January 22, 2007: Robert Byrd Defends the Consitution; Kent Conrad Looks For Osama bin Forgotten

[19:00]
The Senate stands in adjournment until 10:00 am e.s.t. tomorrow.


[18:59]
John Warner (VA) closed out the day with comments on Iraq.  He with senators Ben Nelson (NE), Norm Coleman (MN), and Susan Collins (ME) are offering an alternative resolution on Iraq.


[13:54]
Edward Kennedy (MA) is a sponsor of the minimum wage bill, and the minimum wage has been his cause for awhile.  He is now thanking Byrd for bringing historical perspective to the debate.  So Byrd is now thanking him back.  But he is moving on to thank Conrad again, he says Conrad is his favorite senator of this age, that Conrad's speech will be in the record for a thousand years, the record, the record, for a thousand years. there's nothing I could say to embellish, or to comment at all except to say, it's one of the great speeches that I've heard in this senate...I've herrd a lot and I've been here a long time...the senator for north dakota is a leader among men, a leader among senators, I thank him...

I am venturing to guess that Kennedy is willing to go along with bringing the Gregg amdt to a vote but would vote against it once it came up for a vote on its passage...Kennedy now moves the conversation back to talk about the minimum wage...


[14:37]
Kent Conrad, ND. I hope the senators have been listening (to what Robert Byrd has just said)...What he says about the amdt is the truth.  Mr pResient this is a danegerouf amendment...I believe this amendt is profoundly dangerorus.  It will not help deal with our budget shortfall.  Mr pres the thing it will do without question is transfer power to the president of the united states.   Mr president senator Byrd has made clear it's not a question of this president—it's a question of any president.

Make no mistake I believe this measure is unconstitutional.  Our founding fathers had great wisdom.  They did not want any president to have the power of the purse...because they recognized the dangers of concentrating power in the hand of one person....

This would give the president leverage he doesn't already have.  Imagine the president with two bills on his desk.  He tells the senator, I'm gonna have to veto your provision unless you can help me with this other bill I've got here on the desk.  We shouldn't wait for the Supreme Court to make its judgment, we should make this judgment ourselves, right here,...

[
Adam, where art thou?  Robert (Byrd (WV)), where were you when the Supreme Court nullified the line item veto?  I was there.  Hear me now.  I mean, c'mon.  I don't say the line item is a proposal that stands in dark contrast to the constitution without a deep, deep reverence for the Constitution of the United States.

And when I speak of the l i v today and as many days as need be I speak of the oaths, the oaths.  We swear an oath, the one we take upon entrypoint to this office.  We take an oath, for Goddd, and man.  To uphold and defend...to support and defend the constitution of the united states of america I speak today on a subject that brooches, that brooches the most serious of const'l questions.  Now pending before the senate is a proposal of a line item veto.  Offered as an amendment to the minimum wage billl...it would give the president a role in the legislative process...the amendment would alter the role of the president in the legislative process.  We would give him the power to strip from a bill any spending item that he dislikes.

Let me say that again...it would allow a president, one man, to sign a spending bill into law and then—get this—and then strip from that bill any spending item that he dislikes.  Through a process known as expedited rescission...the president could force an add'l vote by Congress on spending items that do not mimic, m-i-m-i-c, mimic his budget requests and impound the spending that he does not unlike until the Congress votes again.   Such a proposal is a lethal lethal lethal aggrandizement of the chief executive's role in the legislative process.

Lethal, deadly, such a proposal is a lethal aggrandizement of the chief exec's role in the legis pocess.  It is a gross, gross colossal distortion of the congressional power of the purse.  It is a dangerous, dangerous...a wolf in a sheep's clothing of fiscal responsibility.  Woof woof: woof!  That's what it is,..hear me out there in West Virginia and throughout the land.  The Constitution is explict, explicit and precise about the role of the president in the legislative process.  Read the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7:

"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 to that House in which it shall have originated...If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."

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. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

President George Washington interpreted his responsibility this way, and I quote, "The Presidentmust approve all, a-l-l, all the parts of a bill or reject it en toto."  There is no other way, take it or leave it.  The father, the father of our coutry, George Washington, HEar me!  The father of the country was right.

Now I, Robert Byrd, continue.  A legislative veto effectively creates a third option; it adds a new, a neewwww dimension to executive power.  Under the Gregg Amendment, the amdt by my distinguished friend..hear me now, hey, did you get that?  Instead of vetoing a bill and returning it to Congress so that it might still become law, under the Gregg Amendment, and I say with the most respect.  Under the Gregg Amdt, the president can drop a spending provision after the bill becomes law.

What are we doing here?  The president can sign a bill into law and then, and then drop the provisions that he might not like.  Are you hearing me?  What am I saying?  I can't believe it— the president can sign a bill into law and then afterwards he can strip it of the provisions he does not like?  Have you ever heard of something so radical, so radical!!>?

Instead of the president weighing in before the bill becomes law he can avoid the debate until after the bill becomes law.  He can ignore it all, pull out anything he doesn't like...  This is one man downtown.  He could be a Republican or a Democrat, whoever the people elect—.

By empowering the president to craft legislation we would be ceding our const'l duty to the people,— ceding the constl means of the people, the people, to resist executive encroachment.

After we pass a bill the President would have up to one year to make his decisions.  The president could use this power to manipulate senators or advance his agenda.  Any president, I'm just not referring to President Bush, I'm starting with him.  But it could be any president, any president could use this power, and remember, this isn't the last president, Mr. Bush, there will be others.

Under the Gregg Amendment the president could punish or reward recalcitrant recalcitrant recalcitrant senators.  Every debate could be swayed—swayed—influenced by this new power of the president of the United States to influence citizens', citizens'...You Mr Byrd, Mr. Conrad, Mr and Mrs Senator...and use this power over senators to influence, what kind of power are we talking about?  You better think about this.   It provides the president with a mechanism to rewrite legislation after it has passed congress.

The president wouldn't just get 10 days, it would provide the president with up to 365 days!  Hear me! Friends, citizens of this country, lend me your ears...365 days, hey!...up to 365 days to act on a bill?  This is a provision that is unconstitituional on its face...and I don't think the senator on my left would go along with that.  That is Senator Conrad for the record.

Imagine what happens if Congress passes a major package of legislation.  Imagine the president dismantling that package months after it had been passsed 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, an anathema to the framers' careful balancing of powers because it allows any president to aggressicly—listen to me friends on the other side of the aisle—to impose His will on the legislative Branch with regard to the budgetary process.

The ancient Romans thought that an oath was sacred.  They would give their lives, they would give their lives...to preserve an oath...an oath...an aoth....  Senators take an oath to serve and protect the constitution.

I'll stand here until my bones crumple underneath, until I have no further breath if necessary to stop this proposal from becoming law.  Why would we want to do this?

So I urge the senators to listen, this isn't the last word, by any means, that I could have,,,,to resist this assault on the constitution and on the congress.  I urge senators, yes, I urge senators, senators, there is no greater name under the constitution.

Who was that roman emperor????...,who said "I still revere," that Roman great Roman who when he was about to take, about to become the emperor of the Roman Empire, what did he say?  "I still revere the name of Senator."  That was 476 a.d.  This was Majorian, I believe it was.

 Senators, did you hear that?...I urge senators to resist this assualt.  I'm talking about a line item veto now, you ain't heard, you ain't heard nothing yet,,,resist this assault...on the people, the people of the Unites States.  Mr president, I yield the floor.


[14:23]
 Judd Gregg (NH) is now explaining what his amendment does.  Gregg says that it is not a line item veto and it is constitutional.  He calls it "enhanced rescission."  Under the amendment, the President can send certain spending provisions back to Congress for a "second look."  Congress then has to vote by majority of both houses to affirm that it wants the spending to remain in the bill.  In a change from last week, the amendment now allows senators within one rescission package to vote in favor of only some of the rescissions within one package.  Meaning, if the President on a spending bill rescinds five provisions, a senator could affirm three but not vote to keep the other two in the bill.

Gregg now cites several Democrat senators as having supported the line item veto in the past: Feingold, Feinstein, Biden, Dorgan, Kerry, Kennedy, even Byrd.


[14:19]
Reid came on to call up H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill.  Reid then offered a "substitute" amendment, #100.  McConnell then offered Gregg's presidential rescission authority amendment, which you might remember as the amendment that held up debate last week on Ethics Reform.  Reid then sent a motion for cloture on the Gregg Amendment, #101.  This is the deal that the two sides worked out to finish the Ethics bill.  Gregg's amendment will get an up-or-down vote on Wednesday, possibly sooner.  Reid affirmed that Robert Byrd (WV) remains opposed to presidential rescission authority, which is another name for a watered-down version of the line item veto.


[13:49]
James Inhofe, OK.  Inhofe is on to talk about a movement he calls "The Counter-Recruitment Movement," which aims to dissuade new troops from joining the Army.  He is talking about how San Francisco turned away the U.S.S. Iowa and quoted a San Fran councilman who said he was not proud of this country's history over the last forty years.  This movement is convinced that Junior ROTC programs are designed to trick people into thinking they want to join the Army.


[13:18]
Byron Dorgan, ND.  A different course of action is a plan, says Dorgan.  The senator from Arizona (Jon Kyl) says the resolution does not have a plan but yet he refers to the resolution suggesting "a different course of action."  No one should suggest that this is a debate about whether we should support our troops.  No one is saying that, I'm sure.  The debate will be about the president's strategy to surge troops in Iraq.

What do we now about Iraq?  Saddam Hussein used to run Iraq but he has been executed and buried.  The Iraqis now must run Iraq and they must be responsible for its security.  Can Iraqi troops be trained in months, not years?  The answer so far seems to be no.  We all know what's going on there, it's sectarian violence, Shia on Sunni, Sunni on Shia.  Seventy-five more people dead today in attacks.  Bodies with holes drilled in the heads and knees, tortured bodies swinging from lamp poles, beheaded bodies floating down the Tigris.  

Now let's look at what the top general in Iraq, General Abizaid, said in front of the Congress in November.  I asked him if it would make any difference if we were to bring in more troops and Abizaid said "No."  "Because we want the Iraqis to do more" and the presence of U.S. troops would prevent the Iraqis from doing it.

And how about Afghanistan?  The Taliban by all accounts are now taking hold once again.  They are fighting hard to destabilize the government in Afghanistan.  We need more troops in Afghanistan but the president's plan would divert troops to Iraq from Afghanistan.  Intelligence Chief Negroponte said it was al Qaeda that threatened the U.S. and its Homeland the most.  Negroponte suggests that the al Qaeda leaders are secure and hidden in Pakistan.  We're talking about bin Laden, Dorgan says.  He is going through a series of big cards with visuals on them.  Now is a picture of bin Laden with his long gray beard and Kalashnikov.  Dorgan refers to him as Osama bin Forgotten, "as some say these days."


[13:06]
Start one hour of morning business.  Jon Kyl (AZ) warns those senators who would pass a resolution on Iraq.  The President should be accorded the consideracy of time to test the new strategy.  The primary part of the new strategy says Kyl, is the attitude of the Iraqi government.  Some strategy.  This new strategy is starting to work! says Kyl.  He points to al Maliki's willingness this past week to round up key figures of al Sadr's Mahdi Army.  We need to give this new strategy the chance to succeed and the very early returns suggest it just might be having that effect.  Wow.

Now he turns to al Anbar province which he says is where al Qaeda is active in Iraq.  Most of the new troops are going to Baghdad, though....  "Mere criticism is still criticism without any kind of alternative."  Kyl reads the Democrat resolution, which says: the primary strategy should be to have the Iraqis make the necessary political compromises in Iraq.

Kyl is talking about having to go after the Mahdi Army.  If al Maliki can crack down on Sadr, says Kyl, then the political compromises are possible.

Third and finally, those doing the criticizing need to consider what would happen if we left Iraq a failed state.  It would be disastrous for the people in Iraq, says Kyl, because al Qaeda can concentrate its base in Iraq.  And all the countries in the region who have helped us might hedge their bets with the other powers in the region.  All Americans should want this strategy to succeed.  Why would any American want us to fail in Iraq?  We need to give this a chance and not criticize it before it even has a few days to work out.  The resolution is the wrong strategy. The resolution recommends a pullout according to an "appropriately expedited timeline."  Whatever that is, says Kyl.  Gotta give him that one.  For the time being, we're going to have to remain there.


[13:04 e.s.t.]
There are a lot of things going on this week, even outside the United States, says Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) but he wants to finish the minimum wage bill this week and believes it is possible.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell invites his fellow minority senators to come to the floor starting today and offer amendments to the minimum wage bill.  He notes that tomorrow night's State of the Union Address will cut short the Senate's time tomorrow.



Preview:
The question this week is what minority senators will ask of the majority when a measure to raise the minimum wage comes through the senate.  Last year, as you might recall, Republicans brought a bill before senators that would have raised the minimum wage if certain other tax breaks (extenders) were included.  It was a minimum wage bill and a tax extender bill in one package, which Frist &Co. dubbed the "Family Prosperity Act" but which Reid called "The Prosperous Families Act".  The Democrats killed it with objections over provisions that would have extended estate tax cuts from 2012 through to 2021.  Senators will craft a compromise bill this week that includes a minimum wage hike PLUS something else.  That something else will be advertised as aid to small business owners who now must handle the wage raises.  So then, if wages are gonna go up and if the business owners aren't the ones paying for it, who is?