[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 130 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10613-S10614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the pending legislation, which will fund three major Departments in the 
United States: The Department of Labor, the Department of Health and 
Human Services, and the Department of Education.
  I chair the subcommittee in the Senate Appropriations Committee which 
has the responsibility for this legislation. I am very concerned about 
what is happening to our constitutional process. I think it not an 
overstatement to say that we have a constitutional crisis in what is 
happening with the appropriations process in the relationship between 
the Congress and the President of the United States.
  Since the Government was closed in late 1995 and early 1996, there 
has been created a very significant imbalance between the Congress and 
the President with what is realistically viewed as practically a 
dictatorial system of the President saying what is acceptable and the 
Congress being held hostage, in effect, concerned about being blamed 
for shutting down the Government. That is not the way the Constitution 
was written.
  The Congress is supposed to present the bills to the President. If 
the President vetoes, then there are negotiations and discussions as to 
what will happen. But the status of events today is that the President 
calls the tune and the Congress simply complies.
  There is also a significant deviation because, contrary to 
constitutional provision, the President and the President's men and 
women participate in the legislative process. The Constitution says 
that each House shall pass a bill; there will be a conference 
committee; they will agree; and each House will then vote on the 
conference report; and, if approved, the bill is submitted to the 
President.
  The constitutional process does not call for the executive branch to 
participate in deciding what will be in the bills. But for many years 
now, representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, sit 
in on the conferences, are a party to the process, and seek to 
determine in advance what will be acceptable to the executive branch, 
contrary to the constitutional setup where Congress is supposed to pass 
the bills and submit them to the President.
  We have had a very difficult time in the last 3 years with what has 
happened with the appropriations bill covering Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education. I spoke at some length about this problem on 
October 14, 1998, as we worked for the appropriations bill which turned 
out to be an omnibus bill. I was so concerned about the process that I 
voted against that bill. That was a tough vote to make since there were 
so many items on financing education which were very important and with 
which I agreed, and on financing Health and Human Services, again, 
which were important and with which I agreed, and on financing the 
Department of Labor, again, which were important and with which I 
agreed; but I felt so strongly that I voted against the bill and spoke 
at some length, as the Congressional Record will reflect on page 
S12536, on October 14th of 1998.
  Then on November 9, 1999, I again expressed my concerns about what 
the appropriations process comprehended as set forth in some detail on 
S14340 of the Congressional Record.
  This year, again, I am very concerned about where we are headed. The 
President submitted requests for these Departments for $106.2 billion. 
The Senate bill has provided the total amount which the President 
requested, but we have established some different priorities. That, 
under the Constitution, is the congressional prerogative. The 
Constitution calls for the Congress to control the purse strings and to 
establish the priorities. Of course, the President has to approve. But 
here again, the Constitution does not make the President the dominant 
player in this process; the Congress is supposed to traditionally 
control the purse strings.
  Working collaboratively with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, 
Senator Tom Harkin, we produced a bipartisan bill. I learned a long 
time ago that if you want to get something done in Washington, you have 
to be willing to cross party lines. Senator Harkin and I have done 
that. When the Democrats controlled the Senate, he chaired and I was 
ranking member; and with Republican control, I have the privilege, 
honor, to chair, and he is the ranking member. We have taken a very 
strong stand on appropriations for the National Institutes of Health, 
which I believe are the crown jewel of the Federal Government, maybe 
the only jewel of the Federal Government. This year we have increased 
funding for NIH by $2.7 billion, which is $1.7 billion more than the 
President's priority. Last year we appropriated $2.3 billion on an 
increase which, with an across-the-board cut, was reduced to $2.2 
billion. The year before, it was a billion, and the year before that, 
almost a billion. So that we have added some--it is $2.7 billion this 
year, 2.2 last year, 2.0 the year before, a billion the year before 
that, and almost a billion the year before that. So that we have added 
$8 billion. I think it adds up to $8 billion; when you deal with all 
these zeros, sometimes they are not too easy to add up in your head.
  The Senate approved that, and the House approved that. We think with 
the enormous progress made on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and cancer 
and heart disease, and so many others, that is where the priorities 
should be. We also put in $1 billion more on special education than the 
President had in his budget, a matter of some concern to many in the 
Senate. With the leadership of the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire, who is now presiding, we put extra funding there because we 
think that is where the priorities ought to be. Then the President made 
a request for $2.7 billion for school construction and new teachers. 
There is a lot of controversy in the Republican-controlled Senate about 
whether these are appropriate Federal functions, but we ended up, in a 
carefully crafted bill, giving the President his priorities, with an 
addendum that if the local school district decided they did not need 
the money for construction, that the local school districts could 
allocate it to local needs. And if the local school districts decided 
they did not need the money for teachers, they would give it to local 
needs.
  The President has resisted this. This is a very fundamental 
difference in governmental philosophy, a Washington, DC, bureaucratic 
straitjacket versus local control--according to the President, the 
first call for his own programs on construction of schools and on more 
teachers.
  We worked very hard this year and the Senate returned a bill which 
was passed on June 30, which tied a record going back to June 30, 1976, 
when the fiscal year 1977 appropriations bill was passed. Then we 
completed the conference with the House, where we had it all set on 
July 27, which I think may have established a new record. I am not sure 
about that. And we did not add the final signature to the conference 
report

[[Page S10614]]

because we didn't want to be in a position where the bill was sent to 
the President in August and held up there, but we finished all of our 
work.

  Regrettably, this bill has not been presented to the President 
because of the efforts on negotiations with the White House to try to 
get a bill which the President could sign. I repeat, I think it is a 
mistake, constitutionally and procedurally, to do that. We ought to 
send the President the bill.
  There have been, candidly, concerns within the Republican leadership 
where we have had bicameral meetings between the House and the Senate, 
the leadership, on precisely what should be done. It is my urging to my 
colleagues in the Senate and the House that we should stand by our bill 
of $106.2 billion, which is as much as the President asked for, and we 
should stand by our priorities, which give $600 million more to 
education. There is no higher priority in America than education. And 
we should stand by our priority of according $1.7 billion more to the 
National Institutes of Health. We should stand by our approach of 
giving the President what he asked for on teachers and school 
construction, subject to local determination if the local boards decide 
they do not want it for those purposes. But we ought not to buy our way 
out of town and to knuckle to the President and cave to the President. 
We ought to assert our legislative institutional standing.
  This bill could have been presented to the White House in early 
September. This Senator has pressed consistently in leadership meetings 
to present the bill to the President. It is my hope we will do that.
  I am not unaware of the fact that this is October 17 and that the 
Presidential election will be held 3 weeks from today. But I think we 
are dealing with values and principles here, constitutional principles 
which are paramount, and we ought to assert our legislative 
prerogatives and submit the bill to the President. There might be an 
opportunity for a national debate on this subject. Certainly it is 
worth an effort.
  There is no doubt that the President has the so-called bully pulpit, 
but there is a lot of concern in America on what the funding is going 
to be for the Departments involved here, not only the Department of 
Labor but certainly the Department of Education and certainly the 
Department of Health and Human Services. We ought to lay down a marker. 
We ought to lay down the gauntlet, and we ought to ask America to join 
in a debate to see where America's priorities lie.
  My own instinct is that we have the high ground here and we have the 
better case. So I hope the Congress will submit this bill to the 
President, will engage in that debate, and will assert our 
constitutional prerogatives to legislate. I think we have a good chance 
to have this bill finally enacted into law, or if it is vetoed, with 
some national debate, something very close to it.
  In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________