Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Now, Mr. President, back on the highway bill, I understood the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island to indicate yesterday that Mr. Domenici's amendment, which he, Mr. Chafee, was going to cosponsor, was going to be entered at the desk. I have inquired there now, and I don't believe it has been entered up to this point.

Mr. BYRD. So it is now being processed and will be available.

Mr. BYRD. I want to have the opportunity to study it and perhaps be able to comment on it if need be.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. I don't have anything else to say at this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his characteristic courtesy.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--of course, I will not object--I wonder if I could get consent to be recognized after the majority leader and the minority leader, who are going be recognized a little later? Following their recognition, I would like to be recognized.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that after Mr. Chafee is recognized, in that order, after the two leaders, then Mr. Chafee, if I could be recognized?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it was my intention to move at this time to waive all points of order pursuant to the budget act affecting the amendment that I had introduced on yesterday for printing on behalf of myself and Senators Gramm, Baucus, and Warner. Mr. President, having the floor, I have a perfect right to move at this time to waive such points of order; am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. I am not required to wait until such time as that amendment is pending before the Senate, nor am I required under the rules to wait until such time as the so-called tree, consisting of several amendments, has been dismantled, nor do I have to wait until such time as such a point of order is actually made against the amendment; am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. So I am perfectly within my rights at this point to move to waive such points of order. Such a motion would be debatable. And it would also be amendable, would it not, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with reference to the highway bill, on yesterday I, on behalf of Senators Gramm, Baucus, and Warner, introduced an amendment for printing only and also for the purpose of having that amendment appear in the Congressional Record. And I was not offering the amendment in the usual sense that I was calling it up, and so consent was granted. At that time I indicated that there were several Senators who wished to be added as cosponsors of that proposed amendment. And I wish to add these names today to those that I stated yesterday: Senators Brownback, Campbell, Conrad, Craig, Glenn, Helms, Levin, and Kempthorne. And I wish to remove the name of Mr. Coats. That name was included in error yesterday. And so I ask unanimous consent that the Record show that the name of Mr. Coats was removed and also to indicate the additional cosponsors.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I had wanted to take the floor to speak on the highway bill, but Mr. Chafee was here and he indicated he wanted to get the floor first. As he is the manager of the bill, I have no quarrel with that, so I will not speak on that subject at the moment. I also indicated I would expect to follow both leaders. Inasmuch as none of these aforementioned Senators is seeking recognition at this time, I have sought recognition and will speak briefly but not talk at the moment on the highway bill.

Mr. BYRD

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 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 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.

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. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I didn't understand we were in a period for morning business. At the time I was about to speak, I thought we were on the highway bill. But in any event, if the two leaders are ready to proceed, I will desist until I can address the Senate. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, did the Chair actually count Senators on the division that took place with respect to the adoption of the resolution of ratification of those treaties?

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to propound a parliamentary inquiry concerning the treaties that were agreed to.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of the remarks by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Abraham be recognized to speak for not to exceed 10 minutes; that he be followed by Mr. Breaux for not to exceed 7 minutes; that he be followed by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, for not to exceed 30 minutes; that he be followed by Mr. Gramm of Texas for not to exceed 20 minutes; that he be followed by Mr. Baucus for not to exceed 20 minutes; that he be followed by Mr. Warner for not to exceed 20 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it may be those last four speakers will all cut their remarks a little short of what was included in the request.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I haven't spoken with her. Did she indicate that she wanted some time?