June 29, 1994 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 15217 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS THE ISSUE OF THE TAKINGS TESTIMONY gulfing us and our children and grand­ CLAUSE Mr. Chairman and Members of the Com­ children. We need a tough, real line-item mittee: I appreciate this opportunity to tes­ veto with teeth for the President's spending­ tify before you today to request that you cut proposals to stick. HON. RICHARD W. POMBO make in order my amendment in the nature That's what Candidate Clinton said he OF CALIFORNIA of a substitute to H.R. 4600 and waive appro­ would ask Congress for back in 1992. I only IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES priate points of order against it as you did regret that since he became President Mr. Wednesday, June 29, 1994 last year. Clinton has reneged on his campaign promise I don't want to belabor the points I made and now supports instead this watered down Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, in a landmark last week at our markup as to why I don't rescission proposal that won't change much decision last Friday, the Supreme Court bol­ think we should even be taking-up a bill from what it is today. stered and strengthened longstanding con­ identical to one we passed last year. But, as Mr. Chairman, let me close by addressing stitutional principles designed to protect pri­ long as we are, then we should provide for a two concerns raised in a letter to you on vate property owners by elevating the impor­ reasonable and fair amendment process. My June 23rd from the Chairman of the Ways tance of the takings clause found in the fifth amendment is nearly identical to the one and Means Committee, Mr. Gibbons. this committee made in order to H.R. 1578 First, he objects to our substitute on amendment to the Constitution. This clause last year with two exceptions. grounds that it infringes on his committee's prohibits Government takings of private prop­ First, my substitute last year provided for jurisdiction. He's dead wrong on that! Mr. erty without paying a just compensation for it. only a two-year experiment with this en­ Michel's bill, H.R. 493, which is identical to In the majority opinion, written by Chief Jus­ hanced rescission, line-item veto authority. our substitute, and which gives the Presi­ tice William Rehnquist, the Court sees "no This substitute would make that permanent. dent veto authority over special interest tax reason why the takings clause of the fifth Second, my substitute last year did not in­ breaks, was only referred to the Committees amendment, as much a part of the Bill of clude targeted tax provisions, though this on Rules and Government Operations. Committee did allow our Republican Leader It was not referred to Ways and Means be­ Rights as the first amendment or fourth to offer that provision to my substitute, but amendment, should be relegated to the status cause this does not affect the tax code. It af­ denied his request to offer it to the base bill fects Title X of the Budget Act instead be­ of a poor relation." Mr. Speaker, this decision as well. The substitute before you today in­ cause it provides an alternative to the cur­ was long overdue. cludes the Michel tax veto provisions. rent impoundment process. Under the guise of environmental protection, For your information, the Michel amend­ Secondly, Mr. Gibbons suggests that the the Government has been misusing regulatory ment to my substitute last year was adopted substitute is unconstitutional because under measures to strip away the constitutionally on a vote of 257 to 157, but my substitute as the Constitution only the House can origi­ protected rights of landowners. This un­ amended by Michel was then rejected, 198 to nate revenue measures. He's correct about 219. the Constitution but wrong about our sub­ checked activity has deprived citizens not only But I think you can see from those votes of their rights, but often of their livelihood as stitute. that there is very strong support for giving This does not give the President authority well. the President a real line-item veto as op­ to originate a revenue measure; it only gives Mr. Speaker, we must follow the lead of the posed to just a souped-up version of the cur­ him the right to selectively veto certain spe­ Supreme Court on this issue. As Members of rent rescission process. What is the main difference between the cial interest tax breaks in bills originated by Congress, it is our duty to uphold-without ex­ the House and passed by Congress. ception-the integrity of the Constitution. We expedited rescission process of H.R. 4600 and the Michel-Solomon enhanced rescission ap­ This is really no different from existing can do so by supporting measures that protect proach? Make no mistake about it, it is a trade provisions authored by Mr. Gibbons' and enforce our fifth amendment right to life, very fundamental and profound difference. Committee which delegate to the President liberty, and property. These rights form the The Spratt bills says that both Houses must authority to alter the tariff treatment of core of our political tradition. They must never approve a president's rescission to stop the certain countries, subject to disapproval by legislative enactment. be compromised. spending. The Michel-Solomon approach says that For instance, after the July recess the the spending and tax breaks unless both House will take up my joint resolution to ENACT TRUE LINE-ITEM VETO Houses, by majority vote, disapprove the disapprove most favored nation status for President's recommendations by legislative China. That is considered under our rules enactment. Since the President is likely to and precedents as well as established law as HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON veto any disapproval bill under our ap­ affecting revenues. And yet, we have dele­ OF NEW YORK proach, it would then take two-thirds of both gated to the President our authority in that IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Houses under the Constitution to override area, subject to congressional disapproval by legislative enactment. Wednesday, June 29, 1994 that veto to force the money to be spent or the special interest tax break to take effect. I do not hear Mr. Gibbons suggesting that Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Put another way, the Spratt bill allows for the Trade Act is unconstitutional. And yet, Rules Committee reported a modified closed a majority of either House to block the this is nearly identical to that disapproval rule for the consideration of H.R. 4600, the President's spending cuts; Michel-Solomon process of certain presidential actions affect­ Expedited Rescissions Act of 1994. The rule ultimately requires two-thirds of both ing revenues. makes in order an expedited rescissions sub­ Houses to block the President's spending It is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in 1982 in INS v. Chadha which said stitute by Representative STENHOLM, and my cuts and tax break vetoes. That is why we call this a true, legislative you can't have one- or two-House vetoes of substitute to it that would put in place a true line-item veto. It is similar to what the gov­ Executive actions where we have delegated line-item veto for the President over rescis­ ernors of some 43 States now have-the abil­ our powers. You can only withdraw that del­ sions and special tax breaks. ity to cut wasteful spending subject to over­ egation by a new law that is presented to the The bill is now scheduled to come to the ride only by a super-majority of the legisla­ President. floor after the July 4 recess. I urge my col­ ture. So, for instance, if my MFN resolution leagues to vote for the true line-item veto sub­ Without that super-majority requirement passes both the House and Senate, and is stitute at that time. At this point in the under the Constitution, the legislature then vetoed by the President, two-thirds of both Houses are required to override that RECORD, Mr. Speaker, I include my testimony would likely engage in the same old log-roll­ ing it does when it first enacts an appropria­ veto, according to the Constitution, in order before the Rules Committee yesterday and a tions measure-"you support my project and to block special tariff status for China. summary of my substitute. I am placing the I'll support yours." That is the same situation posed by the text of my substitute in the amendments por­ We can't go on with that business-as-usual Michel-Solomon resolution for rescissions tion of today's RECORD. approach with the tide of red ink that is en- and targeted tax vetoes in this substitute. e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. 15218 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS June 29, 1994 In summary. Mr. Chairman, I urge this tinuous process involving an entire organiza­ tributions of her citizens. I know that Ohio is Committee to make our substitute in order tion rather than as a separate component, this · a much better place to live because of the once again. concept becomes accepted as a link in a dedication and countless hours of effort given I think there is growing support in the Congress and the country for enacting this chain of factors required for success.