1999CRH11845G TIME FOR CONGRESS TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
no...@house.gov
[Congressional Record: November 9, 1999 (House)]
[Page H11845-H11846]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr09no99-123]
TIME FOR CONGRESS TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
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, there has been increasing controversy over
executive orders and presidential proclamations since President
Franklin Roosevelt's administration. The recent comments of President
Clinton's aide, John Podesta, in U.S. News and World Report, give us
even more reason to be concerned. Mr. Podesta, in a moment of explicit
candor, outlines the President's plan to issue a whole series of
executive orders and changes to Federal rules without consulting
Congress.
Mr. Podesta goes further, saying, ``There is a pretty wide sweep of
things we're looking to do and we're going to be very aggressive in
pursuing it.'' That is the Podesta Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to issue a dire warning. There is a
``culture of deference'' in this Congress, and if we do not address
this issue of executive lawmaking, it is a violation of our own oath of
office. I am most deeply concerned about the Podesta Plan, to use
executive orders and other presidential directives to implement the
President's agenda without the consent of Congress. Executive lawmaking
is a violation of the Constitution. Article I states that all
legislative powers shall be vested in the Congress.
Sadly, Congress should not be surprised that this President's
frustrated staff is trying to bypass Congress. We have seen this
before. When the President issued his executive order on striker
replacements, he attempted to do what had been denied him by the legal
legislative process. The same was true when the President issued his
proclamation establishing a national monument in Utah, a sovereign
State.
Mr. Speaker, the framers expected national policy to be the result of
open and full debate, hammered out by the legislative and executive
branches. They believed in careful deliberation, conducted in a
representative assembly, subject to all the checks and balances that
characterize our constitutional system. Having broken with England in
1776, the founders rejected government by monarchy and one-man rule.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the President specifically given the
authority to issue these directives.
In the legislative veto decision of 1983, INS v. Chadha, 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 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 an executive order. Of course he cannot. The
President's controversial use of presidential directives skirt the
constitutional process, offend the values
[[Page H11846]]
announced by the Court in the legislative veto case, and do serious
damage to our commitment to representative government and the rule of
law.
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 must now define and limit
presidential power.
This is the danger: The road to tyranny does not begin by egregious
usurpations, but by those which appear logical; meant to gain public
support. We must not be lulled into complacency, because later they
will be aimed directly at our fundamental liberties and at our
representative self-government.
My colleagues, eternal vigilance is still the price of liberty.
____________________