[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10800-S10804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Burns, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bond, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coverdell, 
        Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Ford, 
        Mr. Frist, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
        McConnell, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Santorum, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Specter, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 1292. A resolution disapproving the cancellations transmitted by 
the President on October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-45; to the 
Committee on Appropriations, pursuant to the order of section 1025 of 
Public Law 93-344 for seven days of session.


                        disapproval legislation

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have sought the floor now to introduce 
a disapproval bill to reverse the President's use of the line-item veto 
in the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill. I 
believe at least 37 of my colleagues will join as cosponsors of this 
bill.
  The Line-Item Veto Act, public law 104-130, provides very specific 
fast-track procedures for consideration of a disapproval bill. I want 
to discuss those in detail later in these comments.
  Congress received the President's special message listing the 38 
cancellations in the military construction bill on Monday, October 6. 
The bill we introduce today is within the 5 calendar days of session 
timeframe provided for fast-track process.
  Let me take a minute on the merits of this bill, Mr. President. In 
June, the President reached a budget agreement with the bipartisan 
leadership of the Congress. That agreement provided an increase of $2.6 
billion for national defense over the amount that the President had 
requested in the budget for fiscal year 1998. The President's action on 
the military construction bill, in my judgment, reneges on the budget 
agreement he reached with the Congress. We were given our spending caps 
under the agreement and the Appropriations Committee presented the 
Senate with 13 appropriations bills consistent with the spirit, terms 
and limits of the revised budget.
  We upheld our end of the agreement with the President. The President 
has not. This afternoon the Appropriations Committee met to evaluate 
the President's use of the line-item veto authority.
  I called this hearing after consultation with Senator Byrd because of 
the manner in which the President had used this new prerogative on this 
military construction bill. I asked the committee to consider whether 
that tool was used as intended by Congress, and that intention was that 
the line-item veto would be used to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary 
spending. The committee heard testimony from the Air Force, Navy and 
Army regarding the merits of the 38 military construction projects. 
Today's hearings afforded our committee the chance to review the status 
of these projects in the military's future budget plans and whether or 
not they could be executed in 1998. Our military witnesses testified 
that in fact these projects were mission-essential and that they could 
be commenced in 1998. These military witnesses stated that the military 
services were not consulted in deciding which projects should be vetoed 
on this bill. These witnesses also informed us that 33 of the 38 
projects in the President's message on the line-item veto are in the 
Department's future year defense plan. Let me repeat that. Thirty-three 
of the 38 projects the President indicated he

[[Page S10801]]

wished to line-item veto were in a plan he had approved himself.
  They told us that the President's January budget constraints had 
prohibited them from including many of these projects in this year's 
budget. If the military services at the beginning of the year had had 
the extra $2.6 billion that the President agreed to in July, it is my 
judgment that all of the projects listed in the disapproval bill could 
and probably would have been included in the President's fiscal year 
1998 budget request, if he listened to the military departments.
  It's my belief that we will be successful in what we are starting 
today, which is an effort to overturn these line-item vetoes because 
the projects that the President has attempted to eliminate are 
meritorious, are sought by the Department, are within the budget 
agreement, and they are not wasteful or excessive spending.
  These projects reflect a combination of quality of life, safety, 
readiness and infrastructure enhancement initiatives, Mr. President. A 
substantial number of them would significantly improve the day-to-day 
working conditions for men and women in uniform. Our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and marines are the ones that are being shortchanged by the 
President's veto, not officials in the Pentagon or in the White House.
  I will urge my colleagues to support us in this important endeavor. 
We must stand together to require that the President live up to the 
bargain he made with the Congress this summer. The Line-Item Veto Act 
provides a process to resolve the issue quickly, so I want to take the 
time of the Senate to outline that process so that we all know this is 
a new process for all of us.
  Under this act, the President sent to Congress one special message 
for each law in which the President exercises his cancellation 
authority under the Line-Item Veto Act. That special message must 
contain a numbered list of each item the President seeks to cancel. The 
Line-Item Veto Act includes a fast track--a process for the speedy 
consideration of one disapproval bill for each message. Our action 
today only pertains to the military construction bill.
  In order to overturn one or more of the cancellations in a special 
message, the Congress must send a bill to the President disapproving 
the cancellations. That bill may be vetoed by the President using his 
constitutional veto authority. As with any other bill, the President's 
veto then may be overturned only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds 
of the Members of each House. In order to qualify for this expedited 
process, the provisions of the Line-Item Veto Act require that a 
disapproval bill must be introduced within five calendar days of 
session after the Congress receives a special message from the 
President. With respect to the Senate, a calendar day of session is a 
day in which both Houses of Congress are in session. This fast-track 
procedure applies only in the House for 30 calendar days of session. 
There is no time limit on the Senate's consideration of the bill, other 
than the time for introduction of the bill and the discharge from the 
committee.

  A disapproval bill in the House must contain a list of all the items 
canceled in the special message. A disapproval bill in the Senate may 
contain any or all of the items canceled. I might say, Mr. President, 
that the bill I will introduce with my cosponsors will not include all 
of the measures, because some Senators have indicated they do not want 
to move forward with their items. The format for the disapproval bill 
is spelled out in the Line-Item Veto Act, and the fast track process is 
available only if that exact format is followed.
  The addition of anything other than the numbers from the list of the 
items canceled in the special message, whether on the floor or in 
conference, results in the loss of the fast track process in both the 
House and the Senate. In other words, no amendments to this bill, other 
than dealing with the specific items by number as listed in the 
President's message, are in order. Once introduced, the disapproval 
bill is referred to the committees with jurisdiction over the items 
that have been canceled, and it must be reported within 7 calendar days 
of session. After 7 calendar days of session, it is in order in either 
the House or the Senate to have the committees discharged. Special 
rules then apply in the House and the Senate with respect to debate and 
amendments on a disapproval bill.
  In the Senate, there are no more than 10 hours of debate with one 
extension of time for up to 5 additional hours. That is possible at the 
request of the leadership. Debate on any amendment is limited to one 
hour with up to a limit of 10 hours, at which time all amendments then 
pending are voted on.
  Special rules are also provided in the act for the conference 
committee. The conferees are directed to accept any item in a 
disapproval bill that was included in both the House and the Senate and 
are limited to accepting or rejecting any item in disagreement. In 
other words, there can be nothing added in conference that is not in 
one bill or the other.
  Debate in the Senate on a conference report is limited to four hours. 
This will be an expedited process, Mr. President. We intend to start it 
as soon as we return. Let me say again that there is a learning curve 
for us on the line-item veto process, and I am also constrained to say 
to the Senate what I just said at the conclusion of the hearing on the 
subject of the President's special message before the Appropriations 
Committee.
  It is obvious to me that the use of the line-item veto by the White 
House in this instance was very excessive. It is also obvious to me 
that the information process in getting the details to the President 
concerning the items in the bill that he used the line-item veto on 
were very, very badly handled. We are now awaiting the President's 
action on the Defense Appropriations bill. As chairman, I have been 
notified that the Department of Defense wishes to discuss that bill 
with our staff and with Members, and there was an indication that we 
might be asked to ``negotiate'' to see what items would be subject to a 
veto under the Line-Item Veto Act and what items the President would 
yield to that Congress desires to not have vetoed.
  I have notified the Department of Defense and the White House that we 
are not prepared--Senator Byrd and I have agreed--to negotiate with 
regard to any of those items. We will--and our door is open--explain to 
the White House or the Department why we put in any of the items, or 
why we left them out, but we will not negotiate. Our constitutional 
duty is to pass legislation. As a matter of fact, the Congress is given 
the specific authority for the legislative process. The President may 
recommend to the Congress, but he cannot dictate to the Congress, and 
he is not going to dictate to the Congress during the watch of this 
Senator. I think I am joined in that regard by the Senator from West 
Virginia. We do not intend to negotiate with regard to items that have 
already been passed by the Congress. We do discuss it before we pass a 
bill with the administration and we listen to them at times about 
threats of vetoes. But we are not going to listen to those threats 
after a bill is passed.
  I urge the Senate to understand this process that we are going 
through now because it is obvious that the process will be followed 
again and again. I announced at the conclusion of the hearings on this 
message on the Military Construction bill that if the same process is 
followed on the Department of Defense bill, an arrogant abuse of power, 
I intend to introduce a bill to repeal the Line-Item Veto Act. I was a 
supporter of the Line-Item Veto Act; as a matter of fact, I was 
chairman of the conference on the Senate side of that act. But I 
believed it should be used for a stated purpose, only to eliminate 
wasteful or unnecessary spending. We make mistakes at times and we make 
compromises at times, which perhaps could lead to what a President 
could class as being wasteful or unnecessary spending. But a wholesale 
condemnation of an act passed by Congress by use of the line-item veto 
pen, to me, is arrogance. From my point of view, I will persist in 
trying to repeal that statute and take it away from this 
administration--it will only be extended to the executive branch for a 
short period of time anyway--if it is abused again.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S10802]]

                                S. 1292

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     Congress disapproves of cancellations 97-4, 97-5, 97-6, 97-7, 
     98-8, 97-9, 97-10, 97-11, 97-12, 97-13, 97-14, 97-15, 97-16, 
     97-17, 97-18, 97-19, 97-20, 97-21, 97-22, 97-23, 97-24, 97-
     25, 97-26, 97-27, 97-28, 97-29, 97-30, 97-32, 97-33, 97-34, 
     97-35, 97-36, 97-37, 97-38, 97-39, and 97-40, as transmitted 
     by the President in a special message on October 6, 1997, 
     regarding Public Law 105-45.

  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from West Virginia 
is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased and I am proud to join with the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my friend, a 
friend in every sense of the word, Ted Stevens, in offering legislation 
to put back on the President's desk those projects which were line-item 
vetoed, at least those projects that Senators want to put back before 
the President for his consideration, and if he wants to veto that bill, 
he can do so, and then Congress can override or sustain his veto.
  Mr. President, I think that one of the most significant things that 
has happened in the history of this country was the passage of the 
Line-Item Veto Act. To me, it was one of the most shocking abdications 
of duty that Members of the Congress have committed. I am not here 
today to say ``I told you so,'' but I am here today to say that this 
pernicious act should be repealed.
  I hope that the Supreme Court of the United States will strike it 
down, but there has to be a case brought. I attempted that with other 
colleagues in both Houses, and the Supreme Court, as everybody knows, 
said we didn't have standing, even though the act itself anticipated 
that such a case would be brought by Members of Congress.
  I am not here today to argue that. But I am here today to just take a 
few minutes to point out for the record why the Line Item Veto Act is 
an unconstitutional act. No matter what the Supreme Court ultimately 
says, I will always think it is an unconstitutional act. The 
distinguished chairman has already stated the law and what the 
instructions were in that law as to what actions Congress may take and 
when, and all of that. So I will not attempt to go into that. He has 
already indicated what was brought out in the hearings this afternoon. 
One thing was that the administration's right hand doesn't know what 
the left hand is doing.
  I was called by Mr. Raines on Monday as to the one item that I had 
that was line-item vetoed. I was told that certain criteria governed 
the actions of the President in using the line-item veto pen. I was 
told that the one item that is to be located in West Virginia was, in 
the face of the governing criteria, to be line-item vetoed. I stated to 
Mr. Raines, ``That is an incorrect statement of the case. This item is 
in the Defense Department's 5-year plan, and the design has already 
been started. It is under way. So your criteria don't fit this 
project.'' And he indicated that he would have to take another look, 
therefore, and asked me to send down the papers from which I was 
reading, which I did, and he indicated that he would get back to me, 
which he did not. And I don't fault him for not getting back to me. He 
has other things to do, I am sure.
  But what I am saying is that this action on the part of the 
administration was an abuse even of a bad law; an abuse even of a bad 
law.
  In the very first section of the very first article of the 
Constitution these words are to be found. It is one sentence. Section 
1:
  All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress 
of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of 
Representatives.
  That is very plain. It says that only the Congress has the 
constitutional authority to make laws. ``All legislative powers'' --not 
``some powers''; not a ``few powers''; but ``All legislative powers 
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'' It 
doesn't say the President may share in that. The President doesn't have 
any lawmaking power. He is limited to the veto power insofar as making 
the laws are concerned--the veto power as set forth in the Constitution 
of the United States.
  So he has no lawmaking power. The Constitution states the limits of 
his veto authority.
  It states in section 7 of article I that, and I read:

       Every bill which shall have passed the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become 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, 
     with his Objections to that House in which it shall have 
     originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their 
     Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

  I will not read the rest of the language dealing with the veto.
  But Congress in the passing of the Line-Item Veto Act went far afield 
from the Constitution of the United States. Congress in the Line Item 
Veto Act said, in essence, that when the President signs an 
appropriation bill into law, he has 5 days thereafter during which time 
he can cancel out certain portions of that bill which has already 
become law.
  So that is what he did in this instance. He signed into law a bill, 
and then, unilaterally, he came along 5 days later and changed that 
law. He amended it. He struck out certain items. If that bill were 
before the Senate and if Senator Stevens or Senator Grassley or Senator 
Bennett or any other Senator wished to move to strike an item in the 
bill, which, in this case, was to be at Camp Dawson in Preston County, 
WV--if any one of those Senators moved to strike that item, they could 
do it. But before they could succeed in striking that item, they would 
have to have a majority of the Senate to support them by a vote.

  The vote could be by voice. It could be by division. It could be by 
rollcall. But they would have to have a majority of a quorum in the 
Senate in order to be successful in striking that item. They would not 
yet have fully accomplished their aim, however. A majority of the 
Members in a quorum of the other body would likewise have to support 
the striking of that item. If all 100 Senators were present, they would 
have to have 51 votes. If all 435 Members of the House were present, 
they would have to have at least 218 votes in order to successfully 
strike that item. A majority of each House would have to support the 
conference report. But in any event, in the first instance, a majority 
of each body would have to support the amendment in order to strike the 
item from the bill.
  Striking an item from a bill is amending a bill. After the President 
has signed a bill into law, then under this Line-Item Veto Act, a 
President--Democrat or Republican, it doesn't make any difference--may 
after the first 10 minutes, after the first 5 minutes, after the first 
2 days, 3 days, or 4 days, even on the fifth day, he may go back and 
singlehandedly, unilaterally cancel out an item in the law; in other 
words, strike it out; change the law. He could, if he wished to, line-
item out 90 percent of the law, which in that form, as a bill, would 
probably not have passed either body. But one man, or woman, if it 
should be, as the President of the United States may unilaterally amend 
a bill. That is amending a bill.
  The Senator from Iowa if he offers a motion to strike my item from 
the bill is moving to amend the bill. He is pursuing the legislative 
process. That is the lawmaking process. He is amending a bill. As I 
have already said, he can't do it alone. His vote only counts for 1 out 
of 100. He has to have a majority.
  But not so with the President. The President may amend unilaterally, 
after he signs the bill into law. According to the Constitution, if he 
approve the bill, he shall sign it. Well, he must have approved it, or 
he wouldn't have signed the bill. He approved it. He signed the bill 
into law. Up to 5 days later, he may go back and change that law 
unilaterally. And that is what he did in this instance. He changed the 
law unilaterally. He struck out Camp Dawson.
  Did Senators really intend to give one man in the White House that 
kind of power, that kind of legislative power? Can they really believe 
that the Framers who wrote this Constitution would have ever intended 
that that be done? It is mind-boggling--mind-boggling. It is mind-
boggling to me to think that a majority of these two Houses would give 
any President--any President, Republican or Democrat--that kind of 
power. And with that kind of power the President, be he Republican or 
Democrat, holds the sword of Damocles over the head of every Senator 
and every House Member.

[[Page S10803]]

  Am I going to vote against a certain treaty, or some nomination? The 
President may say, ``Look, you have an item in the bill. You have done 
a great job. You have done a great job for the State of West Virginia. 
I am really proud of you. The people down in your State love you. You 
did this, you did that. And I want you to have this item. But can we 
bargain a little here? Can we negotiate a little bit? Can you help me 
on what I want that is in the bill? Can you help me on this 
nomination?'' Or whatever. ``Maybe we can reach an amicable agreement 
here where you will get your item, and I will get mine.''
  Now, I do not want to say that I am not willing to listen to the 
administration. We do that all the time when the subcommittees bring 
these bills to the floor. The subcommittees on appropriations work for 
weeks in hearings. They listen to witnesses. They talk with their 
staffs. They look over the correspondence. They study the needs of the 
various agencies and departments. And then they get together and they 
mark up the bill in the subcommittee. Then it goes to the full 
committee. Then it comes to the Senate. During all of this time, the 
administration is telling us what they want and what they don't want. 
We understand that. We know all about that. We know what they want and 
what they don't want. But it may be the collective judgment of the 
subcommittee to do otherwise. So the subcommittee brings this bill to 
the full committee, and it is then brought to the Senate. And we act on 
it, and it goes to conference. Then what happens?
  Well, I have been treated to just a little bit of it lately. This is 
no surprise to me. We pass an amendment like this--a bill like this--
and give it to any President. He will hold over your head a hammer. So, 
as we go to conference, the administration people come into the 
conference, or they come into our offices, or wherever they meet with 
the leadership, and they say, ``Look, this item the President will 
veto. If that item is in there, the President is going to veto it. This 
item we want. This item the President will veto unless you modify it.''
  I knew that would be the situation in which we were going to find 
ourselves once this Line-Item Veto Act was passed.
  So, as far as I am concerned, it impinges upon a Senator's or a House 
Member's freedom of speech. They have to be a little bit more careful 
about what they say about any administration.
  It impinges on a Senator's freedom to act in accordance with the 
wishes of the constituents who send him here. And to that extent he is 
that much less a free man, less able to exercise his own independence. 
The distinguished Senator from Alaska has said we do not intend to 
negotiate. We intend to send this down to the White House if the 
majority of each body will vote for it.
  Let me say here what I said in the committee today. If the President 
wants to line-item veto a West Virginia item, I am not going to 
negotiate with the administration.
  Negotiating is over as far as I am concerned. When the subcommittee 
works its will, has its hearings, marks up its legislation, brings it 
to the full committee, the full committee acts, amends, modifies, 
changes, or whatever, and when the House does the same, when the 
collective wisdom and judgment of the subcommittee and the full 
committee and both Houses has been reached, if the President wants to 
veto it, go to it. Why should we sit down and negotiate in order to 
keep him from wielding his line-item veto pen? Let him use his veto pen 
only as instructed in the original Constitution. Let him use it. And 
then Congress can work its will. It can either sustain his veto or 
override it, but there should be no negotiating.
  That is what every administration will want us to do. They want us to 
get in a position where we will continue to negotiate and they will 
continue to ratchet us down, they will continue to get what they want, 
but they want you to negotiate for whatever your constituents need. 
Whatever your constituents need, how you feel about your constituents, 
that is negotiable. Then they throw out that threat: ``Well, the 
President will veto that.'' The President will line item that out. 
Well, so what! ``Lay on, Macduff; And damn'd be him that first cries 
`Hold, enough.' ''
  We like to know what the administration is thinking. It is worthwhile 
to have their judgment. It helps to guide us in our deliberations. But 
once both bodies have acted and get into conference, then for the 
administration to come up here and say, ``Well, this is vetoable, if 
you don't change that. We don't like it,'' I am not for negotiating 
now. Let the President use his line-item veto pen. I hope that Senators 
and House Members who voted for the line-item veto will get their 
bellies full. I hope they get a bellyful of it and they probably will, 
because this is just a start. There are several other appropriations 
bills coming along.
  Think of the time that this costs. Senator Stevens held a hearing 
today, had a good attendance, a lot of Senators were there. They 
weren't elsewhere doing other things which were important likewise. It 
took a lot of their time. It took the time of the generals and admirals 
who were up from the Defense Department, and that is going to be 
repeated over and over and over again. Look at the time it is taking 
now. We have already taken time. The subcommittee took time. The full 
committee took time. And there are Members on those subcommittees and 
full committee who have great expertise in legislative areas under the 
jurisdiction of those subcommittees. And then all that goes for naught 
because a President, Republican or Democrat, wants this or wants that 
or does not want to go along with a Member whose constituents feel 
there are needs to be met and acts accordingly.
  The administration has been given a hammer to use over the heads of 
Senators and could threaten anything that a Senator wants as a way to 
get the President's way on unrelated matters. It greatly enhances the 
President's bargaining position in the legislative process. Go home 
tonight, all Senators, and before you close your eyes in slumber, think 
of what we have done. We have given one man, who puts his britches on 
just as I put mine on--one leg at a time--we have said you may amend a 
bill unilaterally. You do not have to worry about a majority in the 
other body or a majority here. You may amend a bill all by yourself. 
You may strike an item out. That is amending a bill. You are the super 
lawmaker.
  Not by this Constitution he isn't. I cannot understand how, or 
whatever got into the Members' minds when they voted to give any 
President the line-item veto. But it is done. It is done. I hope they 
will think now and that somebody will bring a case and the Supreme 
Court will strike down this infernal, pernicious, illegitimate gimmick.
  But in the meantime, I will follow the Senator from Alaska. If he 
gets ready to introduce legislation to repeal the Line Item Veto Act, I 
am ready. I am ready to join him. Just go home and read once again, 
Senators who are listening, section 1 of article I. ``All legislative 
powers herein granted''--and if those legislative powers are not herein 
granted, they do not exist. ``All legislative powers herein granted 
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .''
  And then go over to section 7 of article I and read the language: 
``Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and 
the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the 
President of the United States; If he approve,'' meaning the bill, the 
resolution, ``he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it.'' It 
does not say he may amend it unilaterally. ``If he approve he shall 
sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that 
House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections 
at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.''
  Now, that is the Constitution. And we have no right as Members by 
legislation to give any President the right unilaterally to amend a 
bill. We do not have that power. I do not think Congress has the power. 
I do not think it can give away its constitutional power to make all 
laws.
  There is only one other thing I would say, and then I am going to sit 
down. I have said already there is a strong probability that the Senate 
will have to consider items that it has already considered in the 
committee process over and over again, amounting to a tremendous waste 
of precious time. Senator Inouye cited a number of vital

[[Page S10804]]

systems that have been added by the Congress to the defense bill over 
the years such as greatly increasing the purchase of stealth fighters, 
the Osprey helicopter, C-130 aircraft, C-17's and other systems which 
at the time were opposed by the administration and probably would have 
been subject to the line-item veto and killed. Where would we then have 
been during Desert Storm?
  This is a strong case that the administration does not have a corner 
on wisdom, and that if it uses the line-item veto to simply protect its 
budget as delivered, we will lose the great benefit of that wisdom and 
shortchange the historic contributions that have been made over the 
years.
  I thank all Senators for indulging me. I have fought this battle over 
and over and over again. And I am willing to fight it over and over and 
over again. I do not believe that I took an oath to support and defend 
the Constitution, then only to turn around and vote, in violation of 
that Constitution, to give any President the unilateral right, power or 
prerogative to, in essence, amend a law by striking an item.
  I hope more than anything else, before God sees fit to call me home, 
that the line-item veto will be struck down either by the Supreme Court 
or by the Congress itself. That is my prayer.
                                 ______