Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. The senator from New Mexico is making my point exactly. The President's advisors cannot change the definition of budget authority to permit him to reach this provision. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee I was particularly concerned with the precise nature of the authority delegated to the President, and worked very hard along with my staff to ensure that the definitions were clear and unambiguous. That is the reason for the detailed definition in section 1026 of the Budget Act, as added by the Line Item Veto Act, which incorporates the long established definition of budget authority in section 3 of the Budget Act. Is it the Senator from New Mexico's understanding that prior to the attempted cancellation of section 642 that the President's own documents classified employee contributions to retirement accounts as governmental receipts that are counted as revenue and not offsetting receipts that offset budget authority and outlays?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last year the Congress enacted, and the President signed into law, the Line Item Veto Act--Public Law 104-130. This act delegated specific authority to the President to cancel in whole any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority identified by Congress, new direct spending, and limited tax benefits. As the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee at that time, I was chairman of the conference committee and one of the principal authors of the act. Another principal author was the Senator from New Mexico, my good friend and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. We are here on the floor today to say that the President exceeded the authority delegated to him when he attempted to use the Line Item Veto Act to cancel section 642 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1998, which is Public Law 105-61. Section 642 of that law would allow a six month open season for employees currently under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to switch to the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). The last such open season was in 1988. On October 16 President Clinton sent a special message to Congress in which he claims to have canceled section 642 pursuant to the authority delegated to him by Congress in the Line Item Veto Act. Under the Act the President is permitted to cancel in whole any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, any item of new direct spending, or any limited tax benefit if the President determines that such cancellation will reduce the Federal budget deficit, not impair any essential government function, and not harm the national interest. A cancellation must be made and Congress must be notified by special message within five calendar days of the date of enactment of the law providing the dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, item of new direct spending, or limited tax benefit that was canceled. The President's special message number 97-56 on the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1998 states that the President is canceling $854 million in discretionary budget authority provided by section 642. The President arrives at this figure by estimating the dollar amount that employee contributions to the CSRS would be reduced as a result of Federal employees shifting to FERS. Unfortunately for the President, these contributions do not represent a ``dollar amount of discretionary budget authority'' as defined by the Line Item Veto Act. Therefore those funds could not be canceled pursuant to that Act.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for that explanation. In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify further how the Line Item Veto Act operates. Section 1021(a)(3)(B) of the Budget Act--the section of the Line Item Veto Act that provides the cancellation authority--makes it clear that the authority is limited to the cancellation of a dollar amount of discretionary budget authority that is provided in the just-signed law before the President. Under the specific terms and definitions provided in the Line Item Veto Act, the President cannot reach a dollar amount of discretionary budget authority provided in some other law that is not the one before the President. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act did not provide $854 million in discretionary budget authority for section 642, so that amount could not be rescinded under the terms of the Line Item Veto Act. The $854 million figure came from the President's estimates of the loss of employee contributions to CSRS government-wide. As we have explained above that loss is not budget authority, so it cannot be canceled. But even if it were, the President could not reach dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority government-wide unless the dollar amount of budget authority needed government-wide was provided in the specific appropriations law before him. As the definition of cancel in section 1026 of the Budget Act clearly states, in the case of a dollar amount of discretionary budget authority the term ``cancel'' means ``rescind''--a term which itself has a long history in congressional-executive branch relations. The recission of budget authority in a specific law does not change the operative effect of a general provision in that specific law with respect to budget authority provided in another law. As the statement of managers accompanying the Line Item Veto Act makes clear, the delegated authority in the Act does not permit the President to strike out or rewrite the law. It merely allows him discretionary authority to close the doors to the Federal Treasury and refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress in that particular law. In contrast, the definition of ``cancel'' with respect to new direct spending, which also results in the expenditure of budget authority, is to prevent the specific provision of law or legal obligation from ``having legal force or effect.'' This distinction recognizes that provisions of law that result in new direct spending may not actually provide budget authority that can be canceled at that time--say for example a provision of law that simply increases the amount an individual will receive at a future date under an existing benefit program provided in a law enacted years before. Such provisions create a legal obligation or right that may be exercised in the future, or which result in a future increase in expenditures from budget authority provided elsewhere. If the President wishes to remove the legal force or effect of a specific provision of law that applies to budget authority provided in a law other than the appropriations law the provision is in, then he may only do so if that provision is new direct spending under the Line Item Veto Act. Section 642 is not an ``item of new direct spending'' as defined in section 1026 of the Budget Act because it results in savings to the government when compared to the present budget baseline. As explained above, the President's wish to the contrary notwithstanding, it does not result in a dollar amount of discretionary budget authority. Thus, the President has exceeded his delegated authority by violating the terms of the statute, and I would urge the Justice Department to concede that the cancellation of section 642 was outside the authority provided by the statute.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the day before Thanksgiving the University of Alaska's Athletic Department marks a milestone--the 20th anniversary of the Great Alaska Shootout. The shootout is a basketball tournament that began as an impossible dream of Bob Rachal, a coach who wanted to put his fledgling University of Alaska Anchorage basketball team on the map. Now, the shootout continues under Charlie Bruns and Tim Dillon, athletic director and has become an annual Thanksgiving tradition for Alaskans and basketball fans across our Nation. In the 20 years since the shootout began, our Nation's greatest college teams have traveled to Alaska over the Thanksgiving break to vie for the tournament trophy. Twenty former NCAA champions have taken part in the shootout over the two decades; last year marked the fifth time the defending national champion has participated in the shootout. The first game, 20 years ago, was played in a drafty field house on Fort Richardson, a military post in Anchorage, to about 2,500 fans. Now, the shootout fills our state-of-the-art Sullivan Sports Arena in Anchorage, and is televised live nationwide via ESPN. Sportswriters from the wire services, newspapers and magazines regularly travel to Anchorage to cover the shootout. Because the teams that participate are the best, the games are invariably closely contested; 60 of the previous 228 games have been won by margins of five points or less. Six have been settled in overtime; four in double overtime, and one in triple overtime. It isn't only the games that are important in the shootout, it is the opportunity players, coaches, and the families of the players and coaches, have to experience the greatness of Alaska and Alaskans, and the opportunity Alaskans have to meet these young athletes, their coaches, and their families from across our Nation. Volunteers open their homes to shootout participants and support the players and the guests in countless other ways, including transportation, entertainment and other special events. Our largest Alaska grocery chain, Carr's, provides important corporate support. The National Collegiate Athletic Association recognizes the special place this tournament holds by its votes over the years to allow the tournament a special place in American collegiate sports. The teams represent the finest programs in NCAA basketball history, and the University of Alaska Anchorage has gained a reputation for hosting one of the best tournaments in college basketball. The players and coaches and all who work to make the shootout a success bring credit to the University of Alaska, to Anchorage and to Alaska. Mr. President, I commend Chancellor Lea Gorsuch and the University of Alaska as it observes the 20th anniversary of a very special sports event. I know Dr. Lee Piccard, the former vice chancellor, who has seen every shootout game during all 20 years will enjoy it again.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Just for a few minutes, because I agreed to go to dinner with my wife tonight. If the Senator will be short, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that we will file a statement within 2 days following passage of the bill after the House has acted on the bill, or Congress as a whole. That will be printed as a document, to be a report for this bill that combines these three appropriations bills. The Senator from Michigan has 10 minutes. If he wants to use that now, Mr. President, I would be pleased to yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield such time to the Senator from Oregon as he wishes. I know he has a matter he wishes to discuss, and Senator Byrd and I have time so he can use whatever time of that he wishes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. STEVENS. I do object.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret that I have objected to the amendment. I tell my friend from Oregon that the practice that he seeks to change is embedded in our rules; not in any law. During the period of time that I served here, 8 years as whip, Republican assistant leader, 4 years in the minority and 4 years in the majority, we had a different way at that time of handling what is now known as a hold. A hold is nothing more than an agreement of another Senator to object on behalf of a Senator at the request of the second Senator to prevent a unanimous consent agreement from coming into play. There is nothing in the rules about holds. It is a practice that has built up. To try to pass a law to deal with a practice of the Senate--I would call to the attention of the Senator from Oregon, there is a law that Congress cannot sit in Washington after July 31st. It has been the law for many years. We will not change the practices of Senate by law. What we have to do is get some rule changes, or a standing order that would apply to Senators. But the issue is whether a Senator in each instance, in this case whether the leaders, may object on behalf of a Senator who says, ``I want to object and I may not be there at the time the subject comes up, and I want you to object for me.'' That is known as a hold today. When I first came to the Senate there was an official objectors' committee. It was unofficial in that sense, but on each side they had two or three Senators who agreed to be on the floor. At any time, one of them was here. And they objected to unanimous consent requests if they had been requested to do so by Members. It later became a prerogative of the leadership to do that. I think I would have to rely on my friend from West Virginia to give the complete history of it. I do not have the memory that he has. But I can assure you that he will instruct us one of these days about the history of this practice. But I do regret having to object. I understand what the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Iowa are trying to do. I wish them success, because I find holds to be very burdensome to deal with, whether it's from the leadership point of view or the point of view of a chairman of a committee.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are awaiting another Member who wishes to ask some questions, so I will not yield my time yet.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. The conference committee intends for the $6 million to be allocated to extend the south jetty at the Grays Harbor project to provide a permanent solution to the ongoing erosion problem

Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection to the Corps using the funds for that purpose. We have allocated significant funding for these projects and it is very important to ensure the funds are not wasted on needs which have already been addressed.

Mr. STEVENS. Of course.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are waiting for the Senator from Vermont. While I am waiting let me state for the record that the omnibus bill that is here has some additions that were not in the conference reports of the various bills. We have included the Small Business Administration reauthorization bill, a portion of the State Department authorization bill which deals with reorganization, and with authorization for the United Nations arrearages. We have included the Highway Safety and Transit Contract Authority Extensions, due to the expiration of ISTEA. We have technical corrections to the Department of Defense Authorization Act with regard to land transfer in New Mexico. And we have the agreement that deals with the census provision that was in the State-Justice-Commerce bills that passed the Senate, but it has been altered substantially. I should call attention to that. Let me ask the Chair, what time now remains on this bill?

Mr. STEVENS. I am authorized to yield back the time of the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from West Virginia. I do so.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Florida seek to speak?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with the understanding that the Senator from Florida will yield to the Senator from Vermont, in order to finish this bill, when the Senator from Vermont arrives, I suggest the Chair recognize the Senator from Florida. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. As I understand it then, the balance of the time is the time that remains to me, is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. I want to thank the Senate for its consideration of the desire of the Appropriations Committee to finish this work for this Congress. We had hoped that we would pass 13 separate appropriations bills. That has not been possible. But we have taken the opportunity to put two of the bills that have not been finished on this bill--that managed by Senator Faircloth and Senator Boxer, with the hope that we could resolve the differences with the House. It will go to the House now as an amendment to the House bill. It is an omnibus appropriations bill now. And the House will work its will on it. I am hopeful that it will decide to send the bill to the President. In any event, it is my understanding we will soon be presented with a continuing resolution. The continuing resolution in effect now would expire at midnight tonight. The one I expect to be received by the Senate will expire tomorrow night. So we are hopeful that we will be able to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate by tomorrow night with regard to the matters under this bill. Again, I thank everyone for their consideration of our position. And if there is nothing further to come before the Senate on this bill, I yield back the balance of the time. It is my understanding that would yield back all time on this bill. Is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS. Is there anything further we need to do to see it to that the time agreement is carried out?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is it proper at this time to move to reconsider the action taken by the Senate under this time agreement?

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.