[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7162-S7163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SUPREME COURT'S LINE ITEM VETO DECISION

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the United States Supreme Court held 
the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional. I voted against that Act when 
it was considered by the Senate and joined the senior Senator from West 
Virginia and others in warning giving the President, any President, 
line item veto authority would result in a dramatic shift in power from 
the legislative branch to the executive branch that was inconsistent 
with the constitutional principles of separation of powers. We warned 
that this shift in power that would damage our fundamental principle of 
majority rule, encourage horse trading between Members of Congress and 
the President, and not reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. 
Unfortunately, all of those warnings have come true.
  In 1997 I called upon Congress to admit its mistake and repeal this 
unconstitutional Act before the courts struck it down. Congress was 
given a second opportunity to correct its ill-considered action when 
the Supreme Court dismissed, on the limited ground of lack of standing, 
the challenge brought by Senator Byrd. In that case, Byrd v. Raines, 
District Judge Jackson had ruled that the Act violated the 
Constitution.
  Having failed to do its job properly, the majority in Congress is now 
confronted with a Supreme Court that was forced to do the Congress' 
job. Consistent with its judicial power under the Constitution, the 
Supreme Court has once again had to preserve the Constitution from 
legislative attack. As it did when it defended the First Amendment from 
being undermined by the so-called Communications Decency Act, and when 
it defended federalism against the encroachment of the Brady Act, here 
again the Supreme Court has been called upon to preserve, protect and 
defend the Constitution. As a Senator who voted against these measures 
in spite of their momentary popularity, and as a Vermonter who 
cherishes the Constitution and the freedoms that it guarantees, I thank 
the Court for its service.
  I have long been concerned that the line item veto encourages 
minority rule by allowing a presidential item veto to stand with the 
support of only 34 Senators or 146 Representatives. That is not 
majority rule. Those anti-democratic super-majority requirements are 
fundamentally at odds with the principles underlying legislative 
action.
  Our Founders rejected such super-majority requirements on matters 
within Congress' purview. Alexander Hamilton described super-majority 
requirements as a ``poison'' that serves ``to destroy the energy of the 
government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an 
insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto to the regular deliberations 
and decisions of a respectable majority.'' Such super-majority 
requirements reflect a basic distrust not just of Congress, but of the 
electorate itself.
  In addition, these super-majority requirements hurt small states, 
like my home State of Vermont, by upping the ante for those who dare 
take on the President. Under the line item veto, Members from small 
states have to convince two-thirds of each House to override the 
President's veto for the sake of a project. With Vermont having only 
one representative in the House, why would other Members risk the 
President's wrath to help us with a vetoed project? It is truly a task 
for Hercules to override a veto. Just look at the record--of the more 
than 2,500 Presidential vetoes in our history, Congress has been able 
to override 105.
  As the senior Senator from West Virginia has so forcefully argued, we 
should tread carefully when expanding the fiscal powers of the 
presidency. The line item veto would have weakened one of the 
fundamental checks and balances that form the separation of powers 
under our Constitution. The line item veto would have handed over the 
power of the purse to the President.
  I have heard the howls of some of my colleagues who lost worthy 
appropriations since the approval of the line item veto. And what if 
the President makes a mistake by line item vetoing a worthy project? 
The Administration even admitted that it mistakenly vetoed some 
projects. Do Senators trust the bureaucrats over at the Office of 
Management and Budget to decide, within a few short days, which 
projects are deserving and which are not? Is that consistent with the 
Founders' vision?
  I was born and raised in Vermont and go home almost every weekend. I 
am confident that I have a better sense of Vermont than someone who 
thinks Vermont is an avenue that lies somewhere between K and L streets 
in northwest Washington, D.C.
  Let us keep the power of the purse with Congress--where it belongs. 
As the Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee, I am frequently called upon to visit emerging

[[Page S7163]]

democracies. I often hear praise of our system of checks and balances 
and, in particular, the genius of having the power to spend reside in 
the legislative branch, not the executive. Many officials from new 
democracies believe that a legislature's power over the purse is the 
best weapon to fight the tyranny of a dictatorship. They have been 
there. They know. And it has proven to be so historically.
  In his concurring opinion today in Clinton v. City of New York, 
Justice Kennedy noted:

       Separation of powers helps to ensure the ability of each 
     branch to be vigorous in asserting its proper authority. . . 
     . By increasing the power of the President beyond what the 
     Framers envisioned, the statute compromises the political 
     liberty of our citizens, liberty which the separation of 
     powers seeks to secure.

  As I said in the Senate debate on the Line Item Veto Act and in 
Senate debate on proposals to amend the Constitution with a balanced 
budget amendment, the Constitution is as good a law as has been 
written. That is why it has survived as the supreme law of the land 
with so few alterations throughout the last 200 years. It has 
contributed to our success as a nation by binding us together, rather 
than tearing us apart.

  It contains the Great Compromise that allowed small states and large 
states to join together in a spirit of mutual accommodation and 
respect. It embodies the protections that make real the pronouncements 
in our historic Declaration of Independence and give meaning to our 
inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  The Constitution requires due process and guarantees equal protection 
of the law. It protects our freedom of thought and expression, our 
freedom to worship or not as each of us chooses, and our political 
freedoms, as well. It is the basis for our fundamental right of privacy 
and for limiting government's intrusions and burdens in our lives.
  I have opposed what I perceive to be a growing fascination with 
laying waste to our Constitution and the protections that have served 
us well for over 200 years. The First Amendment, separation of powers 
and power of the purse should be supported and defended. That is the 
oath we all swore when we entered this public service. That is our duty 
to those who forged this great document, our responsibility to those 
who sacrificed to protect and defend our Constitution, our commitment 
to our constituents and our legacy to those who will succeed us.
  In this Congress we have seen over 100 constitutional amendments 
proposed. Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee voted to report an 
amendment that would cut back on the First Amendment for the first time 
in our nation's history. Today, the Committee was considering a second 
proposed amendment to the Constitution in as many days. Proposed 
amendments to our fundamental charter require consideration whether 
they are, in the language of Article V of the Constitution, 
constitutionally ``necessary''. I hope that we will not burden the 
states with a hodgepodge of poll-driven, popular sounding 
constitutional amendments.
  This Senate only barely rejected the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution last year. I recall all too well when we were told that we 
could never achieve a balanced budget without a constitutional 
amendment. I recall the stacks of deficit-laden federal budgets 
proposed by Republican and Democratic Presidents since President 
Johnson and being told that the only answer to annual budget deficits 
was to pass an ill-conceived constitutional amendment whose terms and 
effects could not be explained.
  I asked then why it is necessary to seek to amend the Constitution? 
If Congress could get close to a two-thirds majority vote to support a 
constitutional amendment declaring that we would normally balance the 
budget, we should be able to achieve a simple majority that will 
actually vote to reduce the deficit and pass a balanced budget.
  I defended the Constitution during the course of the balanced budget 
amendment debate last year and this year President Clinton sent us the 
first balanced budget in almost 30 years. What some said could not 
happen without a constitutional amendment, did happen. With cooperation 
in the Congress, we can enact the first balanced budget since 1969, and 
we will have done it without inserting a fiscal straightjacket on 
future generations into the text of the United States Constitution.
  They said it could not be done, but it can, as a result of the sound 
fiscal policies of this Administration which have led not only to 
balance but to the prospect of budget surplus. In 1993, a Democratic 
Congress put us on the right road to fiscal responsibility when we took 
the hard votes and passed the President's plan. This Congress should 
culminate that extraordinary 5-year effort without further delay.
  April 15 was the legal deadline for Congress to have passed a budget 
resolution. While the Senate did some preliminary work on a flawed 
proposal earlier this year, Congress is recessing again this week 
without completing this fundamental task. The Senate should spend less 
time seeking to rewrite the work of the Framers and show more courage 
in completing its legislative responsibilities.
  I hope that as Congress leaves for the Independence Day recess, we 
will reflect on what makes this country great, and that the majority 
will return committed to completing work on a balanced budget to serve 
the American people without additional delay. It should be balanced in 
two senses: It should be a balanced series of proposals to meet the 
health, education, environmental and law enforcement needs of the 
country. And it should also, for the first time in almost three 
decades, be a budget that will not rely on deficit financing.
  Completing action on the budget is the first step toward Congress 
taking action on the annual appropriations bills that are so important 
to the government programs that protect the environment and assist 
State and local governments with education and law enforcement. Those 
contracting with the government, those working in partnership with 
government services and those dependent on government services deserve 
better. Americans deserve peace of mind and the assurance that their 
government is working. Congress needs to complete its budget and 
appropriations legislation so that the agencies and service providers 
can plan programs, pay workers and serve the American public in an 
effective manner.
  It is high time for the congressional leadership to do its job and 
for the Congress to get on about the business of governing. Congress 
should not be taking breaks without having completed the work of the 
people. Such callous disregard for the needs of the American people has 
become too much the rule as year after year under Republican leadership 
Congress recesses without having completed its work on emergency 
supplementals, budgets, and appropriations bills. Republican 
congressional leadership is well-known for shutting down the government 
by not completing work on these basic measures in a timely way.
  The Senate will also recess again this week without having passed a 
strong tobacco bill. Tobacco legislation is now added to the litany of 
important matters the Congress has left unfinished--added to the 
budget, campaign finance reform, and the prompt consideration of the 
many fine men and women the President has nominated to long vacant 
federal judgeships across the country.
  I urge that when Congress reconvenes in July and in the 11 weeks in 
session left in this congressional year, it take seriously its 
responsibilities to the American people and show respect and 
appreciation for the Constitution by working to fulfil our legislative 
responsibilities.

                          ____________________