[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9561-H9562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                LINE-ITEM VETOES OF DEFENSE LEGISLATION

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the recent decision 
of the President to exercise the line-item veto on 38 military 
construction projects which were authorized during the legislative 
process.
  Over the last 3 years, the Congress has made significant progress in 
advancing needed facilities improvements, meeting both housing and 
other quality-of-life requirements and the operational and readiness 
requirements of the military services.
  The Congress did not invent these requirements. We relied on the 
extensive evidence collected all year during hearings and on site 
visits, and it is clear that a lot more needs to be done. Military 
infrastructure has been neglected for years. Twenty years ago, the 
record was filled with discussions about World War II wood, poor 
housing, and unsafe working conditions. The witnesses have changed, but 
the testimony has not. The conditions still exist.
  The Subcommittee on Military Installation and Facilities, which I 
chair, has worked closely with the Department of Defense and the 
military services to upgrade housing and to improve facilities 
conditions generally. It is easy for some to be cynical about military 
construction projects. It is easy to call needed improvements pork. In 
fact, one Member of the other body thinks that anything that the 
President did not request is pork. If all we were going to do is follow 
the President's request, then why are we here? We could send in our 
rubber stamp and simply stay home.
  More cynical, however, is the administration's lack of commitment in 
this area, which has been demonstrated by eroding budget requests. The 
real decline in the President's request over the past 5 years to 
support military infrastructure has been 20 percent. The fiscal year 
1998 budget request for military construction was $1.6 billion, 16 
percent, less than prior year spending levels, all the while the 
services tell us on the record that they have multibillion-dollar 
facilities problems.
  The $287 million in military construction projects canceled by the 
President met validated military requirements. Congress worked with 
these military departments to assure that those funds would address 
real needs and that the project could be executed in fiscal year 1998. 
But the needs of the services are not what this exercise is all about.
  These are the facts: 33 of the 38 projects, 85 percent of them, 
canceled by the President are in the President's own 5-year defense 
program. The remainder were priorities of the military services and the 
commands. Moreover, 26 percent of the canceled projects, 1 in 4, are in 
the President's fiscal year 2000 program. They are not good projects 
now, in the administration's judgment, but they would be good projects 
just 16 months from now so why cancel them?
  When the defense bills are within the constraints of the budget 
agreement and when the projects are in the President's program, I fail 
to understand the rationale for the administration's actions. The only 
explanation I can come to is politics, simple, crass, and cynical 
politics.
  While the President plays politics, soldiers at Fort Campbell will 
continue to do vehicle maintenance in 1940's-era facilities that 
contain lead-based paint, asbestos, and faulty exhaust systems. The 
equipment that cannot fit in the undersized bays has to be worked on 
outside on gravel even during the winter.
  We asked the Army to deploy to places like the urban streets of 
Somalia and Bosnia, but the troops most likely to go, those at Fort 
Bragg, will not be training in an adequate way because the President 
canceled the necessary training complex.
  At Lackland Air Force Base, an aircraft painting facility was closed 
in 1994 because of violations of the Clean Air Act. The remaining 
facilities can only handle one-third of the workload and do not 
accommodate certain aircraft at all. The needed replacement facility 
was canceled by the President.
  Navy Station Mayport has inadequate berthing space. The Navy believes 
this is a critical project. The President canceled it.
  I have seen a number of the facilities for which the President has 
canceled improvements. I am appalled at the lack of judgment 
demonstrated by this administration.
  No one would suggest that the Nation could not defend itself tomorrow 
without these projects, but given the record of neglect in basic 
military infrastructure, these cancellations will continue to compound 
a very serious problem. At each installation these projects affect 
readiness and, to the extent conditions are inadequate and unsafe, they 
must in the end be a factor in retention. We cannot continue to ignore 
this problem, but the administration appears to care very little about 
it.
  The Committee on National Security held a hearing on this issue last 
week.

[[Page H9562]]

 I was appalled that both the director of the Office of Management and 
Budget and senior officials of the Department of Defense refused to 
submit to questions from the committee. Both OMB and OSD have gladly 
taken questions from the press on the subject. What do they have to 
fear if the cancellations are truly objective and justified?
  Their failure to appear is all the more troubling because this 
administration admits that mistakes were made on the cancellations.

                          ____________________