Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Maryland for--how much time?

Mr. BYRD. For 5 minutes, or whatever time she desires, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senators may desire.

Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have, may I ask the Chair?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 39 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, to many Americans, the word ``Vietnam'' has become a painful remainder of a bloody quagmire of a never-ending war without an exit strategy. Certainly, Vietnam is a reminder of failed leadership and two destroyed Presidencies. Like the Johnson and Nixon administrations during the Vietnam era, when their war policies were attacked, the Bush administration wraps itself in the American flag and often engages in tactics of impugning not only the integrity but the patriotism of its critics. President Bush has even said those who compared Iraq to Vietnam send the wrong message to our troops. Such a comparison, he suggests, harms our troops. I continue to be alarmed that the war in Iraq shows all the signs of degenerating into an equally calamitous debacle as Vietnam. And that is the point. The war in Vietnam lasted more than 10 years. It took more than 58,000 American lives. That long, painful war could have been avoided. Thousands of American lives could have been saved. The blood of thousands of American sons and daughters could have been saved. It need not have been spilled. That is why references to Vietnam are being made when talking about the war in Iraq. I make the comparison because I am furious, absolutely furious, that this Government, after the bitter and bloody experience of Vietnam, has failed to heed the lessons of Vietnam. How could we have failed to consider the lessons of Vietnam before stumbling into Iraq? I didn't vote to go into Iraq. I said, hell, no, I won't go. We are doing the wrong thing if we go into Iraq. Did they listen? Did they hear? The American people have a right, the public has a right, to ask this question. As a Senator, I have an obligation both morally and politically to ask that question. How could we not think about the error this country made with respect to Vietnam before we invaded Iraq? The similarities were obvious. In opposing the Iraq war resolution, which I did, I and others expressed concern that the Iraq resolution was another Gulf of Tonkin resolution and could well lead to another Vietnam. As to the Tonkin Gulf resolution, S.J. Res. 46, I explained in this way: . . . have several things in common. Congress is again being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence that the country poses an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped up, politically charged atmosphere in an election year. Congress is again being rushed into a judgment. And I quoted Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed the Tonkin Gulf resolution, as he proclaimed: The resolution will pass, and Senators who voted for it will live to regret it. How right he was. Tragically, tragically, as the war in Iraq has progressed, the parallels with the Vietnam war continue to mount. We have learned that, once again, the American people were led down the primrose path in rallying support for a costly war. Congress and the American people were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yes. They were told about Saddam Hussein's connections to al-Qaida. They were told about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Africa. The cost of the war was once estimated to be less then $100 billion. But the bill is now rising ever closer to half a trillion dollars. As a result, the National Journal pointed out, ``as with Vietnam, political support for [the war in] Iraq has proved to be fragile in part because it was secured by justification that has been discredited.'' In each of the two wars, American soldiers were placed in the treacherously difficult situation of having to fight an uncertain, indistinguishable enemy, never knowing friend, never knowing foe, until they started shooting. As in Vietnam, our soldiers are once again confronted with the deadly situation of trying to ferret out insurgents in a population that is willing--listen--a population that is willing to hide them. In each war, we went in thinking of ourselves as liberators. We came to be seen by the people we were supposed to be liberating as the invaders. In each war, where it was so necessary for us to win the hearts and minds of the people of the country, our presence there, instead, alienated the people of the country and turned them against us. In each war, both the White House, yes, and the Pentagon, yes, grossly and tragically underestimated the determination and the ferocity of our opponents. Bring them on, bring them on, President Bush chided the Iraqis and terrorists on July 2, 2003. Do you remember that? I do. He said ``bring 'em on.'' In the time since he made that statement ``bring 'em on,'' we, the American people, have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war. Yes, ``bring 'em on.'' ``Bring 'em on.'' And so they brought them on. We have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war. As of today, 3,062-- get that--3,062 Americans in total have been killed in Iraq. And for what? And for what, I ask? As of today, 3,062 Americans in total have been killed in that war. Yes, ``bring 'em on,'' President Bush chided the Iraqis and terrorists on July 2, 2003. So I will say it once more. We have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war since President Bush said: ``bring 'em on.'' Former Senator Max Cleland--do you remember him? I remember him. He used to sit right back there. Max Cleland, bless his heart, recently pointed out that American forces have now ``become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.'' Although Congress should have learned important lessons from the Vietnam war, there are now ominous indications that a path to a new military confrontation is being created right before our eyes. Just this month, the President announced his intention to ``interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria'' into Iraq. What does this saber-rattling comment really mean? Hear me. Does the President seek to expand the ongoing war beyond Iraq's borders? Does he? Does this comment really mean that? Or are we already on a course to another war in the Middle East? Are we? Will Syria or Iran be the Cambodia of a 21st century Vietnam? Will Syria or Iran be the Cambodia of a 21st century Vietnam? In the State of the Union Address last night, the President called out Iran no less than seven times. Was the speech the first step in an effort to blame all that has gone wrong in the Middle East on Iran? Was the focus on Iran during the President's address an attempt to link Iran to the war on terrorism, and, by extension, start building a case that our response to the 9/11 attacks must include dealing with Iran? I fear--and I hope I am wrong--that the machinery may have already been set in motion which may ultimately lead to a military attack inside Iran or perhaps Syria, despite the opposition of the American people, many in Congress, and even some within the President's administration. Wise counsel from congressional leaders to step back from the precipice of all-out war in the Middle East is too easily disregarded. To forestall a looming disaster, Congress must act to save the checks and balances established by the Constitution. Today I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is Congress--the Congress, the Congress, not the President--that is vested with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war against another country. This resolution, which I hold in my hand--here it is--this resolution is a rejection--hear me--a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous, and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption. Let me say that again. This resolution, which I hold in my hand, is a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous, and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the President--any President--may strike another country before that country threatens us, before that country threatens us. That is the doctrine of preemption: We may strike, we may attack, we may invade another country before it threatens us. Now, this resolution, which I am going to introduce, returns our Government to the inspired intent of the Framers, God bless them, of the Constitution who so wisely placed the power to declare war in the hands of the elected representatives of the American people. If there exists a reckless determination for a new war in the Middle East, I fear that the attorneys of the executive branch are already seeking ways to tie this war to the use of force resolution for Iraq, or the resolution passed in response to 9/11. But the American people need only be reminded about the untruths of Iraq's supposed ties to the 9/11 attacks to see how far the truth can be stretched in order to achieve the desired outcome. If the executive branch were to try to prod, stretch, or rewrite the 9/11 or the Iraq use of force resolutions in an outrageous attempt to apply them to an attack on Iran, on Syria, or anywhere else, this resolution of mine is clear--clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky--this resolution is clear: The Constitution says that Congress--we here and those over there on the other side of the Capitol--the Constitution says that Congress, not the President, must make the decision for war or peace. The power to declare war resides in Congress--resides here--and it is we--we, the elected representatives of the people--who are the ``deciders.'' Congress has an obligation to the people of the United States. With so many of our sons and daughters spilling their blood in one costly war, Senators and Representatives have a moral duty to question whether we are headed for an even more tragic conflict in the Middle East. But in order to question this administration--in order to fulfill the duties entrusted to us by the Constitution, to which we have sworn to support and defend--Congress must first insist that the powers given to this body--the Congress, the Senate and the House--are held sacrosanct. We must insist that these powers, including the power to declare war, are not usurped by this President or any other President who will follow. The resolution, Mr. President, which I am submitting today, is an effort to protect the Constitution--an effort to protect the Constitution--from the zeal of the executive branch, whose very nature is to strive for more and more power during a time of war. It is time now for Congress to put its foot down and stand up for the Constitution. Our Nation did not ask to be put into another Vietnam. Let us not deceive ourselves that we are somehow immune to another Cambodia. Let us stop a reckless, costly war in Iran or Syria before it begins by restoring the checks and balances that our Founders so carefully--so carefully--designed. I send, Mr. President, the resolution to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let the title be read, please.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank the clerk. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, may I ask the Chair, there is no time limitation on speeches at this point, is there?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the very able and distinguished Senator from Kansas wants to speak for 5 minutes or more. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator for 5 minutes or 6 or 7 minutes or whatever he wants at this time, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator want?

Mr. BYRD. The Senator doesn't have to be in a great hurry. I know the Senator is reasonable and he will take such time as he may desire and it is not going to be too much. I yield to the Senator for that purpose without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I very much admire the able Senator from New Hampshire. I like him. As Shakespeare said, ``He's a man after my own kidney.'' That about says it all, I guess. That is the way I feel about the Senator from New Hampshire. He and I served together in the last Congress as chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee. I also have the pleasure of serving with him on the Senate Budget Committee, where he has been chairman--and I mean chairman--and is now the ranking member. The Senator from New Hampshire is one of the finest, one of the brightest, one of the most illustrious Senators serving today. I want Senators to know--and, of course, the Congressional Record will reflect--that as much as I oppose the line-item veto--and that is saying a mouthful--I very much respect the Senator from New Hampshire who has attached his name to it. In his remarks last week on his line-item veto amendment, the very able Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, noted that this is not a new issue before the Senate. He correctly noted that the Senate passed a line-item veto measure in 1996, which was later nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court of the land--in 1998. It is appropriate, very appropriate, that Senators know something about the history of this issue, particularly those Senators who were not here when the Senate last considered this piece of garbage called the line-item veto. I can say plenty about this line-item veto. I call it garbage. I can call it worst things than that, but I won't right now. Senators will recall, I believe, that the House of Representatives in the early 1990s passed a series of legislative line-item vetoes, or expedited rescissions, like the one now before this body. Because of constitutional concerns and a lack of support, none of those bills ever passed the Senate. Senators will recall that in the summer of 1993, I delivered 14 speeches--I mean, they were cracker jacks, and, man, that is not the end of the line, either--later published as ``The Senate of the Roman Republic.'' They were addresses on the history of Roman constitutionalism on this very topic. Senators will recall that when the 104th Congress passed the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996, I was one of the most outspoken opponents. I argued against giving any President--any President, any President, even a Democratic President; that makes no difference, even a Democratic President--a line-item veto or a or so-called enhanced rescission authority. Senators will recall that after President Clinton signed into law the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 I, Robert C. Byrd, a Senator from the State of West Virginia, joined with Senator Carl Levin and the late, God bless his name, Daniel Patrick Moynihan--oh, were he here today--in bringing suit--get that--in bringing suit in Federal court against the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, then Franklin Raines, arguing that the act unconstitutionally authorized the President to cancel certain spending and revenue measures without observing the procedures outlined in the presentment clause of article I, section 7. That suit, Raines v. Byrd, was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court for lack of standing, but the arguments, I say, but the arguments were later validated in 1998, when the Court nullified the Line-Item Veto Act in Clinton v. City of New York. Now, I am no stranger to this issue. I am no stranger to this issue. I have served with the eight Democratic and Republican Presidents since Harry Truman who have asked for line-item veto authority. And I have watched, as the Senate has said ``no,'' n-o, no--the hardest word in the English language to say--I watched as the Senate has said ``no'' to all but one. And where the Senate erred in yielding to a President's request for such power, I was there when the Supreme Court nullified the Senate's actions. I was there. The first question ever asked was asked of Adam. The first question ever asked--I hope the Chair is listening closely, my friend in the chair--in all of the centuries of the human race, the first question ever asked was: Adam, where art thou? I won't go into the time and place where that was asked. Everybody ought to know it. Adam, where art thou? Well, where was Robert C. Byrd when the Supreme Court nullified the Senate's actions? I was there when the Supreme Court nullified the Senate's actions. I do not speak lightly about this subject--hear me now, if you want to take me on, on this question--and to refer Shakespeare: And damned be him that first cries, ``Hold, enough!'' I do not say it is a proposal that stands in stark defiance of the Constitution without many decades of congressional experience and a deep, deep reverence for the Constitution of the United States, and when I speak about line-item veto today, and in the coming days, if necessary, I speak to all Senators of both parties about the oaths we swear and particularly the one we take upon entry into this office. We take an oath before God and man to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I speak today on a subject that broaches the most serious of constitutional questions. Now pending before the Senate is a legislative line-item veto proposal offered as an amendment by Senator Gregg and others to the minimum wage bill. The amendment would alter by statute the constitutional role of the President of the United States in the legislative process. The President does have a role in the legislative process. The amendment would alter by statute the constitutional role of the President in the legislative process. It would allow the President to sign a spending bill into law and then to strip from that bill any spending items he dislikes. Let me say that again. I have already said that the amendment would alter by statute the constitutional role of the President in the legislative process. It would allow the President, one man, to sign a spending bill into law and then--get this--strip from that bill any spending items he dislikes. Through a process known as expedited rescission, the President could force an additional vote by the Congress on spending items that do not mimic his budget request and impound the funding that he, the President of the United States, does not like until the Congress votes again. Such a proposal is a lethal, aggrandizement of the Chief Executive's role in the legislative process. Lethal, deadly. Such a proposal is a lethal aggrandizement of the Chief Executive's role in the legislative process. It is a gross, colossal distortion of the congressional power of the purse. It is a dangerous, dangerous proposition, a wolf in sheep's clothing of fiscal responsibility. Wolf, wolf, wolf, that's what it is. The Constitution, I say to Senators--hear me out there, my friends in West Virginia and throughout the land--the Constitution is explicit and precise about the role of the President in the legislative process. The President has a role in the legislative process. Read the Constitution, article I, section 7. Here is what it says: 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. . . . The President must act within 10 days, Sundays excepted. And once he, the President, has decided to forgo a veto, it is his constitutional responsibility under article II to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' President George Washington interpreted his responsibility this way, and I quote the immortal first President of this land, the Father of our Country, the Commander in Chief at Valley Forge, George Washington. President George Washington interpreted his responsibility this way: ``I''--meaning George Washington, the President of the United States-- ``must approve all the parts of a bill or reject it in toto''--totally. No other way. Take it or leave it. I must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto. The Father of our Country was right. It isn't Robert Byrd talking. That was George Washington. Now come to Robert Byrd. I continue: A legislative line-item veto effectively creates a third option for the President of the United States--a third option, talking about the line-item veto. It adds a new dimension to executive power, one that is not found in the Constitution. Instead of vetoing and returning a whole bill to the Congress before it becomes law, under the Gregg amendment, under the amendment by my distinguished friend Senator Gregg, the President can resubmit only those provisions he opposes, and he can do so after a bill becomes law. Did you get that? Instead of vetoing and returning a whole bill to the Congress before it becomes law, under the Gregg amendment--and I speak with great respect--the President can submit only those provisions he opposes and do so after a bill becomes law. What are we doing here? The President can sign a bill into law and then strip it of the provisions that he doesn't like. Let me say that again. Are you hearing me? What am I doing? What am I saying here? I can't believe it. The President can sign a bill into law and then, after he has signed the bill into law, he can strip it of the provisions he does not like. Have you ever heard of anything so radical? Instead of the President weighing in before a bill becomes law, he can ignore the pros and cons of debate and wait until well after it has become law. Am I in my senses when I read this? Can you believe it? He can literally ignore both public opinion and congressional debate and deliberation. He can pull out anything he does not like from legislation passed by both Houses of Congress--get that, now. This is one man downtown. He may be a Republican, he may be a Democrat, he may be a Socialist or whatever-- whatever the people elect down there at the White House in the future. He can pull out anything he doesn't like from legislation that has been passed by both Houses of Congress and insist on a second run through the legislative process. The Gregg amendment allows the President to decide what is in a bill considered by the Senate or not in a bill after it has become law. It would allow the President to decide when the Senate considers a spending or revenue item and under what political conditions the Senate considers these measures. Such a proposal is a dangerous departure from the separation of powers doctrine, which aims to prevent any one branch of the Government from seizing both the power to make and to execute a law. The separation of powers dividing inherently legislative and executive functions between two separate and equal branches is a fundamental defense against overzealous and unwise acts by either the President of the United States or the Congress of the United States. In Federalist No. 51 James Madison writes--this is not Robert C. Byrd who wrote it. In Federalist No. 51, James Madison writes: But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others . . . Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. . . . So by empowering the President to craft legislation, the Congress would be ceding the constitutional means of the people to resist executive encroachments. Let me say that again. By empowering the President of the United States to craft legislation, the Congress would be ceding the constitutional means of the people to resist executive encroachments. For up to 1 year after every bill is passed and signed into law--get this--the President could use this power to manipulate Senators--how about that--or advance his political agenda. Any President. I am not just referring to Mr. Bush. I am starting with him, but I am talking about any President, Republican or Democrat. The President could use this power that Mr. Gregg's amendment would give to the President-- remember, this isn't the last President, Mr. Bush. There will be others. The President could use this power to manipulate Senators or advance his political agenda. Under the Gregg amendment, a President could punish or reward recalcitrant Members of Congress by targeting or sparing their interests under the expedited rescission process. Every debate between the Congress and the White House could be swayed, influenced, by this new power of the President of the United States to influence Senators: You, Mr. Conrad; you, Mr. Byrd; you, Mr. and Mrs. or Miss Senator--he can use this power over Senators to influence them. What kind of power are we talking about? It would subject every Member and the interests of their constituents and States to the political capricious and unchecked whims of a Chief Executive. You better think about this. You better think about it. The Gregg amendment provides the President, any President--Democratic, Republican or otherwise--with a mechanism to rewrite legislation after it has passed the Congress. Where are we going? Instead of 10 days to act on a bill, the Gregg amendment would provide the President with up to 365 days. Hear me, friends, Romans, countrymen. Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears. Instead of 10 days to act on a bill, the Gregg amendment would provide the President with up to 365 days to act on a bill. This is a provision that is unconstitutional on its face. I don't believe that Senator over there sitting in the chair, in the chair to my left, would go along with that. That is Senator Conrad, for the record. Within 10 days of the Congress submitting a bill to the President, we know if it has become the law of the land. Under the Gregg measure, nobody--except the President--for up to 1 year after an act is signed into law, will know if all of the provisions of a bill will be carried into effect. One can imagine the confusion of not knowing, for up to 1 year, whether all of the provisions of a single bill will become law. Imagine what happens if the Congress passes a major legislative package such as a Social Security and Medicare reform package, which affects the retirement and health care benefits of many millions of people and the payroll taxes of many millions more. Imagine the President dismantling that package, listen now. Imagine the President dismantling that package months after it has been passed by the Congress. Are you listening? Hear me. How wise and practical will this line-item veto seem then? This line-item veto is an anathema to the Framers' careful balancing of powers within the legislative process because it allows the President, any President, to aggressively--listen to me, my friends on the other side of the aisle; I am not just talking about Mr. Bush or Mr. Republican President--allows a President to aggressively impose his will on the legislative branch in regard to budgetary matters. I will say that once again. This line-item veto is an anathema to the Framers' careful balancing of powers within the legislative process because it allows a President, any President, to aggressively--and I mean aggressively--impose his, the President's, will, be he Republican or Democratic, on the legislative branch in regard to budgetary matters. This line-item veto amendment goes far--and I mean far--beyond the President simply making recommendations to the Congress. It makes the President, any President, a lawmaker. It is a complete reversal of the legislative process. We do not need to rewrite the Constitution in order to legislate. We do not need to defer extraordinary and unconstitutional powers to the President, any President, in order to ensure that Congress uses its power of the purse in an ethical and rational and wise manner. We should remember that the President has not exercised his existing constitutional authorities. The President--this President--has only vetoed one authorization bill, and he has never, never vetoed a spending or revenue bill. The President has not submitted a single rescission proposal as currently allowed under the Budget Act. Rather than dealing with the President's failed budget choices, the suggestion here today is that enlarging the President's power in the budget process will somehow magically--somehow magically--reduce these foreboding and menacing deficits. It will not. The suggestion here today is that handing the power to make laws to the President will somehow improve the quality of congressional budget decisions. This suggestion is without foundation. This nefarious line-item veto will only further politicize and degrade a process which is already too much of a political football. Senators--Senator Byrd being one--take an oath--yes, an oath before God. The ancient Romans felt that an oath was sacred. They would give their lives--I won't go into Roman history at this point--they would give their lives to preserve an oath. Senators take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. A lack of understanding about the reasons for entrusting the purse strings to the hands of the Congress, and the unwise tax and spending decisions of this administration, must never, never be allowed to propel such an unconstitutional and dangerous as the legislative line-item veto. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I will stand here until my bones crumble under me, until I have no further breath, if necessary, to let such a proposal become law. Why would we ever want to hand more power to a President who has already grabbed far too much power--any President? Why would we ever want to bargain away our most important tool for protecting the liberties of the people or for derailing a disastrous war? Why would we ever want to fall for this legislative pig-in-a-poke that could cripple this body, the Congress of the United States? So I urge Senators to listen. This isn't the last word by any means that I could have, let alone many other Senators here. Resist this assault on the Constitution and the Congress. I urge Senators--yes, I urge Senators--Senators--there is no greater name under the Constitution. Who was that great Roman Emperor who said, when he was about to become the Emperor ``I still revere the name of Senator.'' That is 476, I believe, A.D. It was Majorian, I believe, who said, ``I still revere the name of Senator.'' Senator. Did you hear that? I urge Senators to resist this assault. I am talking about a line- item veto now. You ain't heard nothing yet. I urge Senators to resist this assault on the Congress and on the Constitution of the United States and on the people, the people of the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Let me thank him for this magnificent speech. Let me thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their remarkable patience and their consideration always. I thank the distinguished Senator for this magnificent speech. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able and highly respected Senator from Massachusetts, my favorite Senator of this age, for what he has said. I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his remarkable statement. It will be in the Record for 1,000 years. There is nothing I could say to embellish it, to add to it, to subtract from it, or to comment on except to say it is one of the great speeches I have heard in this Senate. And I have heard a lot. I have been here a long time. Next year will be my 50th year. The Senator from North Dakota is a leader among men, a leader among Senators. I commend him. I thank him. I thank all Senators, and I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the late hours last night, I took to the floor to decry some Senators who wish, if I may put it in this language, to sabotage the ethics reform legislation with a dangerous and unconstitutional line-item veto proposal. What is happening is little more than political blackmail, and the American people--those people out there who are watching through the lenses above the President's chair, the American people--should be outraged. I have been around here a long time. I have spoken on this subject many times. This so-called line-item veto is an assault on the single most important protection that the American people have against a President, any President, who wants to run roughshod over the liberties of the people prescribed in the Constitution. Today I am talking about the congressional power over the purse. The congressional power that is right here, and over on the other side of the Capitol, the congressional power over the purse. Weaken the power of the purse and one weakens strong--the word ``strong'' is too weak--one weakens oversight, for example, on this bloody nightmare of a war in Iraq. Get that? Weaken the power over the public purse and we weaken the oversight over this bloody war in Iraq. That is just one example. One weakens the power of the purse and one weakens the checks on a President who wants to tap into personal telephone calls or pry into bank accounts or tear open the mail. Without congressional power over the purse--money--there is no effective way to stop an out-of-control President who is bent on his way, no matter the price, no matter the repercussion. Make no mistake-- hear me, now. The Roman orator would say, ``Romans, lend me your ears.'' Make no mistake, this line-item veto authority would grant tremendous--I say tremendous and dangerous--new power to the President. There are new Members of this body. Perhaps we ought to have some discussions about the line-item veto. The President would have unchecked authority to imperil congressional power over the purse, a power that the constitutional Framers felt was absolutely vital to reining in an overzealous President. Eight years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the line- item veto--hear me, Senators; you may be watching your boob tubes. Hear me. Eight years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. I said at the time that the Supreme Court saved the Congress from its own folly. But now, it seems, memories in this Senate are short and wisdom may be even shorter in supply. Here we are, on the heels of 6 years of assault on personal liberty, 6 years of a do-nothing Congress all too willing to turn its eyes from the real problems of the Nation, 6 years of rubberstamps and rubber spines--here we are, all too ready to jettison the single most important protection of the people's liberties: the power of the purse. Let's review the record. We have a President--I say this in all due respect. I respect the President of the United States. I respect the Presidency; I respect the Chief Executive. We have a President who already has asserted too much power while refusing to answer questions: I am the commander--see, I don't need to explain--I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation. Those are the words of our President, the very President who some in this body are all too willing to allow to dominate the people's branch, this branch, your branch--the people's branch of Government. This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to tap into the telephone conversations of American citizens without a warrant, without court approval. This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to sneak and peek, to snoop and scoop into the private lives of you, the American people. This President has taken the Nation to a failed war--yes, to a failed war that we should have never entered into--based on faulty evidence and an unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive strikes, a doctrine that is absolutely unconstitutional on its face. More than 3,000 American sons and daughters have died in Iraq in this failed Presidential misadventure. What is the response of the Senate? To give the President even more unfettered authority? Give him greater unchecked powers? It is astounding. We have seen the danger of the blank check. We have lived through the aftermath of a rubberstamp Congress. We should not continue to lie down for this or any other President. Of course, this President wants to strip Congress of its strongest and most important power, the power of the purse. Congress has the ability to shut down the administration's unconstitutional practices. Congress is asking tough questions and demanding honest answers. Congress is taking a hard look at finding ways to bring our troops home from the President's misadventure in Iraq that has already cost the lives of more than 3,000 of the American people's sons and daughters. Of course, the President wants to control the Congress. Some Presidents have wanted to do this before--silence the critics, ignore, if you will, the will of the people seriously cripple oversight. Strip away the power of the Congress to control the purse strings, then you strip away the power of the Congress to say ``No more, Mr. President;'' strip away the single most important power granted to the people in this Constitution. That is the White House demand. I, for one, will not kowtow to this President or to any President. I, for one, will not stand quietly by while the people's liberties are placed in jeopardy. No Senator should want to hand such power to the President. No American should stand for it--not now, not today, not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow, not ever. Just a few weeks ago, Members of the Senate took an oath, ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend. . . .'' This is in our oath, my oath, that I have taken several times. I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. That is the oath I take: ``So help me God.'' If our Republican colleagues want to stop the Senate's efforts to end the scandals that plagued the last Congress, that is their right. If our Republican colleagues want to stop the first increase in the minimum wage in the past decade, that is their right. But I, this mountain boy from the hills, will not stand with them. And the American people will see through this transparent effort to gut ethics reform. I, as one Senator with others, if they will stand with me, will do my very best to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet I will bear true faith and allegiance to this Constitution and to the people of this great Nation, defying an effort to weaken the power of the purse. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope to speak at some length about the line-item veto at a later time. However, for the benefit of my colleagues, I want to respond to the arguments put forward today about two measures I endorsed in 1995 and 1996. The Daschle amendment that I cosponsored in 1995, and the amendment I offered to the motion to recommit the line-item veto conference report in 1996, are vastly different in regard to their Constitutional ramifications from what has been offered by Senator Gregg to the ethics reform bill. The Gregg proposal allows the President to submit rescission proposals up to 365 days after he signs a bill into law. Such latitude would allow the President to unilaterally veto a one-year appropriation by delaying its expenditure, and then submitting it for rescission within 45 days of its expiration. In contrast, the proposals I endorsed in 1995 and 1996 would have limited a President to submitting rescission proposals within 20 days of a bill being signed into law. The proposals I have endorsed would have prevented the President from unilaterally cancelling a one-year appropriations. The Gregg amendment contains no such protection. The Gregg proposal also prohibits amendments to the President's rescission requests. In contrast, the proposals I have endorsed would have allowed motions to strike. Without the right to amend, Senators are vulnerable to threats by any President who would target a Member's spending and revenue priorities and force the Senate to vote on them at a time and in the manner decided by the President. I have the greatest respect for the Senator from New Hampshire, and the knowledge and expertise he brings to the Congressional budget and appropriations process. He is a good Senator. But I cannot endorse his views with regard to the line-item veto.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise tonight at this late hour. The hour is late and the night is black. I rise tonight to shine a bright light on political chicanery that is playing out on the Senate floor. In November, America voted for a change. The people sent a strong signal that they wanted less partisanship and more accountability in Washington. In response to the voters, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, and Senator McConnell put before the Senate an ethics reform bill that would add transparency and accountability to the legislative process. They should be proud of their product, and the Senate has had a good debate thus far on the bill. But wait, wait, wait 1 second. Before we can clear the way for greater accountability and sunshine into the way work gets done in these halls, the Senate is being blackmailed into an assault on the Congress's single most precious and most powerful authority--the power of the purse. That is the most powerful authority we have: the power of the purse. Tonight, this reform bill is threatened by an effort by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give the President line- item veto authority. No vote on the line-item veto, they say, and no ethics reform. That is nothing more than legislative blackmail, and I, for one, will not pay the price. No one should stand still when this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is the hostage. No one should stand still, I repeat, when this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is the hostage. This line-item veto authority would grant tremendous and dangerous new power to the President. He would have unchecked authority to take from the Congress the power of the purse, a power that the constitutional Framers thought was absolutely vital to protecting the people's liberties. It was just 8 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. Now our colleagues--some of them-- on the other side of the aisle are threatening to hold up the ethics reform bill in an effort to hand the President another line-item veto authority. Are the memories around here so short? Are the memories around here so short? We have a President who already has asserted too much power. This is a blatantly gross attempt to take even more power for the President and strip away power from the people. This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to tap into the telephone conversations of American citizens without a warrant or court approval. This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to sneak and peek, to snoop and scoop, into the private lives of the American people. This President has taken the Nation to a failed war based on faulty evidence and the misrepresentation of facts. And many Senators voted not realizing that was what was being done when we voted on the war resolution. So I say, this President has taken the Nation to a failed war based on faulty evidence and an unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive strikes. More than 3,000 American sons and daughters have died in Iraq in this crazed Presidential misadventure. And what is the response of the Senate? To give the President even more unfettered authority? To give him greater unchecked powers? We have seen the danger of the blank check. We have lived through the aftermath of a rubberstamp Congress. We should not continue to lie down for this President or any other President. Of course, this President wants to take away Congress's power of the purse. When Congress has the sole ability to shut down these unconstitutional practices, when Congress is asking tough questions and demanding truthful answers about this war, when Congress is taking a hard look at finding ways to begin to bring our troops home, over the objections of this administration, the President's response is to demand that the Congress give away its most crucial power. Silence the Congress. Ignore the people. Strip away our constitutional protections and one may just as well strip away the people's liberties lock, stock, and barrel. Strip away the power of the Congress, the power of the people, and amass all power behind the fences and secret doors of the White House. No Senator should vote to hand such power to the President. No American should stand for it--not now, not ever. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stop the Senate's effort to add transparency and accountability to the legislative process, that is their right and their choice. But I will not blink. I cannot look the other way. We should get on with the business at hand and pass meaningful ethics reform legislation. But we should never, never, hand away those precious constitutional powers-- the last protections of the people's liberties, vested in the people's representatives in this Congress--to any President. We have each taken an oath to protect and defend this Constitution of the United States. Here it is. I hold it in my hand. I say again, we have each taken an oath to protect and defend this Constitution of the United States. And it is about time we did protect and defend that Constitution of the United States. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.