[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S787]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    TODAY'S LINE-ITEM VETO DECISION

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia has again held the line-item veto 
unconstitutional. I respect the decision of Judge Thomas F. Hogan. I 
respect it not only because his analysis is consistent with that which 
led me to oppose this legislation when it was being considered by the 
Senate. I also respect it because it was right as a matter of 
constitutional law and as a means to preserve the separation of powers 
that is so central to the checks and balances that preserve our 
freedoms and liberty.
  We hear a lot of speeches around here condemning judges. Here is a 
Judge who has done his job and stood up for the Constitution against 
the ill-advised action of the political branches.
  It is not our independent federal judiciary that is upsetting the 
limits of government and fundamental freedoms of us all. Congress has 
shown a dangerous tendency over the last few years to ignore 
constitutional limits on Federal legislative branch authority. Maybe it 
is Members of Congress who need to read the Constitution and consider 
its wisdom.
  The last week of its last term, the United States Supreme Court 
struck down three congressional actions as unconstitutional, including 
the so-called Communications Decency Act and the Brady Act, both of 
which I voted against. The Supreme Court withheld ruling on the line-
item veto law at that time, because it held that the plaintiffs in that 
case were without standing to bring the challenge. It was just a matter 
of time and occasion. The decision by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in 
the earlier case had presaged the ruling today. The line-item veto was 
and is unconstitutional. I proudly stand with Senator Byrd on this 
matter.
  I would ask Congress to step back from this specific decision and 
consider how unprecedented this is: Four statutes that do not comport 
with the constitutional limits on congressional authority overturned 
from a single Congress.
  It is unfortunate that Congress is far too often overstepping its 
constitutional bounds. It is unfortunate that the courts have to rein 
Congress in from time to time, with increasing frequency as the 
Republican majority loses its moorings, but that is the thankless 
responsibility of the courts under our system of checks and balances.
  I have come to this floor often in the last several months to defend 
the judiciary against shrill attacks. I come today to offer my 
continuing gratitude and respect for our co-equal branch of government. 
We are the envy of the world in part because our free and independent 
judicial branch has served our country so well for more than 200 years.
  We should be doing more to keep it that way, not less. We are finally 
beginning to consider longstanding judicial nominations to fill the 
vacancies that plague the federal judiciary and threaten the 
administration of justice. We need to do more. We should consider 
without further delay the judiciary's requests for the resources that 
they need. We should consider S. 678, the Federal Judgeship Act, which 
I introduced at the request of the Judicial Conference to provide an 
additional 55 judges where needed around the country. We should act on 
S. 394, which I sponsored with Senator Hatch to unlink judicial 
salaries from our own. We should consider and confirm qualified 
nominees to the 83 vacancies to the federal courts.
  Finally, I hope that members of Congress will rethink the rush to 
propose amendment to our Constitution and consider how well our 
fundamental charter serves us. We do not need to rewrite the 
Constitution, we need to respect it and act in accordance with its 
design.

                          ____________________