```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5090-H5097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

         THE SEPARATE ENROLLMENT AND LINE-ITEM VETO ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that: First, it be 
in order to consider in the House a motion to take from the Speaker's 
table the bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the President to reduce 
budget authority, and for other purposes, to strike all after the 
enacting clause of the Senate bill, and to insert the text of H.R. 2 as 
passed by this House; second, that the motion be debatable for not to 
exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled among the chairman 
and ranking minority members of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight and the Committee on Rules, and third, that the previous 
question be ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
motion except for one motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. WISE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I just want to 
know whether the distinguished chairman needed any more time to explain 
his request, for which purpose I would happily yield, although I think 
the gentleman got it all in.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a normal process of the House. While I 
personally oppose the line-item veto bill, the gentleman's request is 
in order. I will withdraw my reservation of objection and will not 
object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Clinger moves that the House take from the Speaker's 
     table the bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the President to 
     reduce budget authority, and for other purposes, strike all 
     after the enacting clause of the Senate bill, and insert the 
     text of H.R. 2, as passed by the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
[[Page H5091]] Clinger] will be recognized for 15 minutes; the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] will be recognized for 15 
minutes; the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] will be recognized for 
15 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] will be recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on February 6 of this year, this House passed H.R. 2, 
the Line-Item Veto Act, to give the President the power to restrain 
irresponsible Federal spending through a true line-item veto. On March 
23, the Senate followed suit in passing S. 4, which I think we would 
all agree is a weaker bill, which nonetheless moves toward greater 
Federal spending control, so both of our bodies have gone on record as 
saying we encourage and desire to enact something that will act as a 
restraint on further Federal spending control.
                              {time}  1045

  Since that time, however, Mr. Speaker, both bills have been stalled 
really in parliamentary limbo awaiting further action in preparation 
for conference. That has been some several months now.
  Because of the Senate's unusual handling of the House-passed bill, 
unfortunately neither body is currently in a position to request the 
needed conference and the legislation has been at a standstill, just 
literally in limbo.
  My motion, Mr. Speaker, to take from the desk the Senate bill and 
insert in its place the House-passed language will break that 
legislative logjam and move us at least one step closer toward 
conference and the long-awaited enactment of the line-item veto. I say 
long-awaited by the President of the United States as well.
  As we begin to debate the most sweeping budget reforms today that 
this body has ever considered and as we confront the reality of strict 
spending restraints in important Federal programs--and I think we all 
recognize that that is going to be the outcome--the need for an item 
veto assumes an even greater urgency. The President needs to be a 
partner in this effort. The enactment of strong item veto legislation 
will permit the President to eliminate wasteful pork and unjustified 
tax breaks, thus saving more important spending from unnecessary cuts.
  Because H.R. 2, which we enacted here by an overwhelmingly bipartisan 
vote, provides the President with a bill he has really requested, he 
asked for the strongest possible line-item veto, and because this bill 
is an integral part of ongoing efforts to achieve greater fiscal 
responsibility, I would urge my colleagues' support for this motion to 
advance the legislative process and to once again make clear the 
House's very deep desire to move forward in giving the President what 
he has requested, the long-awaited line-veto item, the strongest one 
that we have, which is clearly the House version.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins], the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, I do not intend nor would she oppose this effort to attach 
the House-passed line-item veto bill to the Senate bill. The House 
passed the bill at the end of January and the Senate passed its version 
of the line-item veto on March 23.
  If the Chair would indulge me, I have a question for the gentleman 
who is making this motion. Would the chairman be able to explain why 
there has been no effort to proceed to conference for the past 2 months 
and why the Senate did not attach their bill to H.R. 2 and request a 
conference?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. As the gentleman knows, the other body works in 
mysterious ways its wonders to perform. I am not able to really divine 
their reasoning and the way they approach things. What we have known is 
that they have refused to really take action, the very action that you 
have requested. What we are trying to do with this motion is to force 
action on their part and move us that step closer.
  Mr. WISE. I appreciate the gentleman's observation, and I think that 
you could have a whole Chamber of soothsayers trying to divine what the 
other body sometimes has in its mind.
  I would note, Mr. Speaker, that it appears there may be an interest, 
or some might think that possibly the lack of action by the other body 
would indicate an interest in preventing the President from exercising 
line-item veto authority in the upcoming months, either on 
appropriation of tax bills.
  I would expect that this is going to be a difficult conference. These 
are significantly different versions of the bills. One bill has a 
potential constitutional challenge, the bill that left the House. The 
Senate bill would require the enrollment of thousands of bills to pass 
appropriations in discrete line items requiring thousands of signatures 
and guaranteeing future Presidents an amazing case of writer's cramp as 
they deal with this as well as creating some significant amount of 
paperwork.
  All that notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, I have no objections to the 
gentleman's request.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted for line-item veto both in the committee and on 
this floor of the House this year. After serving 20 years as a 
legislator in Texas and living under the line-item veto, I have no fear 
about it. I think it has been oversold to an extent because in my 20 
years as a legislator, I found out that it did not do as much for 
reducing the budget as it did for getting the attention of members of 
the legislative body, whether it be Members of Congress or the 
individual State legislature by the executive branch. Nevertheless, I 
support it because I think we can live with it and in the few times 
that we will actually see budget efforts impacted by it, it is good 
ammunition or a weapon in the arsenal to try to control spending.
  I heard my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], 
mention the concern about why we did not make this motion on March 23 
instead of 2 months later. Again as a supporter of the line-item veto, 
we might have been much further along with the conference committee and 
maybe even having the bill to the President's desk, although knowing 
the opposition to it and the product that came out of our body and the 
Senate and the problems that we may have in this conference. I am 
concerned that again this motion is a little over 2 months late in 
having an impact particularly on this year's appropriations.
  But again I support the line-item veto and I would hope the 
conference committee would move as quickly as we can to again give the 
President the ability to do that.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to join my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight, in his motion to help us move 
forward on the important issue of granting the President an effective, 
workable, and tough line-item veto. It is fitting that we come to the 
floor to take the next step in this process on the day we begin 
consideration of a landmark budget resolution to bring our finances 
into balance by the year 2002. It should be clear
 to the American people by now that this 104th Congress--and the new 
Republican majority, with moderate Democrats--are absolutely committed 
to ending the fiscal insanity of rising deficits and ever-mounting 
national debt. A real line-item veto for the President is a powerful 
tool for fiscal accountability that will help ensure Congress stays on 
the right spending track, even beyond this current budget crisis. 
Although I commend our friends in the other body for their creative 
efforts in producing S. 4--I remain committed to the House-passed line-
item veto as embodied in H.R. 2. H.R. 2 is [[Page H5092]] the product 
of years of study and analysis. Modeled after the type of authority 
wielded by 43 of our Nation's Governors, it provides a workable 
framework for ensuring that low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary 
spending can be lined out of big appropriations bills and conference 
reports. It places the onus on the Congress--requiring a two-thirds 
vote to spend money a President has identified for veto--and it 
establishes specific procedures to ensure that Members have recourse in 
the event a President abuses his power. The taxpayers are the winners 
in this
 Scenario--H.R. 2 shifts the bias in the process away from spending and 
toward saving. With all due respect to our friends in the other body, I 
am leery of the novel and untested approach they have adopted in S. 4. 
That measure, which introduces a completely new and different process 
of separate enrollment, will be both cumbersome and difficult to 
administer. Although it does preserve the crucial requirement that 
Congress come up with a two-thirds override to spend money the 
President wants to save, the subjective nature of deciding what 
constitutes an `item' will likely be a major stumbling block to 
effective implementation of line-item veto authority. I urge my 
colleagues to support this motion.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, while I do not oppose this motion, I 
rise to express my opposition to both the House and Senate versions of 
the line-item veto legislation. I remain extremely concerned over the 
provisions contained in both bills which will cause a major shift in 
responsibility and power from the legislative to the executive branch. 
We should be very cautious about bestowing the potential power of this 
legislation on the executive branch. The authors of our Constitution 
purposely preserved this delicate balance of power which has served the 
interests of our Nation quite well and we see no compelling reason to 
tamper with it at this time.
  Under both enhanced rescission bills, the President's proposed 
rescissions or targeted tax benefit repeals would automatically take 
effect unless the Congress specifically passes a resolution 
disapproving this special message. Even if such a measure overturning 
the President's request is enacted, the President can then veto the 
disapproval which, in turn, would have to be overridden by two-thirds 
of both Houses. Effectively, the President could cancel any spending or 
tax benefits if he or she has the support of only one-third plus one 
Members of either House.
  I also am suspicious on why we are pursuing this motion at this time. 
The bill passed the Senate on March 23 and has been held at the House 
desk since March 28--nearly 6 weeks. Why did we not pursue this matter 
at an earlier date? If the majority is anxious to have a line-item veto 
in place for the President, why was there not more of an effort made to 
put this mechanism in place for the Fiscal Year 95 appropriations 
bills?
  Again, I oppose both the House and Senate line-item veto bills and 
will vote against them in their present form.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], a very distinguished Member of this body and 
former Governor of Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion to take S. 4 from the 
Speaker's desk and insert the text of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act 
passed by the House earlier this year.
  The line-item veto should be enacted as soon as possible, and I 
believe that the line-item veto legislation approved by the House is 
stronger and more straightforward than the Senate's version.
  H.R. 2 would give the President the power to eliminate all or any 
part of spending in an appropriations bill or any targeted tax 
provision in a tax bill. Congress would have to disapprove the 
President's cuts by passing a resolution of disapproval and then 
override a Presidential veto of that measure with two-thirds of the 
House and Senate.
  The American people are tired of their tax dollars funding screw worm 
research, commemorating the Lawrence Welk birthplace, and many other 
questionable projects that benefit only a select few districts or 
States.
  By themselves, these projects may not add up to much of the Federal 
budget, but they are a slap in the face to the American people who want 
their tax dollars spent wisely and in the best interests of the entire 
Nation.
  They have asked the new Republican majority to stop needless pork 
barrel spending. The line-item veto will help do just that.
  I am concerned that the Senate line-item veto bill, which would 
require the separate enrollment of each individual spending item as a 
separate bill, may be too cumbersome. We should indeed support Chairman 
Clinger's effort to advance the process.
  The line-item veto is not a magic solution to the budget deficit, but 
it is an effective tool which should be given to the President.
  House Republicans believe reducing unneeded spending is so important 
that we are willing to give a Democratic President the authority to 
stop spending on special interest projects and end tax breaks for a 
select few.
  My experience as governor of Delaware is that the line-item veto 
helps bring all parties--Republicans, Democrats, the Executive and 
legislators to the table to negotiate fiscally responsible spending 
bills that are in the best interest of the taxpayers.
  The line-item veto will bring more openness and sunshine to the 
spending process. Believe me, the mere existence of line-item veto 
authority will make every Member of Congress take a harder look at 
every project and program. The red-face test will prevent many 
unnecessary projects from being added to spending bills in the first 
place.
  I strongly support every effort to ensure that the House and Senate 
complete action on line-item veto legislation. President Clinton says 
he wants to cut spending. Let us give him the line-item veto and let 
him prove it.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
motion to send this issue to committee as fast as we can. I think it is 
important to have a conference committee to resolve the differences 
between the two Houses. I am a long-time supporter of the line-item 
veto. I am standing here today, though, because I am concerned with the 
process that is going on.
  When I go to my home in Milwaukee and talk to my constituents, I 
proudly note that I am in support of the line-item veto, but then I 
caution my constituents. I tell them, Now you just wait and see what 
happens.
  What is going to happen is that the Republicans in the Senate and the 
Republicans in the House will trip over each other not being able to 
reach an agreement in conference committee to give President Clinton 
the ability to line-item pork-barrel projects and special tax breaks 
for special interests. The reason they are going to do that is because 
even though for years they have been saying they want a line-item veto, 
they do not want to give President Clinton the line-item veto in the 
mistaken belief that he is not going to be President in 1996.

                              {time}  1100

  I further go on to predict this conference committee will reach a 
resolution sometime shortly before the 1996 election. So make no 
mistake about what is going on here, we have Republican gridlock 
because the Republican leadership in the Senate does not want to give 
President Clinton the ability to get rid of pork-barrel spending and 
special interest tax breaks for the wealthy. It is clear and simple.
  Majorities in both Houses have supported measures. The purpose of a 
conference is to mesh the two Houses together and get rid of the 
differences.
  What we have right now is a downright refusal to even go to 
conference committee, and I think that that is wrong. It is gridlock 
that is created by the leadership in this House and in the Senate, who 
do not want President Clinton to have this important 
tool. [[Page H5093]] 
  I think it is important for the American people to know what is going 
on here. I think we should give this tool to President Clinton as soon 
as we can, and that is why I am supporting the efforts of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], the primary sponsor of this 
legislation, who I think will retort a little to one of the problems we 
just heard about.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding me 
this time on this very important issue.
  Just briefly to respond to my good friend from Wisconsin, there can 
be no doubt that this leadership on this side has pushed at every turn 
to give President Clinton the line-item veto and to give him the 
strongest possible line-item veto, and that is why we are here today, 
to move this process because we think it is important regardless of who 
is in power.
  And, frankly, it contrasts sharply with what some of your Democratic 
colleagues in the Senate did when they voted against the balanced 
budget amendment because it was being proposed by a Republican 
majority, when the year before, when it had no chance to pass, six 
Members of that body voted for the balanced budget.
  So I think we are being consistent. We want to give President Clinton 
a line-item veto, and today the House is taking action to provide the 
President a valuable tool necessary to curb wasteful Government 
spending.
  As we enter the appropriations season, we are reminded of the 
wasteful pork projects that have been buried in public laws without the 
benefit of public scrutiny over the years. This Congress has the 
opportunity to end that practice.
  On February 6, the House passed H.R. 2 by an overwhelming and 
bipartisan vote of 294 to 134. The other body, unfortunately, then 
disregarded that version and went on to pass probably the most 
cumbersome line-item veto legislation anyone could have created. The 
version of S. 4 that emerged from the other body would make unraveling 
the Gordian knot seem simple. Separate enrollment, as the other body 
calls its version, would create a litany of problems, not the least of 
which would be giving the President writers' cramp from signing 
thousands of bills Congress would be forced to send him. The House, on 
the other hand, produced a strong, workable bill which preserves the 
balance of power between the legislative and executive branches while 
providing the President with more flexibility by allowing a reduction 
of items.
  By the end of this fiscal year, the Federal debt is estimated to be 
almost $5 trillion. That is why this week we will be working on a 
balanced budget amendment, and it is why we should give the President a 
line-item veto.
  A child born today is immediately saddled with an expense of more 
than $187,000 over their lifetime just to pay interest on debt. My 21-
month-old son has already been responsible, and will be made 
responsible, for more than $4,000 in interest payments, and he has not 
even reached his second birthday.
  While the line item will not in and of itself balance the budget, the 
line-item veto will be an important tool the President can use as the 
country moves forward and toward a balanced budget in the year 2002. We 
cannot afford to lose a year in our fight against wasteful Federal 
spending and remove the Sword of Damocles from above our children's 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give the President the line-item 
veto. Give him the strongest line-item veto possible. Do it this year. 
I urge my colleagues to support the chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], and support this motion.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds only to respond 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin to say that it is this gentleman's 
intention to go to conference and to negotiate in good faith to come up 
with the strongest possible line-item veto we can achieve. There are 
going to be no dilatory practices on my part, certainly, and I think I 
can speak for the Republican Members in this body. They are going to be 
very diligent in trying to reach a compromise.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman can help 
me. Where is the problem? Is the Senate majority refusing to go to 
conference? Why is there even a refusal to come to the table to talk?
  Mr. CLINGER. Reclaiming my time, I think there may be a combination 
of things; one of the things may well be the possibility of a 
filibuster to be waged on your side of the aisle. I think there are 
probably problems on both sides.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will not even take a minute. But just 
continuing this colloquy, there is no question that there are Members 
in the other body who are unalterably opposed to any real and 
meaningful line-item veto legislation. They are both Democrat and 
Republican over there, and this Member happens to resent it very much.
  I hope this body stands by its version. It is the only true line-item 
veto, and if and when we ever do go to conference, I want us to stick 
to our guns. We should not be enacting any kind of watered-down 
version, because that means we will never get around to really enacting 
a line-item veto. We will be deterred from that.
  So I commend both the gentlemen for their reference.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, again I am a relatively junior 
Member of the House. The chairman indicated there are problems with 
Democrats who do not like this bill. But to go to conference committee, 
is that not something that the leadership can do, the Republican 
leadership can do, from the Senate? And again I fail to see why the 
Republican leadership in the Senate is even refusing to come to the 
conference committee. Is that something that the Democrats in the 
Senate can stop?
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will yield, it is because of what is 
happening over there. There are some interpolitics being played. That 
is exactly why we are taking this action today. We are going to send 
our bill back over there. Then we will start negotiations both in 
public and out of public, if necessary, but we want to move this 
legislation, the real thing.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I think the public should be aware the 
problem is in the Senate with the leadership, I think, because now we 
are at the stage where the Republican leadership in the Senate should 
come to the conference committee to resolve the differences, and it is 
the Republican leadership in the Senate that is refusing to do so.
  Mr. SOLOMON. In collusion with the Democrat leadership in the Senate, 
as well.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to note that 
perhaps part of the problem is that the line-item veto would not apply 
to Presidential candidates, only to Presidents, and that might be part 
of the problem in the other body as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding only 
because I came down here to talk about the line-item veto, an issue 
that is so near and dear to many of our hearts who have worked on this 
for so long.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act, I believe 
it offers a true, true line-item veto. It would allow, of course, the 
President to rescind all or any part of appropriated funds, require a 
majority of both Chambers to disapprove the President's rescissions, 
and, finally, require a two-thirds' vote of both Chambers to override 
that Presidential veto of the disapproval bill.
  I think while we will talk about some politics almost each and every 
day in these Chambers, this is one issue where I think Republicans and 
Democrats alike can get behind to give the President of the United 
States, whichever party it happens to be, the line-item veto, and I 
think it is time this year.
[[Page H5094]]

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to just comment that it seems to be that one of the 
concerns that we have got here is we have heard about this threat of a 
filibuster by Members of the other party, members of the minority in 
the Senate, and what we are trying to do here is to propel this whole 
issue forward into conference. So the purposes of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, I hope, are going to be resolved by the actions we are 
taking here today. I hope he is comforted by that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I should have mentioned the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Quinn] has been a very active participant in the shaping of this 
legislation, and we really appreciate his major contributions, and I 
would just add that I think there has been a concern expressed on the 
other side that if an attempt was made to go to conference, that it 
would be subject to a filibuster, so I would repeat, I think there are 
problems over there that we need to deal with.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). Pursuant to the order of the 
House, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The motion was agreed to.
  The text of the Senate bill, S. 4, is as follows:
                                  S. 4

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``The Separate Enrollment and 
     Line Item Veto Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. STRUCTURE OF LEGISLATION.

       (a) Appropriations Legislation.--
       (1) The Committee on Appropriations of either the House or 
     the Senate shall not report an appropriation measure that 
     fails to contain such level of detail on the allocation of an 
     item of appropriation proposed by that House as is set forth 
     in the committee report accompanying such bill.
       (2) If an appropriation measure is reported to the House or 
     Senate that fails to contain the level of detail on the 
     allocation of an item of appropriation as required in 
     paragraph (1), it shall not be in order in that House to 
     consider such measure. If a point of order under this 
     paragraph is sustained, the measure shall be recommitted to 
     the Committee on Appropriations of that House.
       (b) Authorization Legislation.--
       (1) A committee of either the House or the Senate shall not 
     report an authorization measure that contains new direct 
     spending or new targeted tax benefits unless such measure 
     presents each new direct spending or new targeted tax benefit 
     as a separate item and the accompanying committee report for 
     that measure shall contain such level of detail as is 
     necessary to clearly identify the allocation of new direct 
     spending or new targeted tax benefits.
       (2) If an authorization measure is reported to the House or 
     Senate that fails to comply with paragraph (1), it shall not 
     be in order in that House to consider such measure. If a 
     point of order under this paragraph is sustained, the measure 
     shall be recommitted to the committee of jurisdiction of that 
     House.
       (c) Conference Reports.--
       (1) A committee of conference to which is committed an 
     appropriations measure shall not file a conference report in 
     either House that fails to contain the level of detail on the 
     allocation of an item of appropriation as is set forth in the 
     statement of managers accompanying that report.
       (2) A committee of conference to which is committed an 
     authorization measure shall not file a conference report in 
     either House unless such measure presents each direct 
     spending or targeted tax benefit as a separate item and the 
     statement of managers accompanying that report clearly 
     identifies each such item.
       (3) If a conference report is presented to the House or 
     Senate that fails to comply with either paragraph (1) or (2), 
     it shall not be in order in that House to consider such 
     conference report. If a point of order under this paragraph 
     is sustained in the House to first consider the conference 
     report, the measure shall be deemed recommitted to the 
     committee of conference.

     SEC. 3. WAIVERS AND APPEALS.

       Any provision of section 2 may be waived or suspended in 
     the House or Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members of that House duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members duly chosen 
     and sworn shall be required to sustain an appeal of the 
     ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under that 
     section.

     SEC. 4. SEPARATE ENROLLMENT.

       (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when any 
     appropriation or authorization measure first passes both 
     Houses of Congress in the same form, the Secretary of the 
     Senate (in the case of a measure originating in the Senate) 
     or the Clerk of the House of Representatives (in the case of 
     a measure originating in the House of Representatives) shall 
     disaggregate the items as referenced in section 5(4) and 
     assign each item a new bill number. Henceforth each item 
     shall be treated as a separate bill to be considered under 
     the following subsections. The remainder of the bill not so 
     disaggregated shall constitute a separate bill and shall be 
     considered with the other disaggregated bills pursuant to 
     subsection (b).
       (2) A bill that is required to be disag- 
     gregated into separate bills pursuant to 
     subsection (a)--
       (A) shall be disaggregated without substantive revision, 
     and
       (B) shall bear the designation of the measure of which it 
     was an item prior to such disaggregation, together with such 
     other designation as may be necessary to distinguish such 
     measure from other measures disaggregated pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) with respect to the same measure.
       (b) The new bills resulting from the dis- 
     aggregation described in paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (a) shall be immediately placed on the appropriate 
     calendar in the House of origination, and upon passage, 
     placed on the appropriate calendar in the other House. They 
     shall be the next order of business in each House and they 
     shall be considered and voted on en bloc and shall not be 
     subject to amendment. A motion to proceed to the bills shall 
     be nondebatable. Debate in the House of Representatives or 
     the Senate on the bills shall be limited to not more than 1 
     hour, which shall be divided equally between the majority 
     leader and the minority leader. A motion further to limit 
     debate is not debatable. A motion to recommit the bills is 
     not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider 
     the vote by which the bills are agreed to or disagreed to.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``appropriation measure'' means any general or 
     special appropriation bill or any bill or joint resolution 
     making supplemental, deficiency, or continuing 
     appropriations.
       (2) The term ``authorization measure'' means any measure 
     other than an appropriations measure that contains a 
     provision providing direct spending or targeted tax benefits.
       (3) The term ``direct spending'' shall have the same 
     meaning given to such term in section 250(c)(8) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (4) The term ``item'' means--
       (A) with respect to an appropriations measure--
       (i) any numbered section,
       (ii) any unnumbered paragraph, or
       (iii) any allocation or suballocation of an appropriation, 
     made in compliance with section 2(a), contained in a numbered 
     section or an unnumbered paragraph but shall not include a 
     provision which does not appropriate funds, direct the 
     President to expend funds for any specific project, or create 
     an express or implied obligation to expend funds and--
       (i) rescinds or cancels existing budget authority;
       (ii) only limits, conditions, or otherwise restricts the 
     President's authority to spend otherwise appropriated funds; 
     or
       (iii) conditions on an item of appropriation not involving 
     a positive allocation of funds by explicitly prohibiting the 
     use of any funds; and
       (B) with respect to an authorization measure--
       (i) any numbered section, or
       (ii) any unnumbered paragraph,

     that contains new direct spending or a new targeted tax 
     benefit presented and identified in conformance with section 
     2(b).
       (5) The term ``targeted tax benefit'' means any provision:
       (A) estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation as losing 
     revenue for any one of the three following periods--
       (1) the first fiscal year covered by the most recently 
     adopted concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (2) the period of the 5 fiscal years covered by the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget; or
       (3) the period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5 
     years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget; and
       (B) having the practical effect of providing more favorable 
     tax treatment to a particular taxpayer or limited group of 
     taxpayers when compared with other similarly situated 
     taxpayers.

     SEC. 6. 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 a provision of this Act violates the 
     Constitution. [[Page H5095]] 
       (2) A copy of any complaint in an action brought under 
     paragraph (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 
     such action.
       (3) Any action brought under paragraph (1) shall be heard 
     and determined by a three-judge court in accordance with 
     section 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 or the Senate 
     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 
     provisions 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 appeal 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 subsection (a) shall be issued by a single Justice of 
     the Supreme Court.
       (c) Expedited Consideration.--It shall be the duty of the 
     District 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).
       (d) Severability.--If any provision of this Act, or the 
     application of such provision to any person or circumstance 
     is held unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the 
     application of the provisions of such Act to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 7. TREATMENT OF EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Emergency Appropriations.--Section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``However, OMB shall not adjust any discretionary spending 
     limit under this clause for any statute that designates 
     appropriations as emergency requirements if that statute 
     contains an appropriation for any other matter, event, or 
     occurrence, but that statute may contain rescissions of 
     budget authority.''.
       (b) Emergency Legislation.--Section 252(e) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``However, 
     OMB shall not designate any such amounts of new budget 
     authority, outlays, or receipts as emergency requirements in 
     the report required under subsection (d) if that statute 
     contains any other provisions that are not so designated, but 
     that statute may contain provisions that reduce direct 
     spending.''.
       (c) New Point of Order.--Title IV of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

                 ``point of order regarding emergencies

       ``Sec. 408. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, containing an emergency designation for purposes of 
     section 251(b)(2)(D) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 if it also provides an 
     appropriation or direct spending for any other item or 
     contains any other matter, but that bill or joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report may contain rescissions of 
     budget authority or reductions of direct spending, or that 
     amendment may reduce amounts for that emergency.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 407 the following new item:

``Sec. 408. Point of order regarding emergencies.''.
     SEC. 8. SAVINGS FROM RESCISSION BILLS USED FOR DEFICIT 
                   REDUCTION.

       (a) Not later than 45 days of continuous session after the 
     President vetoes an appropriations measure or an 
     authorization measure, the President shall--
       (1) with respect to appropriations measures, reduce the 
     discretionary spending limits under section 601 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for the budget year and each 
     outyear by the amount by which the measure would have 
     increased the deficit in each respective year;
       (2) with respect to a repeal of direct spending, or a 
     targeted tax benefit, reduce the balances for the budget year 
     and each outyear under section 252(b) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 by the amount by 
     which the measure would have increased the deficit in each 
     respective year.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) This section shall not apply if the vetoed 
     appropriations measure or authorization measure becomes law, 
     over the objections of the President, before the President 
     orders the reduction required by subsections (a)(1) or 
     (a)(2).
       (2) If the vetoed appropriations measure or authorization 
     measure becomes law, over the objections of the President, 
     after the President has ordered the reductions required by 
     subsections (a)(1) or (a)(2), then the President shall 
     restore the discretionary spending limits under section 601 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or the balances under 
     section 252(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 to reflect the positions existing before 
     the reduction ordered by the President in compliance with 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 9. EVALUATION AND SUNSET OF TAX EXPENDITURES

       (a) Legislation for Sunsetting Tax Expenditures.--The 
     President shall submit legislation for the periodic review, 
     reauthorization, and sunset of tax expenditures with his 
     fiscal year 1997 budget.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to Congress.--Section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(30) beginning with fiscal year 1999, a Federal 
     Government performance plan for measuring the overall 
     effectiveness of tax expenditures, including a schedule for 
     periodically assessing the effects of specific tax 
     expenditures in achieving performance goals.''.
       (c) Pilot Projects.--Section 1118(c) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph (2);
       (2) redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (3) adding after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) describe the framework to be utilized by the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller General 
     of the United States, and the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
     for undertaking periodic analyses of the effects of tax 
     expenditures in achieving performance goals and the 
     relationship between tax expenditures and spending programs; 
     and''.
       (d) Congressional Budget Act.--Title IV of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following:

                           ``Tax expenditures

       ``Sec. 409. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     contains a tax expenditure unless the bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report provides that the tax 
     expenditure will terminate not later than 10 years after the 
     date of enactment of the tax expenditure.''.

     SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this Act shall apply to measures passed 
     by the Congress beginning with the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and ending on September 30, 2000.

  The text of the bill, H.R. 2, which is inserted in lieu of S. 4, 
pursuant to the foregoing motion, is as follows:
                                 H.R. 2

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Line Item Veto Act''.

     SEC. 2. LINE ITEM VETO AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the provisions of part B 
     of title X of The Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974, and subject to the provisions of this 
     section, the President may rescind all or part of the dollar 
     amount of any discretionary budget authority specified in an 
     appropriation Act or conference report or joint explanatory 
     statement accompanying a conference report on the Act, or 
     veto any targeted tax benefit which is subject to the terms 
     of this Act if the President--
       (1) determines that--
       (A) such rescission or veto would help reduce the Federal 
     budget deficit;
       (B) such rescission or veto will not impair any essential 
     Government functions; and
       (C) such rescission or veto will not harm the national 
     interest; and
       (2) notifies the Congress of such rescission or veto by a 
     special message not later than ten calendar days (not 
     including Sundays) after the date of enactment of an 
     appropriation Act providing such budget authority or a 
     revenue or reconciliation Act containing a targeted tax 
     benefit.
       (b) Deficit Reduction.--In each special message, the 
     President may also propose to reduce the appropriate 
     discretionary spending limit set forth in section 601(a)(2) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by an amount that 
     does not exceed the total amount of discretionary budget 
     authority rescinded by that message.
       (c) Separate Messages.--The President shall submit a 
     separate special message for each appropriation Act and for 
     each revenue or reconciliation Act under this section.
       (d) Limitation.--No special message submitted by the 
     President under this section may change any prohibition or 
     limitation of discretionary budget authority set forth in any 
     appropriation Act.
       (e) Special Rule for Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation 
     Measures.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), in the case of 
     any unobligated discretionary budget authority provided by 
     any appropriation Act for fiscal year 1995, the President may 
     rescind all or part of that discretionary budget authority 
     under the terms of this Act if the President notifies the 
     Congress of such rescission by a special message not later 
     than ten calendar days (not including Sundays) after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
     [[Page H5096]]
     
     SEC. 3. LINE ITEM VETO EFFECTIVE UNLESS DISAPPROVED.

       (a)(1) Any amount of budget authority rescinded under this 
     Act as set forth in a special message by the President shall 
     be deemed canceled unless, during the period described in 
     subsection (b), a rescission/receipts disapproval bill making 
     available all of the amount rescinded is enacted into law.
       (2) Any provision of law vetoed under this Act as set forth 
     in a special message by the President shall be deemed 
     repealed unless, during the period described in subsection 
     (b), a rescission/receipts disapproval bill restoring that 
     provision is enacted into law.
       (b) The period referred to in subsection (a) is--
       (1) a congressional review period of twenty calendar days 
     of session, beginning on the first calendar day of session 
     after the date of submission of the special message, during 
     which Congress must complete action on the rescission/
     receipts disapproval bill and present such bill to the 
     President for approval or disapproval;
       (2) after the period provided in paragraph (1), an 
     additional ten days (not including Sundays) during which the 
     President may exercise his authority to sign or veto the 
     rescission/receipts disapproval bill; and
       (3) if the President vetoes the rescission/receipts 
     disapproval bill during the period provided in paragraph (2), 
     an additional five calendar days of session after the date of 
     the veto.
       (c) If a special message is transmitted by the President 
     under this Act and the last session of the Congress adjourns 
     sine die before the expiration of the period described in 
     subsection (b), the rescission or veto, as the case may be, 
     shall not take effect. The message shall be deemed to have 
     been retransmitted on the first Monday in February of the 
     succeeding Congress and the review period referred to in 
     subsection (b) (with respect to such message) shall run 
     beginning after such first day.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``rescission/receipts disapproval bill'' means 
     a bill or joint resolution which only disapproves, in whole, 
     rescissions of discretionary budget authority or only 
     disapproves vetoes of targeted tax benefits in a special 
     message transmitted by the President under this Act and--
       (A) which does not have a preamble;
       (B)(i) in the case of a special message regarding 
     rescissions, the matter after the enacting clause of which is 
     as follows: ``That Congress disapproves each rescission of 
     discretionary budget authority of the President as submitted 
     by the President in a special message on ________'', the 
     blank space being filled in with the appropriate date and the 
     public law to which the message relates; and
       (ii) in the case of a special message regarding vetoes of 
     targeted tax benefits, the matter after the enacting clause 
     of which is as follows: ``That Congress disapproves each veto 
     of targeted tax benefits of the President as submitted by the 
     President in a special message on ________'', the blank space 
     being filled in with the appropriate date and the public law 
     to which the message relates; and
       (C) the title of which is as follows: ``A bill disapproving 
     the recommendations submitted by the President on ________'', 
     the blank space being filled in with the date of submission 
     of the relevant special message and the public law to which 
     the message relates.
       (2) The term ``calendar days of session'' shall mean only 
     those days on which both Houses of Congress are in session.
       (3) The term ``targeted tax benefit'' means any provision 
     of a revenue or reconciliation Act determined by the 
     President to provide a Federal tax deduction, credit, 
     exclusion, preference, or other concession to 100 or fewer 
     beneficiaries. Any partnership, limited partnership, trust, 
     or S corporation, and any subsidiary or affiliate of the same 
     parent corporation, shall be deemed and counted as a single 
     beneficiary regardless of the number of partners, limited 
     partners, beneficiaries, shareholders, or affiliated 
     corporate entities.
       (4) The term ``appropriation Act'' means any general or 
     special appropriation Act, and any Act or joint resolution 
     making supplemental, deficiency, or continuing 
     appropriations.
     SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF LINE ITEM VETOES.

       (a) Presidential Special Message.--Whenever the President 
     rescinds any budget authority as provided in this Act or 
     vetoes any provision of law as provided in this Act, the 
     President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special 
     message specifying--
       (1) the amount of budget authority rescinded or the 
     provision vetoed;
       (2) any account, department, or establishment of the 
     Government to which such budget authority is available for 
     obligation, and the specific project or governmental 
     functions involved;
       (3) the reasons and justifications for the determination to 
     rescind budget authority or veto any provision pursuant to 
     this Act;
       (4) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated 
     fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the rescission or 
     veto; and
       (5) all actions, circumstances, and considerations relating 
     to or bearing upon the rescission or veto and the decision to 
     effect the rescission or veto, and to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the estimated effect of the rescission upon the 
     objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget 
     authority is provided.
       (b) Transmission of Messages to House and Senate.--
       (1) Each special message transmitted under this Act shall 
     be transmitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     on the same day, and shall be delivered to the Clerk of the 
     House of Representatives if the House is not in session, and 
     to the Secretary of the Senate if the Senate is not in 
     session. Each special message so transmitted shall be 
     referred to the appropriate committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate. Each such message shall be 
     printed as a document of each House.
       (2) Any special message transmitted under this Act shall be 
     printed in the first issue of the Federal Register published 
     after such transmittal.
       (c) Introduction of Rescission/Receipts Disapproval 
     Bills.--The procedures set forth in subsection (d) shall 
     apply to any rescission/receipts disapproval bill introduced 
     in the House of Representatives not later than the third 
     calendar day of session beginning on the day after the date 
     of submission of a special message by the President under 
     section 2.
       (d) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--(1) The 
     committee of the House of Representatives to which a 
     rescission/receipts disapproval bill is referred shall report 
     it without amendment, and with or without recommendation, not 
     later than the eighth calendar day of session after the date 
     of its introduction. If the committee fails to report the 
     bill within that period, it is in order to move that the 
     House discharge the committee from further consideration of 
     the bill. A motion to discharge may be made only by an 
     individual favoring the bill (but only after the legislative 
     day on which a Member announces to the House the Member's 
     intention to do so). The motion is highly privileged. Debate 
     thereon shall be limited to not more than one hour, the time 
     to be divided in the House equally between a proponent and an 
     opponent. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion 
     is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order.
       (2) After a rescission/receipts disapproval bill is 
     reported or the committee has been discharged from further 
     consideration, it is in order to move that the House resolve
      into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
     Union for consideration of the bill. All points of order 
     against the bill and against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The motion is highly privileged. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on that motion to 
     its adoption without intervening motion. A motion to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or 
     disagreed to shall not be in order. During consideration 
     of the bill in the Committee of the Whole, the first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall proceed without intervening motion, shall be 
     confined to the bill, and shall not exceed two hours 
     equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an 
     opponent of the bill. No amendment to the bill is in 
     order, except any Member may move to strike the 
     disapproval of any rescission or rescissions of budget 
     authority or any proposed repeal of a targeted tax 
     benefit, as applicable, if supported by 49 other Members. 
     At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
     the House. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion. A motion to reconsider 
     the vote on passage of the bill shall not be in order.
       (3) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the 
     application of the rules of the House of Representatives to 
     the procedure relating to a bill described in subsection (a) 
     shall be decided without debate.
       (4) It shall not be in order to consider more than one bill 
     described in subsection (c) or more than one motion to 
     discharge described in paragraph (1) with respect to a 
     particular special message.
       (5) Consideration of any rescission/receipts disapproval 
     bill under this subsection is governed by the rules of the 
     House of Representatives except to the extent specifically 
     provided by the provisions of this Act.
       (e) Consideration in the Senate.--
       (1) Any rescission/receipts disapproval bill received in 
     the Senate from the House shall be considered in the Senate 
     pursuant to the provisions of this Act.
       (2) Debate in the Senate on any rescission/receipts 
     disapproval bill and debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than ten 
     hours. The time shall be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the majority leader and the minority leader or 
     their designees.
       (3) Debate in the Senate on any debatable motions or appeal 
     in connection with such bill shall be limited to one hour, to 
     be equally divided between, and controlled by the mover and 
     the manager of the bill, except that in the event the manager 
     of the bill is in favor of any such motion or appeal, the 
     time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the 
     minority leader or his designee. Such leaders, or either of 
     them, may, from the time under their control on the passage 
     of the bill, allot additional time to any Senator during the 
     consideration of any debatable motion or appeal.
       (4) A motion to further limit debate is not debatable. A 
     motion to recommit (except a motion to recommit with 
     instructions to report back within a specified number of days 
     not to exceed one, not counting any day on 
     [[Page H5097]] which the Senate is not in session) is not in 
     order.
       (f) Points of Order.--
       (1) It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any 
     rescission/receipts disapproval bill that relates to any 
     matter other than the rescission of budget authority or veto 
     of the provision of law transmitted by the President under 
     this Act.
       (2) It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any 
     amendment to a rescission/receipts disapproval bill.
       (3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by a vote of three-fifths of the members duly 
     chosen and sworn.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

       Beginning on January 6, 1996, and at one-year intervals 
     thereafter, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to 
     each House of Congress which provides the following 
     information:
       (1) A list of each proposed Presidential rescission of 
     discretionary budget authority and veto of a targeted tax 
     benefit submitted through special messages for the fiscal 
     year ending during the preceding calendar year, together with 
     their dollar value, and an indication of whether each 
     rescission of discretionary budget authority or veto of a 
     targeted tax benefit was accepted or rejected by Congress.
       (2) The total number of proposed Presidential rescissions 
     of discretionary budget authority and vetoes of a targeted 
     tax benefit submitted through special messages for the fiscal 
     year ending during the preceding calendar year, together with 
     their total dollar value.
       (3) The total number of Presidential rescissions of 
     discretionary budget authority or vetoes of a targeted tax 
     benefit submitted through special messages for the fiscal 
     year ending during the preceding calendar year and approved 
     by Congress, together with their total dollar value.
       (4) A list of rescissions of discretionary budget authority 
     initiated by Congress for the fiscal year ending during the 
     preceding calendar year, together
      with their dollar value, and an indication of whether each 
     such rescission was accepted or rejected by Congress.
       (5) The total number of rescissions of discretionary budget 
     authority initiated and accepted by Congress for the fiscal 
     year ending during the preceding calendar year, together with 
     their total dollar value.
       (6) A summary of the information provided by paragraphs 
     (2), (3) and (5) for each of the ten fiscal years ending 
     before the fiscal year during this calendar year.
     SEC. 7. 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 this Act violates the Constitution.
       (2) A copy of any complaint in an action brought under 
     paragraph (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 
     such action.
       (3) Any action brought under paragraph (1) shall be heard 
     and determined by a three-judge court in accordance with 
     section 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 
     provision 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 appeal 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 subsection (a) shall be issued by a single Justice of 
     the Supreme Court.
       (c) Expedited Consideration.--It shall be the duty of the 
     District 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 Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed.
  The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read: ``An Act to 
give the President item veto authority over appropriation Acts and 
targeted tax benefits in revenue Acts.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  House Resolution 147 was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```