[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12239-S12240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the three votes which we have had today, and to express my very deep 
concern about the precedents which the Senate has established in 
attaching to a conference report a highly controversial provision which 
was not subjected to hearings, or analysis, or the legislative process, 
and which was rammed through here today without real due process or a 
real legislative process.
  What has happened here--this is somewhat esoteric for someone who may 
be watching on C-SPAN II--is that the Federal Aviation Administration 
bill was passed by the House and Senate, and then it went to 
conference. In the conference there was an addition of a provision to 
determine which Federal labor agency would have jurisdiction over 
express companies. That provision was added into the conference report 
without having been considered by either the House or the Senate. It 
was not considered in hearings, it was not considered in debate, and it 
was not voted on, but it was in effect rammed through, and has become 
law because it was attached to a bill which has some $8 billion of 
Federal airport expenditures--a matter of enormous importance for 
America generally, and a matter of enormous importance for my home 
State, Pennsylvania--which has so many airports involved with this 
necessary funding that comes out of the aviation trust fund.
  It does not add to the deficit. It does not come out of general 
revenues. It is paid for out of an airport trust fund. But what we have 
done today, I would suggest, is a very, very serious perversion of 
Senate procedures. What can happen in the future is that under the 
overruling of the ruling of the Chair, any measure can be added in any 
conference report at any time, and if the conference report overall 
touches a subject of sufficient importance it will outweigh a provision 
which has been added without appropriate consideration.
  I voted against cloture--that is, I voted against cutting off debate 
on the underlying bill--because it seemed to me that provision required 
analysis, consideration, and debate. It affects thousands of jobs in 
Pennsylvania because it could determine which agency will govern the 
issue of labor matters and labor certification, and which 
representation will be in effect.
  It was represented that it was a mistake that it was left out before. 
I am skeptical about that, Mr. President because we have that 
representation made all the time. It was represented that it would only 
apply to one company. Well, that may be one company too many, if it is 
a bad provision not subjected to analysis, debate, nor hearings in our 
regular legislative process. But on the face of that provision, it is 
entirely likely and highly probable that the provision will apply to 
many companies. And, therefore, I voted against cutting off debate.
  Then on the issue of overruling the Chair, the Chair ruled that this 
provision should not have been in the bill under Senate rules. The 
Senate overruled the Chair by a vote of 56 to 39. There is talk that we 
can change the rule. But any time we have set a precedent in this body 
on allowing an extraneous measure to come in on a conference report, 
that is a precedent of overwhelming importance. Any time 51 Members 
think that the matter is so important that it ought to be passed to 
disregard the rules and the procedure, there is a precedent which has 
been established.
  It is very important to proceed in a principled way, and we have not 
done that here.
  I feel so strongly about that, Mr. President, that I voted against 
the

[[Page S12240]]

overall bill. Only two Senators voted against the measure on final 
passage--Senator Simon and Arlen Specter. If we do not follow the rules 
and don't proceed in a principled way, we are doing serious damage to 
the institutions and procedures which are set up not for one special 
case but to govern our conduct generally.
  I think it is especially important because this breach of our rules 
comes within 3 days of our passage of the omnibus appropriations bill 
where again we breached the rules. The Constitution calls for a 
separation of powers. It calls for the Congress to legislate on 
appropriations, and submit appropriations bills to the President for 
his consideration. If he signs it, it is law. If he vetoes it, the 
Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote. But that wasn't 
done on the omnibus appropriations bill.

  The President's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, sat in on the 
deliberations and negotiations with the Congress, which is a serious 
constitutional breach. The President had delegated to the Chief of 
Staff authority to act for the President. What Chief of Staff Panetta 
said became the President's conclusion, but the President does not have 
the authority to delegate his responsibility under the United States 
Constitution.
  In the end, that was an important bill. It had provisions for funding 
for education, which I supported; provisions for funding for Health and 
Human Services, which I supported; provisions for funding workplace 
safety, which I supported--all of which come under the jurisdiction of 
the subcommittee which I chair, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and 
Human Services.
  I think, Mr. President, as we rush to leave Washington that we are 
setting some very bad precedents and creating some very bad rules. I 
was one of, I think, 14 Senators to vote against the omnibus 
appropriations bill because I thought we were doing violence to the 
U.S. Constitution. We did that because we couldn't move through the 
legislative process in due course. Extraneous amounts were added, 
something I spoke to at length last Saturday and on Monday. So I shall 
not repeat it here. There are other colleagues waiting to speak. But 
these rules are established.
  I believe that the most precious gift America has is the U.S. 
Constitution. That sets the framework for our Government. Then we 
establish rules for our courts--our civil courts and our criminal 
courts. And we establish rules for the Congress. They are established 
in order to give due process. They are established in order to have a 
measure introduced, analyzed, and subjected to hearings where people 
can come in on both sides, testify. Then we can make an informed 
judgment. But when that is not done and when we violate those rules, we 
put our entire system at jeopardy. And that is wrong.
  That is why I was one of the few Senators voting against the omnibus 
appropriations bill, and one of only two Senators voting against this 
Federal Aviation Administration bill, recognizing the importance to my 
home State of Pennsylvania and to the entire country.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________