[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6437-S6438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             RAINES V. BYRD

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, earlier today, in a seven-to-two decision, 
the United States Supreme Court ruled that Members of Congress do not 
have the requisite constitutional standing necessary to challenge the 
Line Item Veto Act.
  That decision overturns the April 10 ruling of the U.S. District 
Court, which held that the Act does, indeed, injure

[[Page S6438]]

Members sufficiently to confer standing. Moreover, having granted 
standing, the District Court went on to conclude that the Act was an 
unconstitutional delegation of Congress' Article I lawmaking power.
  As the Senator whose name titles today's decision--Raines v. Byrd--I 
am obviously disappointed that a majority of the Supreme Court denied 
standing to Members of Congress. However, I remain mindful of the fact 
that the most important decision in this matter lies ahead. In the 
meantime, I am somewhat heartened by the fact that at least one member 
of the Court was willing to consider the merits of our argument. In 
what I believe will be a vindicated position, Justice John Paul 
Stephens wrote that ``. . . the same reason that the [Members] have 
standing provides a sufficient basis for concluding that the statute is 
unconstitutional.''
  Madam President, let me take this opportunity to personally thank two 
groups of individuals who, I know, share my concern with the Court's 
decision.
  First, I wish to thank my Senate colleagues--Senator Moynihan, 
Senator Levin, and former Senator Hatfield--for their support, their 
wisdom, and their counsel throughout this process. Although this has 
been a collaborative effort, I, for one, have valued their 
contributions. And there were two Members of the other body who, 
likewise, joined us--Mr. Skaggs and Mr. Waxman. Of course, I would be 
remiss if I did not acknowledge the absolutly stellar legal work 
provided to us by Lloyd Cutler, Louis Cohen, Alan Morrison, Charles 
Cooper, and Michael Davidson. Despite the temporary setback, I am 
convinced that no other group of attorneys could have provided us with 
better, or more sound, advice.
  Finally, be assured that there will come a time when a State or 
locality, or an individual or group of individuals, will feel the brunt 
of the misguided legislative gimmick called the line-item veto, and 
will seek judicial relief. When that time comes, I will stand ready at 
the helm to support that effort.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, it is characteristic of our beloved 
former President pro tempore to thank others for the efforts that have 
led to the Court's nondecision today. Might I take the opportunity to 
thank him. It is his magisterial understanding of the Constitution and 
his Olympian commitment to it that brought us together, and brought to 
us the finest legal minds of this time to prepare the briefs that first 
won hands down in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 
and now have been put aside by the Court, but only temporarily. I think 
it would be not inappropriate to note that one judge and one Justice 
have spoken to this subject, and in both cases they have spoken to the 
unconstitutional nature of the act.
  I ask the Senate if I might just indulge to read a paragraph from 
Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion this morning. He says:

       The Line Item Veto Act purports to establish a procedure 
     for the creation of laws that are truncated versions of bills 
     that have been passed by the Congress and presented to the 
     President for signature. If the procedure were valid, it 
     would deny every Senator and every Representative any 
     opportunity to vote for or against the truncated measure that 
     survives the exercise of the President's cancellation 
     authority. Because the opportunity to cast such votes is a 
     right guaranteed by the text of the Constitution, I think it 
     is clear that the persons who are deprived of that right by 
     the Act have standing to challenge its constitutionality. 
     Moreover, because the impairment of that constitutional right 
     has an immediate impact on their official powers, in my 
     judgment they need not wait until after cancellation 
     authority to bring suit. Finally, the same reason that the 
     respondents have standing provides a sufficient basis for 
     concluding that the statute is unconstitutional.

  Madam President, I thank you for your indulgence. I think we may have 
overrun by a moment or two. I most appreciate that.
  Again, our appreciation to Senator Byrd. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are approximately 3 minutes left in 
morning business.
  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________