Protect the Power of the People

PROTECT THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE -- (Senate - January 18, 2007)

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/