendment deletes section 4 of the bill, which con-
flicts with subsection 3(a), to clarify that the new procedure applies
only to budget authority enacted during the 103d Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I know of no objection to this amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would not seek time in opposi-
tion, but I would ask if the gentleman will yield to me for a ques-
Mr. DERRICK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the technical amendment we are
about to vote on is the amendment that is printed in the RECORD
and has not been changed in any way? Is that correct?
Mr. DERRICK. That is correct.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, we certainly have no objection.
We would support that amendment.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3V2 minutes, the balance
of my time, to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DURBIN].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, we will hear many speeches during
the course of this afternoon about the determination of Members of
Congress to cut spending and to reduce the budget deficit. In order
that this be kept in perspective, I think we should recall that many
of the Democrats who spoke, and all of the Republicans who will
speak, voted against President Clinton's effort to reduce the deficit
with his budget deficit reduction plan of last year. That plan has
resulted in the greatest reduction in the Federal deficit that we
have seen at any time since the tenure of President Truman. It is
anticipated that we will cut almost $700 billion from that deficit.
It must strike many people listening as curious that we find our-
selves wrapped in this conversation and dialog about budget deficit
reduction, and yet when it came down to an actual vote to reduce
the deficit, so many of the Members who stand here proclaiming
their personal allegiance to deficit reduction were nowhere to be
But let me give you another example closer to home. June 17, al-
most a month ago, I brought to this floor an appropriation bill, the
gentleman can probably recall, for the agencies of the Department
of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and several related
agencies. This bill reflected what we will see for years to come, be-
cause of the Clinton deficit reduction plan, a dramatic cut in spend-
Let me tell you specifically what I am sa5ang: Of the $13 billion
in discretionary spending in that bill in last year's appropriation,
our subcommittee was forced to cut 10 percent, $1.3 billion. Anyone
running a business or managing an agency of Government can tell
you that a cut in an appropriation of 10 percent in 1 year is a
tough cut. It goes way beyond any cosmetic cut. It is a cut that is
part of real deficit reduction.
What I found curious, as a Democrat, when I brought this bill
to the floor, was a Member of the Republican side circulated a let-
ter saying these cuts were too deep, that Members on his side of
the aisle should vote against my appropriation because we cut too
much from programs that he favored, in fact, programs I favored
But it is part of the harsh reality of real deficit reduction that
we have to face these things. If we are going to reduce the deficit,
we must reduce spending.
When that bill was called for final passage, 127 Members of this
House of Representatives voted against my bill which cut 10 per-
cent in discretionary spending, cut $1.3 billion from last year's bill,
and if you take a look at the 127 Members of the House who voted
against my bill, a real budget, guess what, 120 of these are people
who have walked up here and ceremoniously signed the A to Z pe-
tition saying they want to really cut spending. They would not cut
it when I called my bill.
One hundred twenty-two of them are balanced-budget amend-
ment sponsors, people who wear the bumper stickers and make the
speeches at home about balancing budgets and come here to the
floor and refuse to vote for an appropriation bill that really cuts
One hundred fifteen of them voted for the Kasich budget plan
which would have cut even more for agriculture, and yet the Ka-
sich plan was a theory.
The bill I called up was a fact. But what I am saying to the
Members of the House and all those who are listening is that the
real test of cutting a budget is whether you will vote for an appro-
priation bill that cuts spending. When it came to the time for that
test, a lot of the people making the greatest speeches today failed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). Does any
Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would rise in opposition, re-
serving the right to change my mind.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to a member of the Committee on Agri-
culture, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
Mr. GUNDERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that everyone understand
exactly the misrepresentation which just occurred about the vote
on the agriculture appropriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot help it if the 602(b) allocation that Mr.
DURBIN was able to get for his agriculture appropriation was less
than he wanted. Everybody knows it was not reflective of the budg-
et agreement per se. No. 1. No. 2, the reason we all voted and led
the fight against the agriculture appropriation, as he well knows,
is because it cut funding for production agriculture at the very
same time it increased funding for the social programs. That was
the fight. There was no money in there for crop insurance, he
knows that; there was an 18-percent drop in the Commodity Credit
Corporation farm support program.
Now, what the fight about the agriculture appropriation bill was
the allocation of the money as it occurred. Many of us are happy
to take the bottom-line cuts, but if we are going to take the bottom-
line cuts, we are not going to increase food stamps, WIC, all those
programs, while we cut agriculture, which is the whole purpose of
the agriculture appropriation bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will take
some exception to what the gentleman has said. He has been criti-
cal of Members who have taken to the well and supported either
the Stenholm approach or the Solomon approach. All of those Mem-
bers have the highest ratings by the National Taxpayers Union
year in and year out. That is how people tell whether we are a big
spender or not.
When it comes to deficit reduction and the President's plan, yes,
those of us who voted against it did so because it was the biggest
tax increase in the history of this entire Congress. It took $120 mil-
lion out of the pockets of the Social Security recipients in my dis-
trict alone. So, yes, I offered a balginced budget amendment; Mr.
Penny and a lot of others voted for that balsinced budget. It was
not an amendment, it was a true balanced budget scored by the
Congressional Budget Office. That is what we ought to be support-
ing on this floor. That is real deficit reduction.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend on the Committee on Appro-
priations, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for jdelding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman's remarks and rise
in support of the Solomon amendment, which will be considered
Mr. Chairman, for weeks we have been anticipating this day, a
day which the Democratic leadership would have preferred to
avoid. Why? Because their hand has been forced to respond to the
drive to 218 — the all important milestone in the discharge petition
We have watched the Democratic leadership pursue a torturous
path in an attempt to derail the A-to-Z spending cut plan be-
cause — simply put — it knocks holes in their ability to control the
agenda and the purse strings of the Federal Government. And just
look at where it has gotten us today.
Even more astounding is what the Democratic leadership has
proposed as a substitute to A to Z to provide cover for those who
have not signed the discharge petition. H.R. 4600, offered up as the
tough budget lion, is nothing but a sacrificisd lamb. H.R. 4600 is
nothing more than recycled budget process reform. It is a sham and
the American public has seen through this ploy.
Instead of a bill that would allow for 56 hours of debate on spe-
cific spending cuts that would be directed toward deficit reduction,
we have H.R. 4600. Recall that H.R. 4600 came before the House
a year ago. It was touted to be a tough new approach to the budget
process. It would enhance the current rescission authority. Yet
even then it did not enhance. And its toughness could not measure
up against a true-line item veto. It is recycled. It is a sham.
Unlike a real line-item veto, which will be offered as a substitute
amendment later in the debate, and allows the president to cancel
wasteful spending items, subject to override by two-thirds of both
Houses, H.R. 4600 requires that a majority of both Houses approve
any veto of appropriations items. In other words, a majority of ei-
ther House can block the President's proposed spending cuts by
doing nothing. And there are no penalties or disincentives for inac-
tion. The only change to last year's bill is a stepped-up timetable
for consideration. There is no question, the Solomon substitute is
the real line-item veto which I will throw my support behind today.
Fortunately, there is still another option available to us today to
show the America people we won't be fooled by the H.R. 4600 tac-
tic. The Stenholm-Penny-Kasich amendment has been crafted to
strengthen the recycled H.R. 4600.
The objectives of this amendment are the same as the A-to-Z
spending cut plan — to provide opportunities for Congress to vote on
The Stenholm-Penny-Kasich amendment provides the President
the authority to designate some portion of the savings from a re-
scission or repealing targeted tax benefits to a deficit reduction ac-
count. It would expand rescission authority to targeted tax benefits
as well as appropriations. The President could use expedited rescis-
sion authority any time — not just during a narrow window of op-
portunity. And the amendment makes it permanent not just during
the 103d Congress.
Let us not let the opportunity to support tough budget reform
slip away again. Support the Stenholm-Penny-I^sich amendment
to H.R. 4600. And support the Solomon substitute which would pro-
vide real line-item veto authority.
It will not solve all our fiscal problems, but it will help— if the
improvements are real — and these are.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully yield back the bal-
ance of my time and indicate that I have changed my mind. I am
going to support the technicsd amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 2, printed in House Report 103-565.
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as fol-
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. STEN-
HOLM: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED RE-
SCISSIONS AND TARGETED TAX BENEFITS.
(a) In General. — Section 1012 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 683) is amended to
read as follows:
"EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED RESCISSIONS
"Sec. 1012. (a) Proposed Rescission of Budget Authority or
Repeal of Targeted Tax Benefits. — ^The President may propose,
at the time and in the manner provided in subsection (b), the re-
scission of any budget authority provided in an appropriation Act
or repeal of any targeted tax benefit provided in any revenue Act.
Funds made available for obligation under this procedure may not
be proposed for rescission again under this section.
"(b) Transmittal of Special Message. —
"(1) The President may transmit to Congress a special mes-
sage proposing to rescind amounts of budget authority or to re-
peal any targeted tax benefit and include with that special
message a draft bill that, if enacted, would only rescind that
budget authority or repead that targeted tax benefit. That bill
shall clearly identify the amount of budget authority that is
proposed to be rescinded for each program, project, or activity
to which that budget authority relates or the targeted tax ben-
efit proposed to be repealed, as the case may be. It shall in-
clude a Deficit Reduction Account. The President may place in
the Deficit Reduction Account an amount not to exceed the
total rescissions in that bill. A targeted tax benefit may only
be proposed to be repealed under this section during the 20-
calendar-day period (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays) commencing on the day after the date of enactment
of the provision proposed to be repealed.
"(2) In the case of an appropriation Act that includes ac-
counts within the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee
of the Committee on Appropriations, the President in propos-
ing to rescind budget authority under this section shall send
a separate special message and accompanying draft bill for ac-
counts within the jurisdiction of each such subcommittee.
"(3) Each special message shall specify, with respect to the
budget authority proposed to be rescinded, the following —
"(A) the amount of budget authority which he proposes
to be rescinded;
"(B) any account, department, or establishment of the
Grovemment to which such budget authority is available
for obligation, and the specific project or governmental
"(C) the reasons why the budget authority should be re-
"(D) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated
fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect
on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed
"(E) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating
to or bearing upon the proposed rescission and the decision
to effect the proposed rescission, and to the maximum ex-
tent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed re-
scission upon the objects, purposes, and programs for
which the budget authority is provided.
"Each special message shall specify, with respect to the proposed
repeal of targeted tax benefits, the information required by sub-
paragraphs (C), (D), and (E), as it relates to the proposed repeal.
"(c) Procedures for Expedited Consideration.—
"(1)(A) Before the close of the second legislative day of the
House of Representatives after the date of receipt of a special
message transmitted to Congress under subsection (b), the ma-
jority leader or minority leader of the House of Representatives
shall introduce (by request) the draft bill accompanying that
special message. If the bill is not introduced as provided in the
preceding sentence, then, on the third legislative day of the
House of Representatives after the date of receipt of that spe-
cial message, any Member of that House may introduce the
"(B) The bill shall be referred to the Committee on Appro-
priations or the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives, as applicable. The committee shall report
the bill without substantive revision and with or without rec-
ommendation. The bill shall be reported not later than the sev-
enth legislative day of that House after the date of receipt of
that special message. If that committee fails to report the bill
within that period, that committee shall be automatically dis-
charged from consideration of the bill, and the bill shall be
placed on the appropriate calendar.
"(C)(i) During consideration under this paragraph, any Mem-
ber of the House of Representatives may move to strike any
proposed rescission or rescissions of budget authority or any
proposed repeal of a targeted tax benefit, as applicable, if sup-
ported by 49 other Members.
"(ii) It shall not be in order for a Member of the House of
Representatives to move to strike any proposed rescission
under clause (i) unless the amendment reduces the appropriate
Deficit Reduction Account if the program, project, or account to
which the proposed rescission applies was identified in the Def-
icit Reduction Account in the special message under subsection
"(D) A vote on final passage of the bill shall be taken in the
House of Representatives on or before the close of the 10th leg-
islative day of that House after the date of the introduction of
the bill in that House. If the bill is passed, the Clerk of the
House of Representatives shall cause the bill to be engrossed,
certified, and transmitted to the Senate within one calendar
day of the day on which the bill is passed.
"(2)(A) A motion in the House of Representatives to proceed
to the consideration of a bill under this section shall be highly
privileged and not debatable. An amendment to the motion
shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order to move to recon-
sider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed
"(B) Debate in the House of Representatives on a bill under
this section shall not exceed 4 hours, which shall be divided
equally between those favoring and those opposing the bill. A
motion further to limit debate shall not be debatable. It shall
not be in order to move to recommit a bill under this section
or to move to reconsider the vote by which the bill is agreed
to or disagreed to.
"(C) Appeals from decisions of the Chair relating to the ap-
plication of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the
procedure relating to a bill under this section shall be decided
"(D) Except to the extent specifically provided in the preced-
ing provisions of this subsection, consideration of a bill under
this section shall be governed by the Rules of the House of
Representatives. It shall not be in order in the House of Rep-
resentatives to consider any rescission bill introduced pursuant
to the provisions of this section under a suspension of the rules
or under a special rule.
"(3)(A) A bill transmitted to the Senate pursuant to para-
graph (1)(D) shall be referred to its Committee on Appropria-
tions or Committee on Finance, as applicable. That committee
shall report the bill without substantive revision and with or
without recommendation. The bill shall be reported not later
than the seventh legislative day of the Senate after it receives
the bill. A committee failing to report the bill within such pe-
riod shall be automatically discharged from consideration of
the bill, and the bill shall be placed upon the appropriate cal-
"(B)(i) During consideration under this paragraph, any Mem-
ber of the Senate may move to strike any proposed rescission