[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5061-S5063]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           PRESIDENTIAL POWER

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Friday, June 9, I noted with particular 
interest the headline in The Washington Post which read, ``Bush Aims at 
`Discord' in Capital.'' Not surprisingly, candidate Bush's solution to 
too much partisanship in Washington is to increase the power of the 
Presidency.
  We have heard that before. We have heard it from the current 
President, and we have heard it from previous Presidents. But now we 
hear it again. Imagine that. The solution to too much partisanship in 
Washington is to increase the power of the President.
  Now imagine that! Among the ``power grabs'' the candidate advocates 
are biennial budgeting, a congressional budget resolution which would 
have to be signed by the President--get that--a version of the line-
item veto--how preposterous--and a commission to recommend ``pork-
barrel projects for elimination.'' What a joke.
  While I readily agree with candidate Bush that there is too much 
partisanship in Washington, and have said so repeatedly for years, the 
solutions candidate Bush proposes will do absolutely nothing to 
eliminate partisanship. In the highly unlikely event that any of these 
proposals will ever be enacted, their most likely impact would be to 
hand the next President a club with which to beat into submission 
members of Congress who might not be leaning the President's way on key 
issues of importance to him.
  None of these reported Bush solutions to disharmony in Washington are 
new, nor are they ``news.'' Every President in recent history has tried 
to wrest more power from the people's duly elected representatives and 
transfer it to the executive branch. The net effect of all such 
transfers would be that unelected executive-branch bureaucrats, and, 
the President, who is not directly elected by the people either, would 
enjoy an increased advantage in forcing their agenda on this Nation.
  Make no mistake about it. The carefully crafted constitutional checks 
and balances between the branches of Government can slowly be subverted 
over time by just such proposals as these, which candidate Bush has 
made. While I agree that the climate in Washington these days is less 
than inspiring, the cure must never be to advocate a weakening of the 
constitutional checks and balances under the false colors of 
constructive reform.
  Take, for instance, Mr. Bush's proposal to have a commission 
recommend certain pork-barrel projects for elimination. This is an idea 
which, conceptually, goes straight at the heart of representative 
democracy and at its most important tool, the power of the purse. It is 
a proposal which exposes an absolute ignorance and disregard of the 
constitutional grant of spending power to the representatives--and I am 
one of them--of the 50 States. Moreover, when examined closely, the 
arrogance of such an approach is close to appalling.
  To suggest that an appointed commission could somehow understand the 
needs of the 50 States in terms of public works better than the men and 
women who are sent here to represent those States, defies logic and 
denigrates the people's judgment in the choice of their own Members of 
Congress. Imagine a commission that would be set up to make judgments 
about appropriations concerning infrastructure, about bridges, roads, 
highways, canals, harbors, rivers in this country. That is why the 
people sent us here; that is our responsibility. No member of a 
commission can possibly understand the needs of the State I represent--
I defy anyone to contend otherwise--and have been proud to represent 
for 54 years, better than I, and others in the West Virginia 
delegation. No commission can tell me or tell the people of West 
Virginia what they need by way of infrastructure, so-called ``pork 
barrel'' projects. The same can be said about the Members from other 
States. I defy anyone to claim that sort of wisdom to the satisfaction 
of myself or the citizens of my State. Such a claim would be sheer and 
utter nonsense!
  I realize that the term ``pork-barrel'' has become symbolic in modern 
parlance of everything that is wrong with Government. But, in fact, one 
man's ``pork-barrel'' project is another man's essential road, another 
constituency's essential road or bridge or dam. What is totally 
forgotten is that many of these so-called ``pork barrel'' projects are 
the sort of infrastructure improvements which, State by State, combine 
to help to make this country the economic power house that it has 
become. Now, Webster debated with Hayne in 1830. That has all been 
plowed over by Webster at that time.
  It is easy to oppose infrastructure projects in another Member's 
state. I wouldn't do it unless there was outright fraud involved. It is 
easy to claim that if a project does not benefit me or my State, then 
it must be wasteful. Of course, when it comes down to it, they don't 
benefit me personally. They benefit the people I represent. But, the 
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle generally grant each 
other the expertise to know what is essential for their own State's 
well-being. I believe that I would be a poor judge, indeed, of what is 
good for California or New Mexico or Arizona, and so I generally rely 
on the Members of those States when it comes to projects which they 
deem important.
  I also assume that the elected representatives of those states have 
the wisdom and integrity not to advocate foolish or wasteful endeavors. 
Federal dollars are and have been scarce for years. Congressional 
spending is watched closely by representatives of the media and by the 
voters who send us here. What is not watched so closely by the media or 
the voters who send us here or the voters who indirectly send the 
topmost occupant of the White House to his position is executive branch 
spending. Although the voters may be only dimly aware of waste and 
duplication vigorously advocated and defended each year by the 
executive

[[Page S5062]]

branch, I can assure everyone within the sound of my voice and everyone 
watching through the electronic eye that it exists in the executive 
branch.
  Talk about pork barrel; take a look at the executive branch! A more 
useful commission might be one that is charged to look at executive 
branch excesses and report yearly to the Congress.
  How about that? Let the candidates for the Presidency and Vice 
Presidency take that on. Let both candidates, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, 
take that on. Look at the executive branch, see what the excesses are 
there, weed out the pork barrel.
  As for any attempt to negate the decisions of the people's duly 
elected representatives through any form of line-item veto process, I 
assure the new President--and I don't know who will be the new 
President just yet, but I can assure the new President, whether he be a 
Republican or a Democrat, whether he be Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore--it 
doesn't make any difference to me in this respect--whichever party he 
may represent, that that proposal concerning a line-item veto will 
encounter a solid stonewall from this Senate, as it has always 
encountered such a wall.
  We slew that dragon once in the courts, didn't we? Yes, we slew that 
dragon in the courts. Thank God for the Supreme Court of the United 
States, certainly in that incidence. We slew that dragon once in the 
courts, and it will raise its ugly head again only with very great 
difficulty. Any proposal which seeks to bury a dagger in the heart of 
the most powerful check which the Constitution provides on an 
overreaching President will encounter serious opposition right here on 
this floor, and right here at this desk. Amen! May God continue to give 
me the voice with which to speak and the legs on which to stand to 
fight this dragon, wherever it may appear.
  The power over the purse--a power derived through centuries of 
struggle and bloodshed--a power that protects the people of this Nation 
from the whims of a fool or knave in the White House--has been 
bequeathed to the people's branch in our national charter. It is not 
there through any accident. It is there through no luck of the draw. It 
is there because the framers understood the lessons of history and had 
the wisdom to know that a King or a President must be made controllable 
by the people in this most fundamental, this most basic way.
  By its very nature, any proposal which hands to the President an easy 
means by which to threaten a Member with the cancellation or 
redirection of moneys for that Member's State, after those moneys have 
been appropriated in law by the Congress, gives the President undue and 
unwise leverage over Members of Congress in a way that completely 
alters the nature of the separation of powers.
  Ask any Governor or former Governor who has had the tool of a line-
item veto at his disposal what he found to be its principal value. You 
will probably get an answer that indicates that the major usefulness of 
the line-item veto is a means to bully certain uncooperative members of 
the State legislature. I urge candidate Bush and I urge candidate Gore 
and all of their advisers to read afresh article I of the U.S. 
Constitution. Read it again. Pay particular attention to it. The intent 
of the framers is crystal clear.
  As for biennial budgeting, at the moment, I am not so sure about 
that. With respect to biennial appropriations, however, I am very sure. 
I would be very opposed to that. I fear that with biennial budgeting 
there may be some unintended consequences. With respect to biennial 
appropriations, I still fear that the consequences of such a change 
might ultimately mean massive supplemental appropriations bills to 
cover contingencies which no human mind can predict, such as 
earthquakes, floods, droughts, wars, or recessions.
  While biennial appropriations are always touted for their supposed 
natural byproduct--more oversight--I believe that, in the real world, 
the kind of massive supplemental appropriations bills which will likely 
occur as a result of any such biennial appropriations, if we ever reach 
that point, will receive very little in the way of thorough oversight.
  In truth, most of our serious budget problems derive not from yearly 
appropriations, but from the ever-growing mandatory spending and 
entitlement programs. Dealing with politically difficult entitlement 
and mandatory spending reform demands the kind of study, analysis, 
consensus, leadership, and courage that no process tinkering can 
replace. One thing I have learned after 48 years in this town is that 
when hard decisions press down on politicians, process reform often 
becomes the solution of choice.
  I also noted in the same Post article--and I must admit with some 
amusement--that while candidate Bush decries polling, he appears to 
have been paying at least some modicum of attention to the polls, else 
how would he know that ``Americans look upon the spectacle in 
Washington and they do not like what they see''? I am quoting from the 
reported story. Perhaps he has found some direct way to channel the 
viewpoints of the people, but I rather think he has been doing a little 
poll watching of his own.
  The trouble with election year poll watching is that it makes us 
politicians think we have to instantly respond, either to get a 
headline or get a vote. As one might expect, these quickie candidate 
responses are often neither very responsive nor very wise.
  No, the climate in Washington today cannot be improved by any such 
commission, as has been recommended, or any budget process change, or 
any power grab by the executive branch. The problems here have to do in 
part with this being an election year and in part with more fundamental 
matters. If we in this body could just begin to do away with the 
simplicity of labeling each other as devils, and each other's proposals 
as ruinous to the Republic and, instead, worked to promote a freer, 
less rancorous exchange of debate and discussion on this floor, I 
believe that much of the pointless partisanship might begin to 
dissipate.
  The partisanship we all complain about is born, at least partially, 
from the frustration of not being permitted to adequately and openly 
debate issues and ideas important to our constituencies and to the 
Nation.
  I believe that once we begin to do what our people sent us here to 
do, which is grapple with the nation's challenges, exchange views, and 
learn and profit from those exchanges, we will see a return of most of 
the lost public confidence which may have been reflected in somebody's 
polls. Legislating in a Republic--and it is a republic, not a 
democracy. I want to say that again. We pledge allegiance to the flag 
of the United States of America and to the Republic--not to the 
democracy.
  Well, legislating in a republic can never be a totally neat, 
efficient, and tidy endeavor. In a nation as large and diverse as our 
own, which bears heavy responsibilities both domestically and 
internationally, the way to wisdom usually lies in the often tedious, 
rarely orderly, free flow of informed debate. Consensus is what we need 
to aim for, and consensus is best built by an airing of views. The 
Framers knew this and gave the Congress the power to legislate, tax and 
appropriate because of that fundamental understanding. But, absolutely 
basic to that kind of informed discussion and debate is respect among 
those of us charged with conducting it, for the motives, experience, 
expertise, and opinions of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 
Regrettably no shop-worn set of budget process changes can mandate 
that. And the American people should view with an especially jaundiced 
eye any finger wagging presidential candidate with an agenda all his 
own who wants to transfer power to himself in order to quiet 
congressional ``discord.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the June 9, 2000 
Washington Post article.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 9, 2000]

                  Bush Aims At ``Discord'' In Capital

                           (By Dana Milbank)

       Knoxville, TN, June 8.--Texas Gov. George W. Bush today 
     offered a broad plan to take the partisan poison out of 
     Washington--in large part by transferring power from Congress 
     to the president.
       The GOP presidential candidate pointed to the budget and 
     confirmation battles of the last decade that have left scars 
     on Republicans and Democrats and have turned off many 
     Americans.
       ``If the discord in Washington never seems to end, it's 
     because the budget process never seems to end,'' Bush told 
     about 600 people in

[[Page S5063]]

     brilliant sunshine outside the Knoxville Civic Auditorium. He 
     decried an environment of ``too much polling and not enough 
     decisionmaking.''
       ``Americans look upon the spectacle of Washington and they 
     do not like what they see,'' Bush declared. ``I agree with 
     them. It's time for a change.''
       Bush proposed revamping the federal budget process to shift 
     budget-making from an annual to a biennial exercise and to 
     require the president and Congress to agree on spending 
     targets early in the process, to prevent government 
     shutdowns.
       Bush also said he would target wasteful spending by 
     restoring a version of the line-item veto and installing a 
     commission to recommend pork-barrel projects for elimination, 
     a nod to one of the favored issues of his former rival Sen. 
     John McCain (R-Ariz.). In addition, he proposed soothing 
     partisan tensions by calling on Congress to approve the next 
     president's executive and judicial nominations within 60 
     days.
       Even on their day of bipartisanship, Bush and his 
     supporters took a couple of partisan shots. ``All we have 
     heard from my opponent are the familiar exaggerations and 
     scare tactics,'' Bush told the crowd in Vice President Gore's 
     home state. ``Proposals he disapproves of are never just 
     arguments; they're `risky schemes.' This kind of unnecessary 
     rhetoric is characteristic of the tone in Washington, D.C. 
     It's the `war room' mentality.''
       Gov. Don Sundquist (R) introduced Bush by saying of his 
     proposals: ``You're right on every one and Gore is wrong.''
       The likeliest opponents of Bush's proposals are members of 
     Congress in both parties, particularly those in charge of 
     spending legislation. Many of Bush's proposals--biennial 
     budgeting, the line-item veto, the anti-pork commission and 
     limiting the confirmation process--amount to a transfer of 
     power from the legislative to the executive branch. When the 
     House recently attempted to add a biennial budgeting proposal 
     to a budget reform measure, 42 Republicans joined a large 
     number of Democrats in killing it.
       The Clinton administration has supported the line-item veto 
     and biennial budgeting, and Gore advisers said most of the 
     rest of Bush's proposals are unobjectionable. But Chris 
     Lehane, Gore's spokesman, sought to undermine Bush's 
     credibility as a reformer. He said that Bush promised to 
     create an office overseeing the reform of Texas government 
     but that, ``to date, no such office has been put together.''
       This is the second time this spring Bush has focused a 
     major speech on changing the tone of Washington. While some 
     of the details in today's speech will resonate more with 
     political insiders, the overall message, as with his earlier 
     remarks at a GOP fundraiser in Washington, is aimed at a 
     broader audience.
       ``I recognize it's a little dry, but it's a necessary 
     reform,'' Bush told the crowd. ``If anybody pays attention, 
     people in Washington will pay attention.'' He added: ``I 
     don't see this resonating with intensity across America.''
       Bush said he got encouraging responses from McCain and 
     Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.).
       House and Senate members said Bush's ideas would get a 
     respectful hearing on Capitol Hill, although proposals 
     requiring Congress to relinquish power over the nation's 
     purse strings likely would encounter resistance. As for 
     Bush's call for cracking down on pork-barrel spending, Rep. 
     David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), a senior member of the 
     Appropriations Committee, said: ``In the abstract it sounds 
     good, but in the real world of government there's always 
     going to be some of that.''
       Today's speech is part of a package of reform proposals. On 
     Friday, Bush will speak about cutting the budget and making 
     government services more efficient. Among other things, he 
     will propose devoting the off-year in the biennial budget 
     process to examining which government programs should be 
     eliminated.
       Biennial budgeting, used in about 20 states, including 
     Texas and Virginia, would free lawmakers to devote more time 
     to other duties. Bush also would write the budget in non-
     election years to reduce partisan tensions. He told reporters 
     aboard his campaign plane that his proposals would 
     ``contribute to fiscal sanity.'' However, Bush advisers 
     acknowledged, it would be easy for Congress to pass 
     supplemental spending measures, even in non-budget years.
       As part of Bush's budgeting proposal, he would require a 
     joint budget resolution to be signed by the president to 
     provide a framework. If Congress and the president couldn't 
     agree, they would use the president's budget or the previous 
     year's, whichever were lower, to prevent a government 
     shutdown. A similar process was used with continuing budget 
     resolutions in the 1980s. The anti-shutdown provision is the 
     one proposal that could draw serious objections from Gore. 
     One Democrat argued that it would ``put Congress on 
     autopilot.''
       Bush's line-item veto provision seeks to avert the pitfalls 
     that caused a similar measure passed by Congress to be struck 
     down by the Supreme Court. Instead of giving the president 
     the power to cancel spending outright, it would allow him not 
     to release certain funds. This is similar to the 
     ``impoundment'' power used by presidents until Watergate-era 
     reforms took it away because of President Nixon's zealous use 
     of it.
       In his speech, Bush decried the ``unreasonable delay and 
     unrelenting investigation'' in the approval of presidential 
     nominations, an implicit rebuke of Senate Republicans. But he 
     did not recommend that the Senate act on President Clinton's 
     long-delayed appointments.
       Bush said the 60-day provision should apply to whoever is 
     the next president. But he seemed to have a pretty good idea 
     of who that will be. ``As president, I'm here in Knoxville, 
     Tennessee,'' he said at one point during his speech.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, is it the case we are in a period of 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me have consent for as much time as I 
consume in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________