[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S569-S570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE LINE-ITEM VETO ACT

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on Thursday, January 2, in the 
first civil action of 1997 in the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Columbia, a lawsuit was filed challenging the constitutionality of 
the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996. On this the first day of legislative 
business in the first session of the 105th Congress, I rise as one of 
the plaintiffs

[[Page S570]]

in the suit to inform the Senate that this action has commenced--as 
specifically provided for in the Line-Item Veto Act. Section 3(a) of 
the act provides that:

       Any Member of Congress or any individual adversely affected 
     . . . may bring an action, in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia, for declaratory judgment 
     and injunctive relief on the ground that any provision of 
     this part violates the Constitution.

  Six Members of Congress, led by our distinguished colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Robert C. Byrd, have joined together to bring this 
suit, which is captioned Byrd et al. v. Raines et al., Civil Action No. 
97-001. The other plaintiffs are the Senator from New York, the Senator 
from Michigan, Mr. Levin; the former Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield; 
Representative Waxman of California and Representative Skaggs of 
Colorado.
  I will simply restate for the Record what I said during our debates 
on this legislation during the last Congress. The Line-Item Veto Act 
effectuated an unprecedented and unconstitutional allocation of power 
from the legislative branch to the executive.
  The law--Public Law 104-130--which took effect on January 1 of this 
year, gives the President the authority to cancel any specific 
appropriation, any item of new direct spending, or any limited tax 
benefit contained in a bill that the President has just signed into 
law.
  Senators Byrd, Hatfield, Levin, and Congressmen Waxman and Skaggs and 
I have filed this suit because we believe the act violates article I of 
the Constitution, which requires that a bill be passed by a majority 
vote in both houses of Congress and either approved or vetoed in its 
entirety by the President. The line-item veto gives the President the 
power to unilaterally repeal, without congressional approval, portions 
of laws which he has already signed.
  In 1983, the Supreme Court declared in INS v. Chadha [462 U.S. 919, 
954] that, and I quote:

       It emerges clearly that the prescription for legislative 
     action in Article I, Section 7, represents the Framers' 
     decision that the legislative power of the Federal government 
     be exercised in accord with a single finely wrought and 
     exhaustively considered procedure.

  The Line-Item Veto Act departs dramatically from that ``single, 
finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure'' for making or 
changing Federal law. The Constitution could not be more clear on this 
point. The presentment clause of article I, section 7 states:

       Every Bill which shall have passed the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a 
     Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If 
     he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it. . 
     . .

  The Line-Item Veto Act unconstitutionally expands the President's 
power by authorizing him to approve a bill and sign it into law and, 
from an instant up to 5 days later, disapprove and return parts of the 
bill, so that the parts of the bill disapproved by the President do not 
have the force and effect of law. The act also violates the 
requirements of bicameral passage and presentment by granting to the 
President, acting alone, the authority to cancel and thus repeal 
provisions of law.
  Even if, as some have argued, the President will exercise this power 
sparingly, his ability to do so will forever shift the balance of 
power. A balance the Framers deemed fragile, and necessary for the 
proper functioning of the American Government. The Framers gave the 
power of the purse to Congress and Congress alone; Madison made the 
reason abundantly clear in Federalist No. 58:

       This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the 
     most complete and effectual weapon with which any 
     constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the 
     people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for 
     carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

  Whether the Line-Item Veto Act is viewed as granting the President a 
unilateral power of line-item revision of bills that have been 
presented for his signature, or as granting him a unilateral power to 
repeal portions of duly enacted laws, the act grants powers to the 
President that contravene the constitutional process for making Federal 
law. I might understand if the President were trying to seize this 
power. But why have we given it to him? The lawsuit filed earlier this 
month will allow the judiciary to review this issue under an expedited 
schedule. We hope to have a decision in the case by the Supreme Court 
in the next October term, and I will provide periodic updates on the 
progress of the case for the Record.

                          ____________________