[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.
____________________