Discussion · Senate
Jeff Merkley Democrat
“President Trump is canceling nearly a billion dollars in government funding that Congress already passed. This is illegal and breaks the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to decide how money is spent, and the President cannot cancel programs on his own without our vote. Both parties need to work together to stop this.”
“Madam President, we have a challenge--a problem--and that is the President is exercising a line-item veto, and line-item vetoes are unconstitutional because the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President of the United States. Laws are not suggestions. The Constitution is not optional. A President is not a King. That was the Founders’ vision for our democratic Republic. But on Friday, President Trump swung a wrecking ball at the Founders’ vision, at the Constitution. He and Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, proceeded to--in the dark of night--notify that they were canceling nearly a billion dollars in programs authorized and funded by law. Well, let’s be clear. Canceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional--illegal because the funding is in law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself, and unconstitutional because the Constitution creates a separation of powers, with the power of the purse belonging to Congress, not the President. This has been tested a few times. In 1996, Congress tried to give the President a line-item veto, and the Supreme Court struck it down. It struck it down as unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. Yesterday, the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reaffirmed that this strategy by Trump, called a pocket rescission--a fancy name for a line-item veto--is illegal. Here is what they said. I will quote it at some length. And that fiscal year--we are hours away from it ending. So, in other words, more simply put, it is Congress’ job to design, authorize, and fund programs. It is the Executive’s job--the President and his team’s job--to implement those programs. The assignment of responsibilities is designed to ensure that we have a government that serves the people. In a democratic republic, the people’s representatives in Congress-- from every part of the country, from every walk of life--debate and negotiate and legislate so that you will have programs and spending decisions that reflect the needs of every part of the Nation. We don’t just deliver programs for red States when Republicans have the majority; we don’t just deliver programs for blue States when Democrats have the majority--no. All of us, working together, produce spending bills to serve people throughout this country--urban and rural, north and south, east and west, plains and coast. However you want to divide up the country, we serve everyone. So a President taking those bipartisan agreements to serve everyone and canceling out individual programs is both illegal and unconstitutional. But in an authoritarian, strongman state it is all different. The President alone decides what gets funded and can use that power to reward allies and punish opponents. In those states, there is no separation of powers; there is one authority. Call it a King. Call it a czar. Call it an emperor or a dictator or a tyrant. Whatever you call it, it doesn’t fit in a democratic republic. We do not have a tyrant or a dictator. We do not have a King. We have a President with responsibilities under the Constitution to implement the programs that we design, authorize, and fund here in Congress. That is how you get government by and for the people rather than by and for a billionaire or by and for an elite class or by and for a King himself. But last year, Trump did exercise his strategy of operating as a King in a, if you will, line-item veto through this fancy term ``pocket rescission,’’ canceling nearly $5 billion in programs authorized and funded by law. That tool, called a rescission, was created under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, and it allows the President to propose canceling a program, but it also says that cancellation does not take effect unless Congress votes to cancel the programs, and we haven’t voted to cancel these programs. So, therefore, that is why it is illegal to cancel them. Well, it is pretty straightforward. The law says that no rescission or cancellation goes into effect without Congress authorizing the cancellation by law. Madam President, I have here what I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a statement from the chair of Appropriations, Senator Susan Collins. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: point here. She notes: Then she goes on to cite the independent Government Accountability Office. So on both sides of the aisle, those of us who are defending the Constitution are coming together and saying: We have to fix this, and we have to put an end to this end run of canceling programs with days to go and then claiming the clock has expired. This is essentially the situation. Imagine Cinderella and she is in her carriage. The carriage turns into a pumpkin at midnight. So in comes the President, and the President says: We are going to pause these programs--or Cinderella’s travel--and so we are going to hold her hostage for a few minutes until midnight so her carriage will turn into a pumpkin. And then, the equivalent of that, of course, is that the program’s legal window to be implemented has expired. That is what is going on here, and it is an ugly, ugly version of ``too clever by half,’’ as we say back home, to do a line-item veto. And my colleagues across the aisle, we will all be affected by this. The programs the President tried to cancel--his process of canceling-- may be programs that are favored by one side or the other, but imagine a different President with a different set of priorities. We have to defend the institution. We have to defend the Senate and make sure that no President of any party, at any time, gets a line-item veto that corrupts us from being a democratic republic into being an authoritarian state. So as Democrats and Republicans all sworn to the same defense of the same Constitution, let’s come together and set this right. And we have tried to set it right before. In the Appropriations Committee, I and others offered amendments to say: Hey, make sure this is immune from being undone by a rescission within 90 days. Colleagues, you know, wanting to not embarrass a President, said, well, they are not going to support that; the Republican majority said they wouldn’t support that. But we heard assurances that they agreed with us, with the principle, that they weren’t going to let it happen, but here it is. Five days before the end of the fiscal year, it just happened, and the chair of the Appropriations Committee is crying out and crying foul that this is not acceptable under the law or the Constitution. So let’s all listen to her. Let’s all listen to the Constitution. So this situation must be remedied, and a number of my colleagues are here tonight to speak to it. And I just want to pass this conversation on to the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee to emphasize how important it is that we address this and we address this tonight.”
-
Speech in the House
Reasoning 100 of 100
This statement drew 9 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis
Madam President, we have a challenge--a problem--and that is the President is exercising a line-item veto, and line-item vetoes are unconstitutional because the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President of the United States. Laws are not suggestions. The Constitution is not optional. A President is not a King. That was the Founders’ vision for our democratic Republic. But on Friday, President Trump swung a wrecking ball at the Founders’ vision, at the Constitution. He and Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, proceeded to--in the dark of night--notify that they were canceling nearly a billion dollars in programs authorized and funded by law. Well, let’s be clear. Canceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional--illegal because the funding is in law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself, and unconstitutional because the Constitution creates a separation of powers, with the power of the purse belonging to Congress, not the President. This has been tested a few times. In 1996, Congress tried to give the President a line-item veto, and the Supreme Court struck it down. It struck it down as unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. Yesterday, the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reaffirmed that this strategy by Trump, called a pocket rescission--a fancy name for a line-item veto--is illegal. Here is what they said. I will quote it at some length. And that fiscal year--we are hours away from it ending. So, in other words, more simply put, it is Congress’ job to design, authorize, and fund programs. It is the Executive’s job--the President and his team’s job--to implement those programs. The assignment of responsibilities is designed to ensure that we have a government that serves the people. In a democratic republic, the people’s representatives in Congress-- from every part of the country, from every walk of life--debate and negotiate and legislate so that you will have programs and spending decisions that reflect the needs of every part of the Nation. We don’t just deliver programs for red States when Republicans have the majority; we don’t just deliver programs for blue States when Democrats have the majority--no. All of us, working together, produce spending bills to serve people throughout this country--urban and rural, north and south, east and west, plains and coast. However you want to divide up the country, we serve everyone. So a President taking those bipartisan agreements to serve everyone and canceling out individual programs is both illegal and unconstitutional. But in an authoritarian, strongman state it is all different. The President alone decides what gets funded and can use that power to reward allies and punish opponents. In those states, there is no separation of powers; there is one authority. Call it a King. Call it a czar. Call it an emperor or a dictator or a tyrant. Whatever you call it, it doesn’t fit in a democratic republic. We do not have a tyrant or a dictator. We do not have a King. We have a President with responsibilities under the Constitution to implement the programs that we design, authorize, and fund here in Congress. That is how you get government by and for the people rather than by and for a billionaire or by and for an elite class or by and for a King himself. But last year, Trump did exercise his strategy of operating as a King in a, if you will, line-item veto through this fancy term ``pocket rescission,’’ canceling nearly $5 billion in programs authorized and funded by law. That tool, called a rescission, was created under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, and it allows the President to propose canceling a program, but it also says that cancellation does not take effect unless Congress votes to cancel the programs, and we haven’t voted to cancel these programs. So, therefore, that is why it is illegal to cancel them. Well, it is pretty straightforward. The law says that no rescission or cancellation goes into effect without Congress authorizing the cancellation by law. Madam President, I have here what I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a statement from the chair of Appropriations, Senator Susan Collins. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: point here. She notes: Then she goes on to cite the independent Government Accountability Office. So on both sides of the aisle, those of us who are defending the Constitution are coming together and saying: We have to fix this, and we have to put an end to this end run of canceling programs with days to go and then claiming the clock has expired. This is essentially the situation. Imagine Cinderella and she is in her carriage. The carriage turns into a pumpkin at midnight. So in comes the President, and the President says: We are going to pause these programs--or Cinderella’s travel--and so we are going to hold her hostage for a few minutes until midnight so her carriage will turn into a pumpkin. And then, the equivalent of that, of course, is that the program’s legal window to be implemented has expired. That is what is going on here, and it is an ugly, ugly version of ``too clever by half,’’ as we say back home, to do a line-item veto. And my colleagues across the aisle, we will all be affected by this. The programs the President tried to cancel--his process of canceling-- may be programs that are favored by one side or the other, but imagine a different President with a different set of priorities. We have to defend the institution. We have to defend the Senate and make sure that no President of any party, at any time, gets a line-item veto that corrupts us from being a democratic republic into being an authoritarian state. So as Democrats and Republicans all sworn to the same defense of the same Constitution, let’s come together and set this right. And we have tried to set it right before. In the Appropriations Committee, I and others offered amendments to say: Hey, make sure this is immune from being undone by a rescission within 90 days. Colleagues, you know, wanting to not embarrass a President, said, well, they are not going to support that; the Republican majority said they wouldn’t support that. But we heard assurances that they agreed with us, with the principle, that they weren’t going to let it happen, but here it is. Five days before the end of the fiscal year, it just happened, and the chair of the Appropriations Committee is crying out and crying foul that this is not acceptable under the law or the Constitution. So let’s all listen to her. Let’s all listen to the Constitution. So this situation must be remedied, and a number of my colleagues are here tonight to speak to it. And I just want to pass this conversation on to the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee to emphasize how important it is that we address this and we address this tonight.