[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 4543]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, most Americans possess little knowledge of 
or experience with the subject of presidential directives. Indeed, even 
those familiar with executive orders and proclamations may not 
understand the full impact of these directives on Federal, State, and 
local laws or on the balance of power in this Nation.
  By issuing executive orders, which infringe on congressional 
authority, it has become increasingly clear that the President is 
skirting the constitutional process and meddling in the legislative 
affairs of Congress. The result is a subtle erosion of our 
representative self-government and the rule of law.
  The President seeks to expand his authority beyond what the 
Constitution allows. He is using directives to seize land, usurp State 
law, expand the Federal Government, and spend taxpayer dollars without 
congressional authorization. This definition of executive power would 
have astonished the framers of our constitution. Their structure of 
government deliberately rejected the British model, which gave the king 
all executive authority.
  A steady increase in controversy over executive orders and 
presidential proclamations has arisen since FDR's first administration. 
Judging by the comments of the White House, we have even more reason to 
be concerned. Mr. Podesta, the President's Chief of Staff, has outlined 
the President's plan to issue a series of executive orders and other 
directives that will become the force and effect of law. Thus, if 
unchallenged, the President has taken legislative power without first 
getting the okay from Congress.
  Congress should be outraged by the President's staff, as they look 
for ways to bypass the legislative branch. We have seen this before. 
When the President issued his Executive Order on striker replacement, 
he attempted to do what had been denied him by the regular legislative 
process. In addition, when the President issued his proclamation 
establishing a national monument in Utah, he again tried to do what he 
had been unable to do in Congress.
  I am deeply concerned with executive lawmaking, and if Congress does 
not openly challenge the President, we are surely surrendering our 
liberty. It seems clear that the President plans on using Executive 
Orders and other presidential directives to implement his agenda 
without the consent of Congress. Executive lawmaking is a violation of 
the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. As Article I 
states, all legislative powers shall be vested in the Congress.
  In the legislative veto decision of 1983, the Supreme Court insisted 
that congressional power be exercised in accord with a single finely 
wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. The Court said that the 
records of the Philadelphia Convention and the State ratification 
debates provide unmistakable expression of a determination that the 
legislation by the national Congress be a step-by-step deliberate and 
deliberative process. If Congress is required to follow this rigorous 
process, how absurd it is to argue that a President can accomplish the 
same result by unilaterally issuing executive orders or presidential 
proclamations.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not be lulled into complacency. It is time to 
clarify the scope of executive authority vested in the Presidency by 
Article II of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has failed to address 
this issue and it is time for Congress to invoke the powerful weapons 
at its command. Through its ability to authorize programs and 
appropriate funds, Congress can define and limit presidential power. As 
Members, we must participate in our fundamental duty of overseeing 
executive policies, passing judgment on them, and behaving as the 
legislative branch should.
  Eternal vigilance is still the price of liberty, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________