[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11024-S11027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will speak with reference to the so-called 
line-item veto of the fiscal year 1998 Military Construction 
Appropriations Act.
  I received a letter today from Mr. Franklin D. Raines, Director of 
the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, 
which I shall read into the Record. The letter is dated October 23, 
1997. It is addressed to me. It reads as follows:

       I am writing to provide the Administration's views on S. 
     1292, the bill Disapproving the Cancellations Transmitted by 
     the President on October 6, 1997.
       We understand that S. 1292 would disapprove 36 of the 38 
     projects that the President canceled for the FY 1998 Military 
     Construction Appropriations Act. The Administration strongly 
     opposes this disapproval bill. If the resolution were 
     presented to the President in its current form, the 
     President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the 
     bill.
       The President carefully reviewed the 145 projects that 
     Congress funded that were not included in the FY 1998 Budget. 
     The President used his authority responsibly to cancel 
     projects that were not requested in the budget, that would 
     not substantially improve the quality of life of military 
     service members and their families, and that would not begin 
     construction in 1998 because the Defense Department reported 
     that no design work had been done on it. The President's 
     action saves $287 million in budget authority in 1998.
       While we strongly oppose S. 1292, we are committed to 
     working with Congress to restore funding for those projects 
     that were canceled as a result of inaccuracies in the data 
     provided by the Department of Defense.
       Sincerely, Franklin D. Raines, Director.

  The letter indicates that an identical letter was sent to the 
Honorable Ted Stevens.
  Mr. President, we have all heard that the devil is in the details and 
that it is advisable always to read the fine print. I take the floor at 
this time, as I have indicated already, just mainly because nobody else 
is seeking recognition and I am waiting an opportunity to talk further 
with respect to the highway bill.
  Now, as I look at this letter more closely, it says--I have already 
read it in its entirety--it says in part, ``The Administration strongly 
opposes this disapproval bill. If the resolution were presented to the 
President in its current form, the President's senior advisers would 
recommend that he veto the bill.''

  Now, early today, Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, met with the Appropriations Committee and discussed a 
measure of disapproval of the President's cancellation of 36 of the 38 
projects from the fiscal year 1998 Military Construction Appropriations 
Act. The committee met and reported out the disapproval measure by a 
very wide margin. I think that only two votes were cast against 
reporting the measure. So that has been done.
  With reference to the letter from Mr. Raines, let me say at the 
beginning, I have great respect for Mr. Raines, the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget. He is a very able director and a very 
honorable man, as far as I

[[Page S11025]]

know. He has always treated me as I hope to be treated. And as I expect 
to treat others. I respect the President and the Presidency, so what I 
say has nothing to do with the individuals personally.
  That being said, let me more particularly call attention to this 
sentence: ``The administration strongly opposes this disapproval 
bill,'' Mr. Raines says. ``If the resolution were presented to the 
President in its current form, the President's senior advisers would 
recommend that he veto the bill.''
  My response would be, so what? Go ahead, veto the bill.
  Now, more particularly I call attention to the second sentence in the 
third paragraph, which reads as follows: ``The President used his 
authority responsibly to cancel projects that were not requested in the 
budget.''
  Now, Mr. President, the word that intrigues me in this sentence is 
the word ``authority.'' ``The President used his authority responsibly 
to cancel projects that were not requested in the budget.'' Now, where 
does one go, may I ask, to find the President's ``authority'' to cancel 
projects that were not requested in the budget? From what act does he 
derive his authority to cancel projects solely on the basis that they 
were not requested in the budget? Does one go to the Constitution?
  Well, let's see if we can find it in the Constitution. Therein, in 
article II, section 3, I note these words:

       He [meaning the President of the United States] shall from 
     time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of 
     the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures 
     as he shall judge necessary and expedient. . .''

  That is what the Constitution says with respect to the President's 
making recommendations to Congress. So, he submits his State of the 
Union message, he submits his budget, and so on, but ``He shall. . 
.recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge 
necessary and expedient.''
  But does that language give him authority to ``cancel projects that 
were not requested in the budget?'' That language doesn't do it.
  Well, let's turn to the language that speaks specifically of the 
President's veto authority. That is in section 7 of article I.

       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 approves 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.

  It doesn't say there in that section that he shall not sign a bill if 
it contains any items not requested in the budget. It says, ``if he 
approves [the bill] he shall sign it, but if not [meaning if he doesn't 
approve it] he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in 
which it shall have originated.''
  So I find no authority in the Constitution for the President to 
cancel projects solely for the reason that they were not requested in 
the budget.
  Now, let's take a look at the Line-Item Veto Act, Public Law 104-130. 
Let's see what it says. This is the act under which the President has 
acted. This is the deformed, malformed, illegitimate end-run that 
Congress made around the Constitution when it passed that bill. This is 
the act that we, in one of our weakest moments in the history of the 
country, passed and gave the President this so-called ``authority.'' 
But let's see if even in that monstrosity there is authority to cancel 
projects solely on the basis that they were not requested in the 
budget. Let's see. Let's read:

       Section. In general--notwithstanding the provisions of 
     parts A and B, and subject to the provisions of this part, 
     the President may, with respect to any bill or joint 
     resolution that has been signed into law pursuant to Article 
     I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States, cancel 
     in whole (1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget 
     authority; (2) any item of new direct spending; or (3) any 
     limited tax benefit, if the President, A, determines that 
     such cancellation will (1) reduce the Federal budget deficit; 
     (2) not impair any essential government functions; and (3) 
     not harm the national interest.

  It doesn't say that the President has authority to cancel projects 
because they were not requested in the budget. It doesn't say that at 
all. It doesn't say that the President may cancel items that were not 
included in the budget. It doesn't say that at all. It says that if he 
determines that such cancellation will reduce the Federal budget 
deficit, or not impair any essential Government functions, not harm the 
national interest''--all three.
  So I simply wanted to bring to the Members' attention this letter, in 
which the very distinguished and highly respected Franklin D. Raines, 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget states:

       The President used his authority responsibly to cancel 
     projects that were not requested in the budget.

  I don't find anywhere in the Constitution, or in the ill-advised act 
itself, any authority for the President to cancel a project simply 
because it was not requested in the budget.
  Well, so much for that. I think we can expect this administration, or 
any other administration, as long as this act is on the statute books, 
to expand upon it, to read into it whatever they want to see, read into 
it whatever they want to read into it. Here is a good example of it. We 
have now found that they are interpreting the act to give the President 
the authority to cancel projects on the basis that they were not 
requested in the budget.
  Additionally, in the last paragraph, Mr. Raines says.

       . . . we are committed to working with Congress to restore 
     funding for those projects that were canceled as a result of 
     inaccuracies in the data provided by the Department of 
     Defense.

  So the President, in this letter, through his Director of OMB--I 
would have appreciated it if the President had written the letter 
himself and signed it himself. But we are told here by the President 
through his Director of OMB that, indeed, projects were canceled as a 
result of inaccuracies in the data provided to the Department of 
Defense.

  Now he says they are committed to working with Congress to restore 
funding. How are they going to do that? The President can't go back now 
that he has unilaterally amended that law--the fiscal year 1998 
Military Construction Appropriations Act. Now that he has unilaterally 
amended that law, he cannot go back and put those items into law. He 
has unilaterally amended it after he signed it into law, so he can't go 
back and put those items in. The heads have been severed from those 
items. They are dead, dead, dead. So he cannot go back and breathe new 
life into those items. How is he going to restore funding? He says he 
is going to veto this disapproval resolution. That is not going to help 
if he vetoes that act.
  But we are told that if the resolution reported out of committee 
disapproving 36 of the projects is presented to the President in its 
current form, the President's senior advisers would recommend he veto 
that bill. That is not going to help restore the projects that were 
vetoed by mistake. So we have to start all over again, unless we can 
override that veto. It takes two-thirds of both Houses to do it. The 
old chickens are coming home to roost.
  So my advice to Members is that they go back--and my office will be 
very happy to assist any Member who wishes to have assistance in the 
matter--go back and read all of my speeches against the line-item veto. 
If they will assure me they will do that, I will quit talking. I will 
quit making speeches on this subject. But all Members who voted for 
this pernicious piece of legislation will have to assure me and have to 
show me that they are going back and reading every speech that I have 
made over the years in opposition to a so-called ``line-item veto.'' If 
they will do that, then I will quit talking on it. But I think that 
those Members who voted for that abominable piece of legislation and 
who are now bellyaching about it should be required to go back and read 
every one of those speeches all over again. Read them again.
  Then I would suggest that they read the Constitution, because it is 
he who has read it lately that counts. I guess that should be the way 
of thinking of it, how lately have we read it?
  Let me just read one section, the very first sentence of the 
Constitution. I am reading it so it will not only sound authentic but 
it will look to be authentic because I am reading it. I am not 
repeating it from memory. I am reading it. Here it is from the 
Constitution:

       All legislative powers herein granted--

  If legislative powers are not ``herein granted,'' they don't exist, 
do they?

       All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States

[[Page S11026]]

     which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

  That is it. That is the whole kit and caboodle. That is where the 
authority rests to legislate. The authority to legislate rests right 
there. And it doesn't include the President of the United States. Only 
the Congress can legislate.
  Point No. 2: To amend a bill or resolution is to legislate.
  Am I correct? Yes.
  To amend a bill is to legislate. To amend a bill is to act within--is 
to act pursuant to that first section of the first article, which I 
have just read.
  Point No. 3: To move to strike an item is a motion and is a 
legislative act.
  To move to strike. That is a legislative act. And it is vested only 
in the Congress of the United States by virtue of that one sentence 
that I have just read.
  Right? Correct.
  Now, the act that Senators are griping about says that the 
President--any President--after having signed a bill into law may 
within the next 10 seconds, may within the next 10 minutes, may within 
the next day, may within the next 5 days go back and take a new look at 
that law, and he may move to strike. He may not only move to strike; he 
may strike items from that law.

  If the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], let us say, 
who is presiding over this Chamber at this moment, moves in this 
Chamber to strike an item from a bill, that is a legislative act.
  So, if he moves to strike an item, or if he is moving to amend a 
bill, he has to have a majority of this body to support his motion to 
strike or cancel. And, if he gets a majority, if all Members are here 
and voting, he will have to have 51 Members--51 votes, including his 
own--to succeed in striking or cancelling that item from the bill. But 
he has not finished yet. If he accomplishes that, a majority of the 
other body also has to agree to his motion to strike, and a majority of 
the other body, if everyone is present and voting over there, would be 
218.
  So he has to have 218 votes in that other body to support his motion 
to strike or cancel this item from an appropriations bill--218 in the 
other body, 51 in this body. If all Members are present, he has to have 
269 Members of both bodies supporting his motion to cancel.
  That is a legislative act. Does anyone disagree with that? No. Nobody 
disagrees with that. That is all accurately and correctly stated.
  But the Congress passed an act. We in the Senate voted for it on 
March 23, 1995, and it went to conference. And it lay dormant in 
conference for about a year. Finally, I think it was Mr. Dole who got 
behind it and urged the leadership in both Houses to pass that act 
because he anticipated being the first to wield the line-item veto pen.
  So it was brought back as a conference report. And, on March 27, 
1996, the Senate stabbed itself in the back and adopted that conference 
report giving the President of the United States--any President; not 
just this one; any President of the United States--the authority to 
unilaterally cancel or amend a law. He may do it all by himself. He 
doesn't have to have 218 Members of the other body. He doesn't have to 
have 51 in this body. He can simply call Mr. Raines and others in the 
executive branch together and say, ``What do you find in this bill, 
this appropriations act, that Congress has just sent me here? I have 
signed it into law. I didn't have to wait. I just went ahead and signed 
it. Now it is a law and no longer a bill. It is a law. But I have the 
authority now to singlehandedly amend that law.''
  Senator Coats didn't have that kind of authority. Only a majority of 
both Houses could amend a bill.
  I cannot for the life of me understand how grown men and women who 
have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States 
right there at that desk with their hands on the Bible--most of them 
had their hands on the Bible or swore an oath by it--I cannot for the 
life of me understand how grown men and women who are supposed to have 
read that Constitution, who are willing to stand up there and before 
God and men swear to support and defend that Constitution, how they 
would then turn right around and pass legislation that flies directly 
in the face of the first sentence of the Constitution, which says that 
``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress 
of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of 
Representatives.'' Were they using the Constitution as their guide? No. 
Were they using the polls as their guide? In all likelihood, I suppose 
they were, because the overwhelming majority of the American people 
favor a line-item veto.

  I am going to quit very quickly.
  Well, I wrestle with my imagination. I ponder over this question. And 
I try to come to some logical conclusion as to why Congress did what it 
did. Oh, I know there are some folks who will say, ``Well, you can 
expect Senator Byrd to be against the line-item veto because he likes 
pork.'' He likes pork. Let me tell Senators one thing. This Senator 
will not, will not, will not negotiate with this President or any other 
President over an item from West Virginia that he wishes to line-item 
veto. I will not negotiate with him. They may call and say, look, if 
you will do this or that, we will not line-item veto that item. My 
answer will be, ``Go to it. Veto it.''
  You mean that Senator Byrd would not negotiate with the White House 
over a piece of pork for his State? You try me and see. No. I am not 
for negotiating. When it has reached that point, the subcommittees and 
committees have acted and have conducted hearings and earmarked the 
legislation and it has come before the Senate and the House--there may 
have been efforts to strike it out along the way, there may not have 
been, but once it reaches that point and comes back in the conference 
report, no, I am not negotiating with any President. If he wants to 
veto, go to it. I think there is a principle that is far more important 
here than pork for West Virginia or any other State.
  So there it is. ``Lay on, Macduff; and damn'd be him that first cries 
out `hold, enough.' ''
  I guess there is a song which says, ``I'll still be wondering why.'' 
And so I am still going to be wondering why. Whatever got into the 
heads and minds and hearts and livers of the Members of these two 
bodies that they would be so gullible as to hand to this President or 
any other President part of the people's power over the purse, which, 
according to the Constitution of the United States, is vested right 
here in the hands of the directly elected representatives of the 
people.
  Well, think about it because you are going to hear more about it. You 
are going to see more line-item vetoes. And if they want to line-item 
veto pork for West Virginia, ``Lay on, Macduff.'' I am not negotiating.
  But I hope Members will think about it and will conclude that it was 
a mistake and that come the appropriate time they will vote to repeal 
that nefarious act. And I hope that Members will not bow down and 
scrape and negotiate with the White House about it. Let the President 
veto it. He has the right to veto under the Constitution any bill he 
wants to veto. He has that right according to the Constitution. He has 
that right.
  I am not willing to negotiate to keep him from doing it. If he vetoes 
it, I know what our rights are. The Congress may uphold his veto or it 
may reject it. So let's go by this Constitution, and if Members are 
worth their salt, having made this mistake, they will not make the 
additional mistake of negotiating with any administration to keep their 
little items from being vetoed. Because if we do that, we merely 
legitimize the wrongful act that Congress has already committed. I do 
not believe in legitimizing it. Let the President veto it. Go to it.
  Mr. President, I thank all Senators for listening. Those who didn't 
listen, they will have further opportunity to listen. And I hope that 
at least those who read the Record 50 years from now will find that 
somebody up here had read the Constitution lately.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator 
from West Virginia still here. Previously, I had said that I wanted to 
go ahead of the Senator on some discussion in connection with the bill 
that is before us, the

[[Page S11027]]

ISTEA bill. Does the Senator want to go ahead now on that to discuss 
something? I understand he is not going to present any motions or 
anything but discuss it.
  Mr. BYRD. Not at the moment. I may come back shortly. But I do thank 
the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind offer.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________