A curb on Clinton power?

March 23, 1999

Concerned about President Clinton’s aggressive use of executive
orders to shape policy and make end-runs around Congress, Rep. Jack
Metcalf, R-Wash., has introduced
legislation he hopes will check the White House’s hand.

“The president has in effect made himself a ‘super-legislator’ by
issuing executive orders that require the appropriation of funds,” says
Metcalf, explaining the reason for his new bill. “We must reverse this
trend and fulfill our constitutional duty. This vital legislation
reasserts the role of Congress to enact legislation and appropriate
federal dollars. [It] reminds us all that only Congress has the power to
authorize the spending of federal dollars.”

If House Concurrent Resolution 30 passes, any executive order “which
infringes on congressional powers and duties” or requires the
expenditure of federal funds “not specifically appropriated for the
purpose of the executive order” would be advisory only and have no force
or effect unless Congress enacts it as law.

Those powers and duties are detailed in Article I, Section 8 of the
U.S. Constitution, which assigns to Congress various responsibilities,
among them levying and collecting taxes, declaring war, raising and
maintaining a military, regulating commerce between the states and
foreign nations, and coining money.

“We’re focusing on Section 8 because we want to re-establish
completely the prerogatives of the Congress to authorize and appropriate
funds for legislation,” explained Metcalf’s chief of staff, Lew Moore,
in a telephone interview.

The resolution would apply not only to recent executive orders, but
to those issued by the president “before, on, or after the date of the
approval of this resolution.”

Of the 279 executive orders issued by Clinton, Metcalf regards E.O.
13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts along American Heritage
Rivers — issued Sept. 11, 1997 — as one that’s “particularly
egregious,” said Moore. “That’s the one that really got us started.
Clinton was promising federal money that had not been appropriated; he
was reprogramming funds that were not authorized.”

Under this executive order, Clinton would select 10 rivers from a
list of nominees — deemed in need of “federal protection” and funds.
Nominations were made by local governments and various environmental
groups, with — at first — no provision for withdrawing a nominated
river from the list. The list was later expanded, again by executive
order, to 14.

Metcalf discovered the Snohomish River in his district had been
nominated without his knowledge or consent, but with support of the
local government officials who had been promised funding by federal
agents.

When questioned, officials explained White House agents had promised
money for various projects.

“In essence, what they [the local officials] told us was that the
federal government was going to issue regulations or in some way use its
police powers to ‘protect’ the river — along with funding,” Moore
recalled. “This was the pitch to these people to support this
initiative. They didn’t realize that they were taking the first steps
towards having the Feds driving local land use policy. And of course,
they were promising that funding would be sent from the various agencies
to assist in this effort.”

“This means the funding would be rerouted from one purpose to
another,”
Moore said. “As an example, where money might have been appropriated for
U.S. Fish and Wildlife for various programs, not a dime has been
appropriated by Congress for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. By
going through this circuitous routing, they were hoping to get some
funding in.”

It was this rerouting of money to implement the Heritage Rivers
program that caused Moore and Metcalf to take a closer look at the
mechanics of executive orders.

As they see it, “If Congress sends money to an agency, say to Fish
and Wildlife, for one purpose — and it ends up in a program that every
chairman of jurisdiction in the Congress has made very clear they
oppose, that’s thwarting the intent of Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution,” Moore said. “I don’t know how else you can read that.”

As of March 20, HCR 30 had 32 cosponsors. The first to sign on was
Rep. Henry Hyde, R-IL, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee where
the bill will eventually be heard.

Other co-sponsors include Reps. Ernest Istook, R-OK, Ron Paul, R-TX,
Dan Burton, R-IN, Virgil Goode, D-WV, and James Traficant, D-OH.

“We believe HCR 30 is the first shot across the bow in a new and
renewed struggle to take our Constitution back and to return the
prerogatives to the peoples’ representatives,” said Moore.

“But to get out of the Judiciary Committee, HCR 30 must be raised to
the radar” of other members of Congress.”

Selected earlier stories: