[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 86 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7247-S7248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SENATOR COATS AND THE LINE-ITEM VETO

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on another item, I take this opportunity to 
speak about him during his absence, and I am referring to the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats.
  Mr. Coats will be leaving the Senate after this year. He is 
voluntarily doing so. He is a very able member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. I serve on that committee with Senator Coats. He is 
very knowledgeable about national defense, about military matters. He 
takes his responsibilities seriously. He is extremely articulate in his 
exposition of the problems and the defense needs of our country, and he 
is quite influential among the other members of the committee and of 
the

[[Page S7248]]

Senate on both sides of the aisle as well.
  I admire him. He was a very dedicated protagonist--a very dedicated 
protagonist of the line-item veto, and it was on those occasions when 
we would debate back and forth between us, and among us on both sides 
of the aisle, that I learned to respect Senator Coats--learned to 
respect him for his ability to debate, for his equanimity, always, in 
debate. He is always most charitable, very deferential, and courteous 
to a fault. He has always treated me fairly and kindly. On yesterday, 
when we discussed the Supreme Court's decision--which I favored, and 
which did not follow the viewpoint of Mr. Coats--Mr. Coats was most 
magnanimous in his words concerning those of us who opposed the line-
item veto.
  So, basically he is a gentleman, and what more can one say? A 
gentleman; he considers the views of others, he listens to the words of 
others patiently and with respect, and is much to be admired. I admire 
him.
  He has indicated, along with Senator McCain, that it is his--it is 
their intention to come forward with another proposal. And of course I 
will respect their viewpoint and listen to what they have to say and 
read carefully what they propose, and will again oppose anything that 
purports to shift the people's power over the purse as reflected by 
their elected Representatives in this body and in the House of 
Representatives--shift that power to any President.
  Yesterday was a great day in the history of our Nation, an 
exceedingly important day, because, beginning with President Grant 
after the Civil War, all Presidents, with the exception of William 
Howard Taft, have endorsed and espoused the line-item veto. For much 
longer than a single century, Presidents have wanted the line-item 
veto. George Washington, the first and greatest President of all 
Presidents, in my viewpoint, recognized the Constitution for what it 
was and for what it is. He said that when he signed a bill, he had to 
sign it or veto it in toto, he had to accept it or veto it in its 
entirety.
  Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that met in 
Philadelphia in 1787. He presided. He listened to all of the debates. 
He, obviously, listened and joined in the conversations that went on in 
the back rooms and the meeting places of Members when they were not in 
convention session. He knew what their thoughts were. He knew what 
Madison's thoughts were; he knew what Hamilton's ideas were; he knew 
what Elbridge Gerry's feelings were; he knew what Governor Edmund 
Randolph's ideas were. But George Washington knew that that 
Constitution did not allow, it did not permit, it did not give the 
line-item veto to any President.
  I am grateful to the majority on the Supreme Court for having acted 
to save us from our own folly. I am somewhat disappointed and amazed 
that there would even be a minority on the Supreme Court on this issue. 
I cannot comprehend a minority of the Members of the Supreme Court 
seeing any way other than as the majority saw it. I voted against 
Clarence Thomas to go on the Supreme Court, but Mr. Justice Thomas 
yesterday saw clearly what the Constitution requires.
  Who yesterday stood to defend this unique system of checks and 
balances and separation of powers? Clarence Thomas was one of the six. 
He redeemed himself in great measure, in one Senator's eyes--my own! I 
was proud of Chief Justice Rehnquist who agreed with Mr. Justice 
Stevens in the majority opinion. I was proud of Mr. Justice Kennedy in 
his concurring opinion.
  For the first time, Congress had committed this colossal error of 
shifting to the President a power over the purse that he does not have 
under the Constitution. Congress failed the people of the United 
States, in whom all power in this Republic resides and from whom all 
power is given. And the Senate failed. For the first time in more than 
a century and a quarter, the Congress yielded to political impulses and 
gave to the President a share in the control of the purse that the 
Constitution does not give him.
  For those who have read Madison, who have read the Federalist essays, 
they saw in Federalist 58 Madison's words when he said, ``This power 
over the purse may in fact be regarded as the most complete and 
effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm the immediate 
representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every 
grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary 
measure.'' Those are Madison's words.
  So, Mr. President, where are our eyes? Read the Federalist essays, 
read the debates that took place in the convention--according to 
Madison's notes and the notes of others who attended that convention. 
Where could we possibly imagine that that Constitution gives to us puny 
pygmies--the power and the authority or the right to attempt to end run 
the Constitution by giving to the President the line-item veto by 
statute?
  What a shame. What a shame. How would those framers look upon us? But 
the framers wisely provided for that eventuality when they created the 
judiciary. And our forebears in the first Senate, which met in 1789, 
also provided for that eventuality when they enacted the Judiciary Act 
and created the court system.
  I am a more exalted admirer of the Supreme Court today than I have 
ever been in my 29,439 days of life. It isn't my birthday; I have just 
lived 29,439 days. I keep count of my days, take my life one day at a 
time--29,439 days. And yesterday I became a more enthusiastic and avid 
admirer of the Supreme Court of the United States than ever before 
because, to me, this, this decision by the Court preserved the system 
of checks and balances and separation of powers.
  So God bless America. God bless this honorable Court.
  I also pause to thank those 28 other Senators who, on March the 23th, 
1995, stood with me in voting against that inimical, perverse Line-Item 
Veto Act that sought to give the line-item veto to the President of the 
United States.
  And I thank those 30 other Senators on both sides of the aisle who 
stood with me in voting against the conference report on that 
legislation, the Line-Item Veto Act, on March the 27th, 1996, a year 
and 4 days later. That was when the Senate stabbed itself in the back. 
Those 31 who stood in defense of the constitutional system of checks 
and balances and separation of powers on that day, those 31 were 
vindicated by the Supreme Court's decision on yesterday.
  Thank God for the United States of America!
  God save the Supreme Court of the United States!
  (Mr. ENZI assumed the Chair.)

                          ____________________