[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11410-S11421]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            DISAPPROVAL ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate now will 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1292, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1292) disapproving the cancellations transmitted 
     by the President on October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 
     105-45.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations, with an amendment on page 2, line 
3, to strike ``97-15, 97-16.''
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are 10 hours, as I understand it, 
on this bill. I do not have any knowledge yet as to how much time we 
will take. I will give myself such time as I need in the beginning of 
this statement.
  On October 6, the President impounded funds for 38 projects contained 
in the fiscal year 1998 military construction bill, which totaled $287 
million. Let me first take a moment to review the merits of this bill.
  Mr. President, in June, President Clinton reached a budget agreement 
with the bipartisan leadership of the Congress. That agreement provided 
for an increase of $2.6 billion for national defense over the amount 
the President had requested for the budget in the fiscal year 1998. The 
President's action on the military construction bill, in my judgment, 
reneges on the budget agreement that he reached with the Congress. 
Congress was given spending caps. We then allocated that within the 
appropriations process, and the Appropriations Committee presented the 
Senate with 13 appropriations bills consistent with the spirit, terms, 
and limits of the revised budget.
  Mr. President, I state to the Senate, without any chance of being 
corrected, that the Senator from West Virginia and I have done our 
utmost to live within the terms of the budget agreement, although we 
didn't agree with it and we weren't present at the time it was made. 
Now, we have upheld the congressional commitment to the President. 
Simply stated, the President did not when he used the line-item veto on 
this bill.
  After consultation with Senator Byrd, the committee held a hearing 3 
weeks ago to evaluate the President's use of the line-item authority 
and review the status of these projects for military construction. We 
asked military witnesses from three services to testify. They told us 
there were valid requirements for each of these projects, Mr. 
President. They were mission-essential to the U.S. military. They also 
informed the Appropriations Committee that each of these projects was, 
in fact, executable during the coming fiscal year.
  Now, these projects clearly did not meet the criteria intended by 
Congress to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary spending. Those were the 
tests under the line-item veto law. Instead, the President chose to 
cancel a project because of three criteria that were announced after 
the action taken by the President. First, he would veto a bill if it 
was not in the President's 1998 budget request and no design work had 
been initiated and it did not substantially contribute to the well-
being and quality of life of the men and women in the armed services.
  Senator Byrd is going to speak at length on this. He is an expert in 
this area, and I don't want to go into the area he will cover. It is 
very clear that that was not within the terms of the bill passed, the 
law that the President signed, which set forth the process for using 
the line-item veto. At our Appropriations Committee hearing, it was 
apparent that, in fact, some design work had been initiated on most of 
these projects--not all of them, but most of them.
  The generals that were before us confirmed what many of us already 
knew.

[[Page S11411]]

 The White House decision conflicted with the military needs of the 
Armed Forces. In every instance these projects were needed and desired 
by the military services. Since that time the administration has 
stated--and even today, the President has a message out today--that 
mistakes were made. The administration has indicated that it will 
support many of these projects. But so far it has not told the 
committee which ones, Mr. President. We have a criticism of this bill 
from the administration, but the administration vetoed 38 projects, and 
it says it made some mistakes. But it has not publicly said which ones.
  It is my belief that we will be successful in our effort to overturn 
these line-item vetoes in this instance because the projects the 
President has attempted to eliminate are meritorious. They are sought 
by the Department of Defense and by the services involved in each 
instance, and they are within the budget agreement.
  I want to go back and emphasize that, Mr. President. We had a budget 
presented to us by the President that was lower than many of us thought 
was necessary to meet our national needs. The President, in the budget 
agreement, agreed to that, and he agreed to an increase in defense 
spending. Our committee received no specification on what he thought 
that increase should be spent for. So we did what the Constitution 
gives us the right to do. We determined where the money would be 
allocated. None of these projects have been listed as being either 
wasteful or excessive spending. Again, almost all of them are in the 5-
year plan, and those that were not in the 5-year plan were indicated to 
be necessary and ones that were needed by the military.
  I believe that our military people, soldiers, sailors, marines, 
airmen, and Coast Guardsmen are the ones that are being shortchanged by 
the President's veto--not the officials in the Pentagon or the White 
House.
  Let me tell you why I believe the President is reneging. If this 
line-item veto application, the application of that law to these 
projects, is sustained, we lose part of the increase that was in the 
budget agreement. This $287 million is no longer available for 
expenditure to meet military needs. It is a way for the administration 
to renege and not meet the goals that we sought for military spending. 
The President indicated some protected areas in the budget--areas that 
he wanted protected because of his priorities. Our committee has met 
every single one of those. We have not stood here and used a pen and 
taken them out. We have not used what would be a congressional line-
item veto and said, no, we don't agree with you on this or that. We 
have not done that.
  But in this instance, the use of the line-item veto reduces the 
amount that is available for defense spending for fiscal year 1998 by 
the amount of the application of the line-item veto.
  I am differing with my good friend from West Virginia. Although for 
many years I opposed the line-item veto, I came to the conclusion that 
because we needed additional impetus behind our efforts to bring about 
a balanced budget, I indicated I would support the line-item veto--and, 
as a matter of fact, due to circumstances that developed, I was the 
chairman of the committee and the chairman of the Senate side of the 
conference on the Line-Item Veto Act. I supported it because I believed 
it should be used for the stated purpose to eliminate wasteful and 
excessive spending, and only to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary 
spending--not to be used as the display of Presidential executive or 
political power.
  I urge the Senate to support this bill that is before us. We have 
conferred with all of those involved in the projects. I state that all 
of the projects except 2 that were in the President's 38 are in this 
bill. There are two not in there at the request of the Senators 
involved. Those two, however, are in the House bill.


                     Committee Amendment Withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Just one last word about this procedure. This bill is 
not subject to amendment in the sense of adding anything to it. I state 
now that we will not offer the Senate's Appropriations Committee 
amendment to this bill, and I ask it be withdrawn at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). If there is no objection, the 
committee amendment is withdrawn.
  The committee amendment was withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that means that there are two projects 
that are not in this bill that are in the House bill. If the Senate 
passes this bill--and I seriously urge that it do so--we will go to 
conference, and the only matters that can be considered in the 
conference are those two projects. If the House passes the bill--and I 
presume it will--which has all of the 38 projects, and we pass this one 
which has 36 projects, the only 2 things that can be discussed in that 
conference are the 2 projects. And we will bring the conference report 
back before the Congress very quickly, I believe.
  But, Mr. President, this bill goes beyond the question of what should 
normally happen under the Line-Item Veto Act concerning actions of a 
President. This bill pertains to projects that were eliminated at a 
time when there was an agreement entered into by the leadership of the 
conference and the Presidency on the level of spending in several 
discrete categories. From the point of view of this Senator, the most 
important one was the agreement on the level of spending for the 
Department of Defense. If this bill does not become law, $287 million 
of the amount we thought would be available to meet our needs of the 
Department of Defense will not be there. That $287 million is part of 
the most vital part of our spending. It is spending for facilities for 
our people to live in and to work in. I can't think of anything that is 
more essential right now than to try to maintain our efforts to 
modernize our bases, modernize our facilities, and to assure that we 
maintain the quality of life for the military by doing so.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to stand together with the House to 
assure that the President--and really the Presidency--lives up to the 
bargain that was made with the Congress. I do not speak of the 
President in a personal vein. I think he relied on the advice that was 
given him. I do object to the use of the concept of the criteria that 
was announced by the White House. I think Senator McCain will speak 
about that.
  Senator McCain and I are in agreement in terms of what the White 
House should have done when the law was passed. It should have 
announced then the criteria the President and the administration would 
use to review individual bills and then match every bill up against 
that type of criteria. That was not done, Mr. President.
  I believe this bill should become law.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield to my good friend from West Virginia.
  I believe the Senator from West Virginia controls 5 hours; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, I am looking at the memorandum that is being 
distributed by the Executive Office of the President, the Office of 
Management and Budget, dated October 30, 1997.
  It carries the heading ``Statement of Administration Policy.''
  I will read it.

       This statement of administration policy provides the 
     administration's views on S. 1292, a bill disapproving the 
     cancellations transmitted by the President on October 6, 
     1997.
       S. 1292 would disapprove 34 of the 38 projects that the 
     President canceled from the fiscal year 1998 Military 
     Construction Appropriations Act. The administration strongly 
     opposes this disapproval bill. If it originally was presented 
     to the President in its current form, the President would 
     veto the bill.
       The President carefully reviewed the 145 projects that 
     Congress funded that were not included in the fiscal year 
     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 the 
     military service members and their families and that would 
     not begin construction in 1998 because the Defense Department 
     reported that no architectural and engineering design work 
     had been done. 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 the data provided by the 
     Department of Defense that was out of date.

  I have read the statement of administration policy in its entirety.

[[Page S11412]]

  Let me take a further look at this sentence which appears in the 
memorandum. ``The President used his authority responsibly to cancel 
projects that were not requested in the budget.''
  Mr. President, I don't know of any authority anywhere engraved in 
stone or bronze or in granite that gives the President the authority to 
cancel projects that were not requested in his budget. Of course, he 
did it. There is no question about that. But I don't understand this 
statement; namely, ``The President used his authority responsibly to 
cancel projects that were not requested in the budget.''
  Mr. President, we don't live under a king in this country. And I 
don't propose ever to live under a king. I have been in this Congress 
now--I suppose I am the dean of the entire Congress, unless Mr. Yates 
in the other body is, who served before I came to the House of 
Representatives. But he voluntarily terminated his service over there 
for a while. He ran for the U.S. Senate. He ran against Senator 
Dirksen, I believe, and lost.
  But, in any event, for the benefit of those who may or may not be 
interested, I have been in Congress quite a while. So I am the dean of 
both Houses. I will say it that way.
  Also, I am 29,200 days old today, October 30. This is not my 
birthday. It is just that I was born 29,200 days ago.
  I have taken an oath to uphold--to ``support and defend.'' Those are 
the words, ``support and defend'' the Constitution. I have taken an 
oath many times to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States--many times, beginning with my service in the State Legislature 
of West Virginia 51 years ago. And I have never yet found, and I can't 
find the authority to which this memorandum from the Executive Office 
of the President, Office of Management and Budget refers, I can't find 
the authority by which the President can cancel projects solely because 
they were not requested in the budget. I don't find that in the 
Constitution. I don't find that in the rules of the Senate. I don't 
find it in even in the Line-Item Veto Act. I don't find that criterion 
in there. And all who may doubt, let them take a look at the Line-Item 
Veto Act, against which I voted. But it is not in there.
  So much for that. It is just as I expected when I stood on this floor 
on several occasions and talked ad nauseam with respect to my 
opposition to the line-item veto.
  I yet cannot understand whatever got into the heads of the educated, 
intelligent men and women which would cause them to voluntarily cede to 
any President--not just this one. I don't have anything against this 
President in that particular. He wanted the line-item veto. But so did 
his predecessor, and so did his predecessor, and so did his 
predecessor, and so did his, going all the way back to President Taft. 
Taft didn't want it. George Washington didn't think much of it.

  But anyhow, here it is, the line-item veto. And I said, and so did a 
lot of my colleagues, the White House, not necessarily the President 
but the people who work under him, will expand this authority.
  I don't know who recommended to the President that he veto these 
items. One of the items happens to be for West Virginia. But let me 
hasten to say I would not negotiate with this President or any other 
President to keep him from vetoing that item for West Virginia. I am 
not going to negotiate with him to keep something for West Virginia. 
That is important to me, but more important to me than that is the 
constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances, 
and that is what we endangered in passing this illegitimate end run 
around the Constitution of the United States.
  We handed it to the President just as the Roman Senate handed to 
Caesar and handed to Sulla the control over the purse. The Roman Senate 
ceded voluntarily, handed to the dictators, Sulla, Caesar--they made 
Caesar dictator for 10 years and then turned right around and made him 
dictator for life. But they said, ``Here it is, the power of the 
purse.'' The Roman Senate had complete power over the public purse. But 
when the Roman Senate ceded to the dictators and later to the emperors 
the power over the purse, they gave away the Senate's check on the 
executive power. They gave away the Senate's check on executive 
tyranny. And that is what we have done.
  Let me make clear to all Senators that in voting on this resolution 
today they are not voting for or against the line-item veto. I am 
against the line item veto. We all know that. Everybody knows that. If 
they don't, they ought to have their head examined. But this vote today 
is not a vote for or against the line-item veto. I hope all Senators 
will understand that. I hope all Senators' offices will understand 
that. I hope all Senators' aides will understand that. And I hope that 
the press will understand that.
  This is not a vote for or against the line-item veto. This is a vote 
for or against the disapproval resolution. A Senator can be very much 
for the line-item veto, yet feel that the President exercised the line-
item veto in this case in an arbitrary and unfair manner.
  That is what we are voting on today, whether or not we feel that the 
line-item veto was exercised in an arbitrary manner or whether it had a 
genuine basis, whether it ought to be upheld in this instance; whether 
or not these items that are in the resolution should go back to the 
President, hopefully for his signature this time.
  In this case, Senators are only voting whether or not you want to 
send these particular items that were line-item vetoed back to the 
President a second time. That is all. I happen to think that the line-
item veto was used in this instance in a very arbitrary manner.
  I think the administration took this action without ample 
forethought, without a very careful analysis of the items and whether 
or not they, indeed, did fit into the criteria. I think the 
administration acted in an arbitrary manner, and they have said that 
they acted on incorrect data from the Defense Department.
  I hope all Senators will understand that they can vote for this 
resolution today and still be for the line-item veto. It doesn't make 
any difference as to what their position is on the line-item veto. The 
fact that they may vote for the disapproval resolution does not mean 
they are for the line-item veto. It doesn't mean that at all. It should 
not be taken as an indication that Senators are for or against the 
line-item veto.

  I hope all Senators will vote for the disapproval resolution. Senator 
Stevens, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, conducted a 
hearing. It was well attended by Senators. And it thoroughly exposed 
the vulnerability of the administration's position. The Department of 
Defense witnesses did not uphold the administration in the information 
that it sent abroad in the land to the effect that this item or that 
item or some other item was not on the Defense Department's 5-year 
plan.
  Now, I hope that the Senate and House will send this resolution to 
the President. I hope it will be supported overwhelmingly. And, of 
course, the President will veto it. He has said he would. But let him 
veto it. That is an old scarecrow. That is a scare word. It doesn't 
scare everybody, but it may scare some people. He will veto it. So 
what. Go ahead. Veto it. Maybe the Senate and House will override the 
veto. They may not. But in that instance things will be operating 
according to the Constitution.
  Now, here it says in the final paragraph, ``While we''--I do not know 
who ``we'' is. That is the editorial pronoun ``we'' ``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 the data 
provided by the Department of Defense that was out of date.''
  What is the matter with the administration? Why don't they make sure 
of what they are doing? They should have acted cautiously. They should 
have acted carefully because they are vulnerable on this. They have 
been exposed to have acted, I won't say with malice aforethought but 
certainly without careful aforethought. It is not to their credit. I 
don't happen to believe that the Sun rises in the west, Mr. President. 
It has never risen in the west a single day of the 29,200 days I have 
been on this Earth. It rises in the east.
  So I am not going to bow down to the west--to the western end of 
Constitution Avenue. I bow down to the Constitution. I took an oath to 
support and defend that Constitution. I am not above amending the 
Constitution. The forefathers saw a possible need to

[[Page S11413]]

amend it and they made provision for that. But I am never going to join 
in dismantling the structure, the constitutional system of separation 
of powers and checks and balances. Count me out.
  Mr. President, it is with the dispassionate eye of a history student, 
it is with that kind of dispassionate eye that I have tried to view 
this subject matter. Everything I have said about this subject matter 
has come true. It comes with sadness, when we find that in the OMB's 
explanation of the President's veto it resorts to a statement to the 
effect that the President has authority responsibly to cancel projects 
that were not requested in the budget.
  But to me that statement demonstrates a superabundance of inflated 
arrogance. It demonstrates a superabundance of inflated arrogance for a 
President of the United States, any President--I am not just talking 
about this one--to feel that he has a right, and the power and the 
authority--apparently he does have the raw power now that Congress 
unwittingly gave him the line- item veto--to take the position that if 
it isn't in his budget, he will veto it.
  That is a supremely inflated arrogance, to assume that if it isn't in 
the budget, the President of the United States shall strike it out. 
``Upon what meat [does] this our Caesar feed?'' When an administration 
arrogates to itself the sole determination that items that are in the 
President's budget are sacrosanct but those that may be added by the 
directly elected representatives of the American people are negotiable, 
and they are vetoable--this is plain, bloated arrogance.
  So, as a history student I have studied the practices and the customs 
and the traditions of the U.S. Senate during its over two centuries of 
existence, and I believe I can say with some authority that today is a 
landmark day in the Senate's history. For over 200 years the Senate has 
exercised its constitutional authority to write and pass the laws of 
the land. But today that tradition will be momentarily set aside as we 
consider legislation that asks--yes, asks the President to rethink his 
decision to erase provisions from a bill passed by Congress and signed 
into law by that same President. Today the Senate completes the 
abdication of legislative power that it began last spring when it 
adopted the conference report on the Line-Item Veto Act. The Senate 
acted upon the conference report on March 27, 1996. The Senate had 
originally passed the Line-Item Veto Act a year and 4 days previous to 
that, on March 23rd, 1995. Those are the two dark days in the 
constitutional history of this country.
  I would like to take a few moments to impress upon my colleagues the 
significance of today's vote and to implore them to reconsider the 
misguided course that they embarked upon a year-and-a-half ago. But in 
so doing, let me say again, your vote today is not a vote for or 
against the line-item veto. But I do think it's good for us to look 
back. Lot's wife looked back and she was turned into a pillar of salt, 
but Senators will not be turned into a pillar of salt. I think it's 
good for us to look back and have an opportunity to see where we have 
erred. We all need to look back once in a while and see where we made a 
mistake, where we left the straight path. And maybe we can find a way 
to mend ourselves in the future.
  So I begin my discussion, as always, with the Constitution of the 
United States of America. Any discussion of the line-item veto, indeed 
any discussion of the Federal Government, properly begins with the 
Constitution of the United States of America. And for those who may be 
watching the Senate, here it is--right out of my shirt pocket. Here it 
is: The Constitution of the United States of America. It cost me 15 
cents when I first purchased it from the Government Printing Office. I 
think it's about $1.75 today, but it is worth every penny of it.
  I begin my discussion with that Constitution, as any consideration of 
the Federal Government should begin. For the Constitution is not some 
musty document expressing abstract concepts, a quaint if antiquated 
relic which only a few high school civics instructors deign to read.
  The Constitution is the users' manual of the Federal Government. It 
specifies how the branches of Government function, how they interact, 
how their powers overlap, and yet those powers are separated. It 
explains how the framers heeded the warnings set out in the Federalist 
Papers that ``[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, 
and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the 
very definition of tyranny.''
  The solution that the framers hit upon was to divide powers between 
and among three equal and distinct branches of government. It is a 
marvelous, marvelous document. One, in my opinion, cannot truly 
understand the Constitution of the United States without also 
understanding the history of the ancient Romans, without understanding 
the history of England, and without understanding the American colonial 
experience, and without reading the Federalist Papers, in other words, 
without having a thorough grasp of the roots of the Constitution that 
lead back into the misty centuries.
  The solution that the framers hit upon was to divide powers between 
and among three equal and distinct branches of government. The 
Constitution sets forth a clear separation of powers between and among 
these three branches. Article I specifies that all--all--let's give 
what I say here 100 percent authenticity. I won't risk my memory.
  Abiyataka was the nickname of Artaxerxes II, of Persia. His memory 
was so fabulous and outstanding that he was given the nickname 
Abiyataka. So I won't depend on memory. I'll read it from the 
Constitution, so it has to be authentic.

       Section 1. 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.

  Article II, by contrast--Article II, by contrast--let's be sure that 
it's authentic also, states in Section 1:

       The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the 
     United States of America.

  There it is. And one of the key functions of the President is to, 
``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' It's a matter of 
some bemusement to me, to think that the Constitution mandates that the 
President is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and yet 
Congress passed the Line-Item Veto Act that allows the President to 
sign an appropriation bill into law and to not faithfully execute that 
law which he has just signed, but, instead, to turn right around and 
unilaterally repeal it, amend it, cancel or rescind this item or that 
item. Is that a faithful execution of the laws? The framers could not 
have made their intentions any plainer. Congress has the job of passing 
laws. The President has the job of executing them.

  What are the legislative powers ``herein granted'' that the 
Constitution assigns to Congress? Article I lists a number of these 
powers: they run the gamut from the power to ``lay and collect taxes'' 
to the power to ``fix the standard of Weights and Measures.'' Article I 
also takes great care to spell out in clear and precise language the 
process by which Congress is to make laws. The most important language 
is contained in the so-called ``Presentment Clause'' of the 
Constitution--Article I, section 7, clause 2--which I will accordingly 
quote at length. ``Every bill,'' not just some bills, not just a few 
bills:

       Every Bill which shall have passed the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, shall, [not maybe, not may--
     shall; not might--shall] before it become a Law, be presented 
     to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall 
     sign it. . .

  It doesn't say he may sign it. He shall sign it if he approve.

       . . . 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. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of 
     that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, 
     together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it 
     shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds 
     of that House, it shall become a Law.

                               * * * * *

       If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within 
     10 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.

  That is from the Constitution of the United States.

[[Page S11414]]

  The Presentment Clause, then, offers the President three mutually 
exclusive alternatives in considering a bill passed by both houses of 
Congress: He may ``sign it,'' he may ``return it with his Objections'' 
to Congress, which may then pass the measure into law by a two-thirds 
vote of both Houses; or he may choose not to return the bill, whereupon 
``the Same shall be Law,'' unless Congress has adjourned before the 
bill's 10-day return limit has expired. So, whatever path the President 
chooses, he is compelled to consider it. And, by ``it,'' the 
Constitution means the entire bill as passed by Congress in its 
entirety; not just parts of it.
  But, in defiance of the Presentment Clause, the Line-Item Veto Act 
creates a fourth option for the President. Under the Act, the President 
may take any bill ``that has been signed into law'' within the past 5 
days and he may cancel--I am reading now, quoting from the Line-Item 
Veto Act, ``. . . cancel in whole (1) any dollar amount of 
discretionary budget authority; (2) any item of new direct spending; or 
(3) any limited tax benefit. . . .''
  The 5-day provision is a figleaf designed to conceal the measure's 
brazen violation of the presentment clause. The drafters of the Line-
Item Veto Act knew that they could not explicitly authorize the 
President to alter a bill passed by Congress before signing it, because 
to do so would violate the presentment clause's mandate that he send or 
return each bill in its entirety.
  Thus, the act inserts a gratuitous pause of up to 5 days between the 
President's signing a bill and then canceling certain items in the bill 
that he just signed. There can be 100 items in that bill, and he can 
strike out 99 of them. He has 5 days in which to do it. He can strike 
out 100 the first day, the second day strike out another 100, the third 
day strike out another 100, the next day strike out 100, the next day 
strike out 99. He already signed it into law. It is his little 
plaything then to do whatever he wants.
  Although the conference report justifies the 5-day allowance as 
giving the administration sufficient time to provide Congress with 
``all supporting material'' justifying any cancellation, the report 
makes clear its intention ``that the President's cancellations be made 
as soon as possible.''
  Nor should it be forgotten that while the President may take up to 5 
days to cancel an item, he need not wait that long. He is free, free, 
free to cancel items the next second after he signs the bill into law, 
and he remains free to cancel items the next second after he signs the 
bill into law, and then he remains free to continue to do so for the 
next 119 hours and 59 minutes. He has 120 hours.
  I hope the High Court will say the presentment clause is not so 
easily evaded. The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of strict 
adherence to the Constitution's procedural mandates when it declared 
that ``the prescription for legislative action in article I, sections 1 
and 7, represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of 
the Federal government be exercised in accord with a single, finely 
wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure . . . With all the 
obvious flaws of delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have 
not yet found''--this is the Supreme Court of the United States 
speaking--``we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than 
by making the exercise of power subject to carefully crafted restraints 
spelled out''--where?--``in the Constitution.''
  That is what this line-item veto is all about. It is not about money, 
really. It is not about reducing the deficits. Fie upon such reasoning. 
It is just window dressing. It is not about reducing the budgets. It is 
not about balancing the budget. It is all about power. Where will the 
power over the purse lie? When it lies here, the power of the people is 
protected, and as long as that power over the purse is vested in the 
Congress, the people's freedoms are secure.
  Let's see what this Court says, again. This bears repeating. I am 
quoting from the Court's position itself:

       The prescription for legislative action in article I, 
     sections 1 and 7, represents the Framers' decision that the 
     legislative power of the Federal government be exercised in 
     accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively 
     considered, procedure . . . With all of the obvious flaws of 
     delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have not yet 
     found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the 
     exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints 
     spelled out in the Constitution.

  Accordingly, it is not enough that the President may wait up to 5 
days after signing a bill before he retroactively violates the 
presentment clause. The violation is just as egregious as if the 
President had crossed out the items he disliked before signing the bill 
into law.
  Supporters of the line-item veto argue that the veto complies fully 
with the presentment clause. Since the veto applies to bills that have 
already been enacted into law in compliance with the presentment 
clause, the supporters of the line-item veto say, and since the 
requirements of the presentment clause are fulfilled when the President 
signs the measure into law, the Constitution cannot have been violated.
  Well, even, Mr. President, if we accept this syllogism, it follows 
that the act, by empowering the President to rewrite certain laws, to 
repeal certain laws, to amend certain laws-- grants the President the 
most basic of Congress' legislative powers; namely, the power to make 
laws.
  The act defines the President's cancellation authority as, 
alternately ``with respect to any dollar amount of discretionary budget 
authority, to rescind''--to rescind--or, with respect to any item of 
new direct spending or any limited tax benefit, to prevent ``from 
having legal force or effect.'' As this definition indicates, 
``cancellation'' is but another word for ``repeal.'' A rose by any 
other name smells just as sweet.
  So cancellation is but another word for repeal and, functionally, 
what the President is doing when he cancels certain parts of the law is 
repealing--unilaterally repealing--those same acts, those same parts 
for, if as veto advocates argue, only bills that have been previously, 
albeit recently, passed into law are subject to the line-item veto, 
then those same bills, like all other laws, may only be repealed by 
legislative action pursuant, again, to the presentment clause. After 
all, as the Supreme Court has recognized, ``[a]mendment and repeal of 
statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Article I.''
  I repeat, as the Supreme Court has recognized:

       [A]mendment and repeal of statutes, no less than enactment, 
     must conform with Article I.

  The line-item veto advocates cannot have it both ways. Either the 
Line-Item Veto Act, as its very title indicates, gives the President 
the authority to alter a bill passed by Congress by effectively signing 
only certain parts of the bill into law, or the act allows the 
President to unilaterally repeal portions of an existing law. In either 
event, the act permits the President to encroach upon the legislative 
powers assigned to Congress and to Congress alone, by bypassing the 
procedures set forth in the presentment clause.
  Mr. President, I hope that I have impressed upon my colleagues, those 
who are listening, that the line-item veto offends the most clear and 
incontrovertible requirements of the Constitution. But if that isn't 
enough to sway my colleagues, let me point out that granting the 
President line-item veto power is not just unconstitutional, it is also 
bad policy. If anyone doubts what I am saying, and lest I be accused of 
forgetting the pretext for my speech today, let us consider the 
disapproval resolution before us.
  The disapproval bill is but a small attempt to repair the damage 
wrought by the President's misguided cancellations of 38 projects in 
the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill. A 
number of my colleagues have criticized those same cancellations: 
``arbitrary,'' ``capricious,'' ``a raw abuse of political power.'' 
These are the words of those who voted for the line-item veto. Those 
who voted for the line-item veto now say that the President's exercise 
of the political tool which they handed to him, now they accuse him of 
being ``arbitrary,'' ``capricious,'' ``it was raw abuse of political 
power.''
  Such criticisms are, of course, absolutely correct. There seems to be 
little logic underlying the President's cancellations. What logic can 
be found is so flawed as to scarcely warrant a response. I repeat, for 
example, the White House stated that it only vetoed projects that were 
not ``executable,''

[[Page S11415]]

meaning that construction could not begin in fiscal year 1998, but in 
truth, every one of the 38 vetoed projects was eligible for 
construction in fiscal year 1998.
  With regard to the West Virginia project, the design contract with 
ZMM, Inc., of Charleston, West Virginia was signed on August 29, 1997. 
Completion of the design contract is due in April 1998, and a 
construction contract could be let in the May-June timeframe.
  An amount of $965,214.39 has been obligated and an amount of 
$44,967.61 has been expended against the design contract. So clearly, 
the design work is underway and the project is executable in the 
current fiscal year.
  The White House also said that it only considered items that were not 
included in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request. How 
arrogant! How arrogant! ``Upon what meat [does] this our [little] 
Caesar feed?'' Never mind that the Senate was careful to include 
projects that were already in the Department of Defense's 5-year plan.
  Never mind that the Senate moved up projects that were considered 
urgent or particularly meritorious, or that were necessary to remedy 
oversights in the Presidential budget that would have deprived our 
Armed Forces of needed quality-of-life improvements or denied funding 
to important Guard and Reserve projects.
  Never mind the many previous occasions on which Congress has 
safeguarded the preparedness and well-being of the Armed Forces by 
funding projects that various Presidents overlooked or shortchanged.
  Now, the rules have changed, and congressionally backed projects are 
targets for the Presidential blunderbuss that is the line-item veto. 
They are targets for his blunderbuss of the line-item veto if they are 
not in his budget.
  It is difficult for me to overstate my anger at the rank arrogance of 
the White House in relegating congressionally backed projects to such 
harsh scrutiny. Need I remind the administration that it was Congress 
that in 1921 assigned the Executive the task of submitting annual 
budget proposals? It was Congress that in 1921 assigned the Executive 
the task of submitting annual budget proposals. Need I also point out 
that those proposals are, by law, not binding and that Congress remains 
free to exercise its ``power of the purse'' however it sees fit? And so 
``lay on, Macduff.'' It is the Congress that retains the freedom to 
exercise its power of the purse however it sees fit.
  My anger is not directed at William Jefferson Clinton. He is merely 
exercising the power that we--we--in our weak moments gave him. The 
ultimate blame lies here and across the corridor to the other end of 
the Capitol. The ultimate blame lies here, here in this Chamber, which 
gave away a portion of its most important power, with no strings 
attached.
  And I quoted upon the occasion when the Senate passed this ill-
formed, deformed monstrosity, I quoted upon that occasion the words of 
Aaron Burr, who in 1805 said that if the Constitution be destined ever 
to be destroyed, ``its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this 
floor.'' And I said at the time that Burr's prophecy was being 
fulfilled.
  So the ultimate blame lies here, which gave away a portion of its 
most important power, with no strings attached. Here it is, Mr. 
President. We witnessed the expiring agonies of the Constitution on the 
floor, as Burr said we would, when we passed the Line-Item Veto Act.
  We had an opportunity to retrieve our honor and our commitment to our 
forefathers and our promises to our children at the time the conference 
report came here. But the Senate again stabbed itself in its back, and 
the expiring agonies of the Constitution were witnessed on this floor.
  ``Didn't we tell the President how the line-item veto should be 
used?'' some may protest. Yes, we did. But the restrictions we placed 
on the line-item veto were so vague and feeble as to give the President 
virtually unlimited cancellation authority.
  The Line-Item Veto Act states tautologically that any veto must 
``reduce the Federal budget deficit''--a requirement that any 
cancellation of a spending measure or tax benefit would presumably 
meet. The act also insists that any cancellation must ``not impair 
essential Government functions'' or ``harm the national interest.''
  Well, what are ``essential Government functions''? How should ``the 
national interest'' be protected? Those answers must rest with the 
President, for the act provides little guidance--the act provides 
little guidance.
  Moreover, even if the President determines that all three criteria 
have been met, he is still free to decide not to effect a cancellation. 
The act says only that ``the President may'' cancel certain items 
meeting those criteria.
  Mr. President, my colleagues protest that the President's 
cancellations are arbitrary and capricious. To this I respond: Of 
course they are, because we gave the President the authority to be 
arbitrary and capricious.
  And so let us not now, at this late moment--those of us who voted for 
the Line-Item Veto Act--let us not heap obloquy and scorn and 
condemnation and criticisms and castigations and imprecations upon the 
President because he is being ``arbitrary'' and ``capricious.''
  We have given the President the power to strike any item he pleases 
and for any reason he pleases. He can say it was not in his budget. If 
he does not have any other reason, he can say, ``Well, it wasn't in my 
budget.'' Not according to the act, but he can do it. He has done it.
  And who is to blame? We have only ourselves to blame. By passing the 
line-item veto, we have deprived Congress of an effective say in which 
projects will be funded, we have denied ourselves the ability, which we 
exercised so often and so successfully in past budget cycles, to 
correct flaws or oversights in the President's budget proposal.
  In past years, Congress repeatedly ensured that essential defense 
projects were funded at the appropriate levels. It was Congress that 
insisted on adequate funding for the stealth fighter. It was Congress 
that insisted on the funding for the Osprey helicopter. It was Congress 
that insisted on adequate funding for the C-130 aircraft, and countless 
other valuable projects that the administration at the time opposed.

  It is no exaggeration to say that this country's defense capabilities 
would be significantly weakened today if not for Congress' vigilance 
and dedication in the fulfillment of its appropriations duties.
  Now, however, congressional vigilance is subject to indiscriminate 
line-item vetoes. No longer can Congress ensure proper investments in 
this country's defense and infrastructure, thus, safeguarding the 
present and future well-being of all Americans.
  The line-item veto has created a new order in which Members of 
Congress must resort to ``disapproval measures'' to restore funding 
that they already approved and that the President already signed into 
law, which under the Constitution would indicate that he had already 
approved the items. The Constitution says, if he approves, he shall 
sign it. And he signed it.
  Today is a black day for this institution whose Members must 
prostrate themselves on bended knee before the President and ask him--
ask him--to do what the Constitution requires: To respect and enforce 
and execute, faithfully execute, the laws passed by Congress.
  But this is also a black day for the Nation which now finds that its 
single most representative institution no longer possesses unqualified 
authority to make the law. That is the legislative branch.
  As Members of Congress, we represent the people of this great 
country. By abdicating a portion of our responsibility to pass laws--
that is exactly what we did--we have denied ourselves the ability to 
represent those people effectively.
  I apologize if my words today have seemed angry or vituperative. I 
apologize if my vehemence has offended any of my colleagues. I do not 
mean to provoke partisan dispute or internal dissent. I only wish to 
ask my colleagues to consider, as they ponder their vote on the 
disapproval bill before us--and go ahead vote as they wish on the 
disapproval bill; that is not an indication of whether they favor of 
disfavor the line-item veto--but they should ponder whether the Nation 
ought to continue down the shadowy trail that it embarked upon when we 
passed the Line-Item Veto Act.

[[Page S11416]]

  I pray that before we blunder too far down this misguided path, we 
will retrace our steps and return to the route laid out by the framers, 
the path that was lighted by the clear light of the Constitution.
  The President says, ``We'll say to any Member, we'll be happy to 
negotiate with you about your item.''
  ``We might be able to work it out so the President won't veto it.''
  Senators, do not do it. Do not act to legitimize this legislation. Do 
not act to legitimize this process by which we have, in part, 
emasculated the Constitution, the constitutional system with its checks 
and balances and separation of powers.
  Do not negotiate for a moment, because when you do, you are 
negotiating with respect to the Constitution, you are saying, ``Well, 
I'll negotiate with you. You can go ahead and line item the item out, 
but maybe we can work out something.'' I say that when one negotiates 
under those circumstances, he is negotiating something that the 
Constitution is pretty clear about, and that is the checks and balances 
and separation of powers.
  The Constitution is not to be negotiated. And I, for one, will not 
negotiate to save any item for West Virginia. I will not negotiate. I 
will negotiate with other Members until we are able to work out 
language, compromise language, in a bill, dealing with a matter, but 
when it comes to negotiating in order to keep the President from 
wielding his dreadful line-item veto pen, that's not for me.
  When we took it upon ourselves to correct some of the framers' 
mistakes by ignoring the clear language of the Constitution, we did not 
just display a breathtaking contempt for the rule of law and the 
principle of separation of powers; we also cast aside our own 
responsibility as Members of Congress to act as a check upon the 
executive branch, and we there and then deprived ourselves and deprived 
the people that we represent of the ability to ensure that the power of 
the purse is exercised in the best interests of the Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be added as original cosponsors: Senator Shelby, 
Senator Hagel, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Lautenberg.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be 
recognized in this order in consideration of this measure:
  Senator Burns, Senator Murray, Senator Coverdell, Senator Cleland, 
Senator McCain, and Senator Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, not to take away from the seriousness of 
the moment or the debate that we heard about the line-item veto and the 
debate we are hearing today, I will say about my chairman and ranking 
member of the full committee, since this circumstance has happened, it 
has sure picked up the most colorful debate in committees. That had 
been absent for quite a while.
  I want to congratulate my friend from West Virginia on laying out the 
situation as it really is. But we are here and we have to deal with the 
moment as it is, and given the President's desire to improve the 
quality of life for the men and women in uniform, and given the 
President's dedication to a balanced budget as reflected in the real 
world, and the real world is appropriations--that is where we actually 
spend the money. We can debate on the budget all we want to but 
accounting time is when we start appropriating dollars for the real 
world.
  The ranking member on military construction appropriations, Senator 
Murray, has worked hard with our colleagues in the House and also with 
the administration before we finally passed a conference report and 
sent it to the White House for the President's signature. We worked 
very hard to take out those items that would have been objectionable, 
and it reflected the intent of Congress, both through the budget 
statement and through the appropriations statement and the charge that 
was given us when appropriating the money. I believe we did a 
responsible job in working with everyone.
  Of course, of all the projects that are in this, we had to single out 
38. Now we are offering some back. We have to remember that we are 
charged with covering the most basic defense requirements. After 
hearing from the military services, the Congress did add back $800 
million to the President's budget, with the agreement from the 
President to fund those meritorious requirements that, as articulated 
to us, are essential to the services' operations.
  I guess since I've been working in this committee, we have tried to 
shift the focus in military construction to quality of life. We have a 
professional military now. It is not like it used to be. We have made 
those shifts primarily into the quality of life--the building of health 
care centers, the building of child care centers, new barracks for 
enlisted people--because everywhere that I have traveled, looked at our 
men and women in uniform, and especially with the rollbacks and the 
downsizing in the force structure, I am concerned, now more than ever, 
about the morale of our fighting men and women.

  I have visited the installations around the country. I have seen 
soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors sleeping on floors, airmen 
working in substandard facilities, and families forced to go on--would 
you believe it--on food stamps. They actually qualified for food 
stamps.
  Even though we have a professional military, we still ask them to 
defend our country on a moment's notice. I, for one, think they deserve 
better. That is why I question the veto of this President. I guess I'm 
even more familiar with the facilities in Montana. I had one of those 
lines that was vetoed, a dining facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base in 
Great Falls, MT. I just wish the President had accepted my invitation 
to have lunch there. It didn't look much like the north side of the 
White House last night, I can tell you. He would see a facility that is 
in bad need of repair and renovation. I'm not real sure if the food 
preparation areas or where they serve the food would pass health 
inspection in the civilian sector. There is lack of ventilation and 
food storage space. It was an old commissary. The facility would sure 
flunk the most basic of all inspections.
  It is my strong view that the President used the line-item on this 
bill not as the Congress intended, or even his own stated intent. I 
would not feel so bad, I really wouldn't, had we gone over the budget 
agreement or had we gone over what we spent a year ago or even 2 years 
ago. The ranking member knows that we are almost $2 billion out of an 
$11 billion appropriation lower than we were 2 years ago in providing 
necessary items of need in the military construction for these 
projects. If we had gone over and had we just thrown money hand over 
fist and wasted it, I wouldn't feel bad about this line-item veto, but 
we did not do that. We did not approach this bill in that manner. We 
knew the line-item veto was out there. We knew that everything in this 
bill, No. 1, had to be authorized by the authorizers, and we knew the 
amount of money that we were expected to save in order to comply with 
the balanced budget and still get the job done for our military people.
  Every project on this list was carefully screened. It was authorized 
by the Armed Services Committee. It was included in the final Defense 
authorization conference for fiscal year 1998. Had we not gone through 
that process, had we not taken each item individually, had we not been 
sensitive to the need of our lifestyle and the quality of life, had we 
not done any of that--yet in consultation with the President and with 
the representatives of each one of the military services--had we not 
done that, I wouldn't feel so bad today. But we did that. We did it in 
the most conscientious way that we know, and that is human contact, 
actually talking to people through the whole process, keeping them 
informed about what was in there and what was not in there.
  Everybody was not happy with it, but it was a pretty big vote, 97-3. 
I think that is pretty overwhelming. It tells the story of the work 
that we did on this legislation.
  So I appreciate my ranking member and both sides of the aisle. I 
appreciate all the folks that worked on this piece of legislation. And, 
yes, I appreciate the people who represented the military services and 
the people who represented the White House as we were working on it. I 
appreciate them, too. But maybe some things I don't appreciate: Once 
you agree on something,

[[Page S11417]]

then you walk away from it some 6 weeks later. That is not the way we 
do business in Montana, and I don't think that is the way we do 
business in Washington, Arizona, Georgia, or Kansas.
  I ask for your support on this. We will probably have more to say 
with regard to this piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the 
legislation before the Senate, along with the chairman, Senator Burns, 
who has done an outstanding job of putting this legislation together. I 
hope the Senate does disapprove the cancellation of projects which the 
President made under his line-item veto authority. I do not think it 
was appropriate to exercise that authority in the case of our bill. The 
subcommittee worked very hard and successfully to review the many 
requests that came before us for projects that were not included in the 
President's budget. We worked very hard to include only those which met 
very stringent criteria. In all cases, that included the criteria that 
the project be executable in fiscal year 1998. That is, that contracts 
could be awarded for construction.
  It is puzzling to me why the administration concluded that some 38 
projects were not executable. That conclusion is wrong. The Pentagon's 
own paperwork, provided to the subcommittee for each of the proposed 
projects, plainly states virtually every project we included was 
capable of execution in fiscal year 1998.
  The subcommittee added substantial sums for new health facilities, 
quality of life improvements such as the housing area, and for the 
National Guard and the Reserves. Despite these additions, the final 
product was frugal, and represented a 6-percent reduction below last 
year's milcon spending level.
  Mr. President, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senators Stevens and Byrd, have rejected the vetoed items as 
an inappropriate overreaching of authority on the part of the 
administration. I am gratified that the committee is standing up for 
the subcommittee's work. It is a substantially better product than the 
budget submitted by the President, and that is our job. The 
administration has no exclusive corner on wisdom in making its 
selection of projects.
  In fact, the administration has admitted making serious errors in the 
handling of this matter. I would have thought that the administration 
would have been far more careful and selective in exercising its new 
line-item authority, but the reverse was the case. The exercise of 
power here was sloppy, and rushed--and resulted, as OMB Director Raines 
wrote to the committee on October 23, in inaccuracies. The 
administration has taken to writing to individual Senators to indicate 
it would help restore those projects wrongly vetoed, and put them back 
in the budget at the earliest opportunity. That tactic makes the 
situation, if anything, even more confused, since it appears the 
administration is revising its evaluation of the mix of projects based 
on new information or criteria and there has certainly been no meeting 
of the minds on such new acceptable criteria with the committee.
  Mr. President, I would suggest that Senators look at this disapproval 
resolution in the narrow framework in which it is written. Senators 
need not address this position on the constitutionality or wisdom of 
the line-item veto legislation itself to vote for this resolution. A 
vote for this resolution is a vote against back-of-the-hand 
capriciousness, apparently in a hurried manner, after the subcommittee, 
full committee, and both Houses labored over a period of several months 
to scrub the budget and add only those projects which are deemed 
worthy.
  I hope this measure will receive the strong support of the full 
Senate, as it did when the conference report was first presented, and 
that it will be presented to the President before we conclude the first 
session of this Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, before my friend from Arizona speaks, we 
had a unanimous consent on the order.
  I ask unanimous consent that we go back and forth, which would mean 
that the next Senator allowed time would be Senator McCain from Arizona 
and, after that, Senator Cleland from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. I yield to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to be brief. This issue has been 
well discussed and well debated, and will be again because this is the 
first step in a process that we will see for the first time in the 
Senate, and that is a motion of disapproval of a veto by the President 
and an attempt to override the President's veto. So we will have plenty 
of time. I mainly asked to speak, one, to congratulate Senator Stevens 
not only for his stewardship of the entire Appropriations Committee, 
but his staunch advocacy for a strong national defense and his sincere 
efforts to do what he feels is right.
  Senator Burns has done an outstanding job as the chairman of the 
Military Construction Subcommittee. I believe that his recent depiction 
of the situation at Malmstrom Air Force Base is an ample indication of 
his concern for the living standards of the men and women in the 
military and his deep and abiding concern for their welfare.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I, as a supporter of the line-item 
veto, intend to vote against this resolution. I believe that we have to 
set up criteria that need to be met, because there is not an unlimited 
amount of Defense dollars or taxpayer dollars for that matter. Not only 
did these projects--or at least the overwhelming majority of them--not 
meet the criteria I have been using now for 10 years, but there were 
129 low-priority items added to the Milcon appropriations bills that 
should have been--at least under the criteria I have been using for the 
last 10 years--vetoed.
  Mr. President, there is a process that we go through. It is 
authorization, it is hearings, it is budget requests, it is the kind of 
orderly process that gives a priority that is sufficiently compelling 
for the taxpayers' dollars to be used on that project, whether it be in 
military construction or defense appropriations, or any other 
appropriations bill. In order to understand that, in my view, in order 
to make a reasonable and fair and objective decision, you have to set 
up objective criteria. That is where the administration has failed in 
this exercise.
  The people in this body--the Senator from Washington, who just spoke 
about what happened in her State, the Senator from Montana, the Senator 
from Georgia, and all the other cosponsors of this bill--deserve the 
right to know under what criteria the President of the United States 
would act in vetoing these various projects; in this case, they are 
military construction projects. They have a right to know that, as do 
the people and the military installations in their districts. We have a 
future years defense plan that the Pentagon sets up, which lists the 
projects that are going to be funded, and which they plan to, after a 
careful screening process, request funding for from the Congress and 
the American people. There is a system that goes before the authorizing 
committees. We have a military construction authorization bill, and 
then it goes before the Appropriations Committee. That process should 
be adhered to.
  Why am I against so many of these projects? Simply, Mr. President, 
because there are 12,000 American military families that are on food 
stamps. I understand they don't have a decent facility to eat in at 
Malmstrom, but I also know they are kept away from home because of a 
lack of equipment. And we are having a hemorrhage of Air Force and Navy 
pilots because we are not paying them enough and we are keeping them 
away from their families, keeping them at sea, or in places like Iraq 
or Turkey, because we are not funding them adequately.
  Mr. President, I happen to know that we are not modernizing the force 
sufficiently in order to meet the challenge in the future. We are 
buying things such as the B-2 bombers, which we find out can't even fly 
in the rain. Then we have the Seawolf submarines, and there is no 
tangible challenge to American security that warrant paying for that. 
Frankly, we are funding projects not on the basis of merit, but for 
other reasons.

[[Page S11418]]

  I believe that the men and women in the military, especially those 
enlisted men and women, deserve more than they are getting. They are 
not getting it because we are funding projects and programs many times 
which are unnecessary. Also, in the Defense appropriations bills we are 
funding projects that have nothing to do with national defense. I am 
not sure what electric car research has to do with national defense. I 
am not sure what supercomputers to study the aurora borealis have to do 
with defense. They may be worthwhile projects, and I do not disagree 
that some of the projects that were vetoed by the President here were 
worthwhile; it is a matter of priority.
  I hope that the President of the United States and the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget, who obviously is making many of 
these recommendations to the President, will understand that we have to 
set up criteria for when the line-item veto is used or not used. 
Otherwise, you give the appearance of politicization of the process, 
which understandably angers and upsets Members of Congress who feel 
that they or their projects are being singled out, where other projects 
under the same criteria were not line item-vetoed.
  So I believe that if we want to avoid going through this exercise on 
a fairly frequent basis, the Members of Congress and the American 
people deserve the President of the United States to say: This is the 
criteria I will use--whether it is authorized or not, whether it is 
added in conference or not, whether it was earmarked or not, whether it 
was requested, or whatever. I am not saying the President should use my 
criteria, but I am saying he should use an objective criteria that is 
credible; so that when the Senator from Montana, Senator Burns, who has 
devoted so many hundreds of hours to this effort and takes his duties 
as chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee so seriously, 
decides whether or not to add or not add a project to his legislation, 
he will know whether it meets his criteria. He will have a certainty as 
to whether the President will veto it or not.
  I congratulate the Senator from Montana and his staff for their hard 
work. I hope we can provide a framework in which he can work so there 
would be certainty and objectivity, and not a taint or appearance of 
politicization of this process, which is the case today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Regina 
Jackson, a legislative fellow on my staff, be granted floor privileges 
for the debate on S. 1292.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleagues today 
in search of any rhyme or reason behind the veto of the $6.8 million 
project that the President vetoed at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia. 
It is known as the HH-60 OPS/pararescue project. It is a critical 
project that supports combat search and rescue training and pararescue 
training operations. This project should have been included in the 
budget. It benefits the quality of life for our service members, and 
has been operating at Moody since April, 1997. There is no apparent 
rationale for this veto action. I believe that the Moody project was 
vetoed because it failed to meet all the criteria for approval set by 
the administration. Thus, the claim was made that: first, the Moody 
project was not requested in the President's 1998 budget; second, the 
project would not improve the quality of life of military service 
members and their families; three, the project almost certainly would 
not begin construction in 1998.
  Responsible consideration of veto targets would have taken into 
account and weighed all the facts. The facts are these. My information 
is based on the fact that, in 1996, the Pentagon announced its plans to 
move two squadrons, the 41st and 71st, from Patrick Air Force Base, FL, 
to Moody Air Force Base, GA. In connection with the move, the Air Force 
began quartering a small number of people at Moody as early as October 
1996 and subsequently moved the squadrons there in April 1997. The 
relocation is now complete and the unit is operating out of a temporary 
trailer.
  Having made a formal announcement, the Pentagon certainly had a 
genuine interest in the success of this project. The Air Force, having 
begun the transition in October 1996, obviously intended to implement 
the plan. Unfortunately, the decisions came too late for the Pentagon 
to include this project in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget, 
though, again, I believe there can be no doubt that our defense 
leadership fully supports the new mission for Moody.
  My distinguished colleagues, let us not forget that this Congress is 
duly responsible for ensuring that our legislation considers 
appropriate measures where the administration's submission may actually 
be lacking. It is not unusual, Mr. President, but in fact very common, 
that in the course of congressional review, we make additions or 
deletions that are in the best interest of national defense.
  In my opinion, this is one of the most critical projects that I have 
come across. I sit on the Armed Services Committee. I think it is my 
job, not only as a Senator from Georgia but as a U.S. Senator to bring 
up other concerns that the administration does not raise. I would like 
to say that the Moody squadron does employ the Blackhawk helicopter to 
implement its mission, and the project supports essential combat search 
and rescue training and pararescue training operations. What could be 
more important to the quality of life of military service members and 
their families than facilities that can operate to preserve those 
lives?
  Apparently, the administration erred in assuming that the squadrons 
had not yet located to Moody. Actually, the move began in 1996 and is 
now complete. I think if this veto is not overridden, the mission 
capability of the squadron will be seriously impacted. A combined 
function facility is required to provide both an adequate squadron 
operations space and pararescue space. No facility currently exists at 
Moody to support the HH-60 pararescue squadron. Without this facility, 
new mission functions will be almost impossible to perform and may not 
be able to operate as designed. Whether the veto was arbitrary or ill-
advised, the bottom line is that the Moody veto makes no sense.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent by myself 
and Senator Coverdell be printed in the Record that expresses our point 
of view on this important matter.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 1997.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our profound 
     disappointment with your decision to veto a military 
     construction project vitally important to Air Force rescue 
     squadrons based at Moody Air Force Base. Yesterday you vetoed 
     a $6.8 million project to build a squadron operations support 
     facility to support the 41st HH-60 Pararescue Squadron which 
     has been relocated to Moody AFB from Patrick AFB. We are 
     unable to understand the rationale used in canceling this 
     project. Without this facility, the new mission functions 
     associated with this relocation will be almost impossible to 
     perform and the mission capability of this squadron will be 
     severely impacted. This was an essential project with high 
     military value, and your decision is even more troubling 
     given revelations that Defense Department officials were not 
     consulted.
       We are particularly disturbed by the discrepancy in the 
     facts you cited in vetoing this project. Your veto message 
     indicated that 1) ``the mission has not yet relocated from 
     Patrick AFB'' and 2) ``it is unlikely that these funds can be 
     used for construction during FY 1998.'' Both of these 
     assertions are false. The relocation of these units began in 
     April 1997 and is now complete. Furthermore, the Air Force 
     informs us that the proposed construction can be executed in 
     FY 1998. We are disappointed that your staff has ill-served 
     you in presenting to you the facts regarding this project.
       It should be made clear that we both support the line-item 
     veto as a means to reduce spending on wasteful programs when 
     the facts merit a veto. The facts here do not support a veto. 
     We are concerned that the perceived arbitrary nature of this 
     and other such vetoes will undermine support for this useful 
     mechanism.
       In closing, we regret that your decision was based on 
     erroneous information regarding the urgency of this project 
     and the ability of the Air Force to execute it. We hope to be 
     able to work with you in the future to support the needs of 
     the men and women who

[[Page S11419]]

     serve at Moody AFB and in the entire Department of Defense.
           Most sincerely,
     Paul Coverdell,
       U.S. Senator.
     Max Cleland,
       U.S. Senator.

  Mr. CLELAND. Senator Coverdell and I are both supporters of the line-
item veto to reduce wasteful spending. But the basis for the veto, as 
the Senator from Arizona indicated, must be prescribed and must rely on 
the facts, not on false assumptions. Clearly, in the case of the Moody 
facility, the facts did not justify the decision, and the project did 
not warrant a veto.
  Mr. President, this project has been and remains a top priority for 
Moody Air Force Base and for both Georgia Senators. The mission has 
been and remains in place at this time. I look to this bill to make 
right the wrong of the veto. In so doing, I hope to be able to support 
the needs of the additional 680 military personnel and approximately 
1,500 spouses and dependent children that the mission has brought with 
it to Moody.
  I yield to my colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, for his 
remarks. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to apprise my colleagues 
of a terrible mistake made by the President and the administration in 
its issuing a veto on the $6.8 million HH-60 Operations Pararescue Unit 
project at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, GA.
  I am aware of the interest of my colleague, Senator Cleland, in this 
matter, and I understand that he has joined me in questioning the 
rationale behind the abuse of power by the President. We just heard an 
excellent statement from my colleague, Senator Cleland, of Georgia, on 
this very matter.
  In looking at this project at Moody, it is important to understand, 
first, that this pararescue unit is critical to our combat search and 
rescue training operations which allow this group to function in a 
proper capacity.
  As you may know, Mr. President, pararescue units are imperative to 
instilling in our fighting forces the battlefield and training 
confidence necessary for just the type of confidence that we have 
earned in this century.
  The administration claimed that the Moody project was not needed for 
several reasons--such as budget requests, quality of life, and 
construction capability. We now know that these assertions are not 
accurate. The Air Force has distinct plans to fund the Moody project 
which was included in the Air Force's 1999 budget request. Officials at 
Moody inform me that they could have, indeed, begun construction on the 
project this year.
  Finally, the Pentagon in 1996 announced its plans to move two 
squadrons, the 41st and the 71st, from Patrick Air Force Base, FL, to 
Moody Air Force Base in Georgia.
  A small number of personnel began quartering at Moody as early as 
October of 1996, and subsequently moved the squadron there in its 
entirety in April of 1997. Make no mistake. The move is now complete, 
and the personnel are operating out of temporary trailers at Moody as 
we speak here today.
  What greater quality of life issue exists for the nearly 2,200 
military personnel and their families that this mission has brought to 
Moody?
  We need to move expeditiously on this legislation to correct this 
error. The administration did not know, Mr. President, that the 
squadrons were already in Georgia. They believed they were still in 
Florida when they exercised this veto.
  On this note, I commend my colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, 
for bringing this bill before the Senate. I ask for my colleagues' 
support.
  Mr. President, if I might make an inquiry of my colleague from 
Georgia, did he still prefer to participate if the colloquy here this 
afternoon, or did you want to just enter that into the Record?
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from Georgia who spoke eloquently on this matter. It is clear that the 
people are already there, and the need exists for this operation 
facility. There was a misunderstanding, a miscommunication, about this 
matter at the Executive level, and that we were not properly consulted. 
Otherwise, we would have been able to share vital information with them 
at the time, and it might have changed the outcome.
  But I hope, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Coverdell 
from Georgia, that the Senate will override the President on this 
matter and make sure that this vital operational facility is present at 
Moody Air Force Base in Georgia to accommodate some 2,000 personnel 
that are already in place, as the Senator has so accurately indicated.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate the remarks again of my good colleague 
from Georgia, Senator Cleland. His remarks have documented the travesty 
that has occurred here. And, of course, when something like this 
happens, you have over 2,000 families in Georgia who are living in 
temporary facilities, and it is imperative that this error, this 
mistake, be overturned, which, of course, would be among the many, many 
issues that are in Senator Stevens' bill.
  So my colleague from Georgia and I are both rising in support of that 
to get this error corrected.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of 
the full committee, Senator Stevens, and the ranking member, Senator 
Byrd, for their strong leadership on this important issue.
  Additionally, Senator Burns and Senator Murray, the chairman and 
ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, have done an 
outstanding job all year of putting together an appropriations bill 
which addresses the vital needs of our military installations.
  Mr. President, we are here debating the merits of President Clinton's 
decision to strike funding for over 30 military construction projects. 
Let me state clearly that I strongly object to the President's reckless 
use of this new authority.
  While I support the line-item authority, in this instance the 
President not only misused it, he endangered soldiers lives.
  Let's look at the President's argument. Among his statements, the 
President claimed that he was canceling only projects ``that would not 
have been built in fiscal year 1998 in any event; projects where the 
Department of Defense has not yet even done design work.''
  Wrong. The President's statement is absolutely inaccurate.
  In fact, of the projects contained in this measure, each of them 
could begin construction in fiscal year 1998, a direct contradiction to 
the President's claim.
  As for the two projects in Kentucky which were deemed wasteful by the 
President, one had 10 percent of the design work completed, and the 
other had completed 90 percent of the design work. Ninety percent, Mr. 
President, that is hardly insignificant.
  President Clinton also claimed his effort was ``another step on the 
long journey to bring fiscal discipline to Washington.'' In fact, he 
went on to claim he was ensuring ``that our tax dollars are well 
spent,'' and was standing ``up for the national interests over narrow 
interests.''
  Wrong again.
  The projects eliminated by the President totaled $287 million. Our 
Federal budget is over $1.6 trillion. Therefore, the President's 
efforts have saved the nation a whopping seventeen thousandths of 1 
percent of the Federal budget. So the simple truth is no real money 
will be saved as a result of President Clinton's veto.
  The fact is every single project contained in this measure is in the 
President's own future year plan for military construction. Therefore, 
these facilities will be built, if not this year some time in the next 
5 years. And, Mr. President, I don't have to explain to you the reality 
that delaying the inevitable construction will only increase the cost 
of these projects.
  Mr. President, anyone who believes that the projects will be built 
for only $287 million, their cost in fiscal year 1998, is sadly 
mistaken. Each of these projects will increase in cost, and the 
American taxpayers will be left holding the bag once again.
  Finally, Mr. President, allow me to discuss one of the Kentucky 
projects which was vetoed in order to provide an example of how the 
process was mishandled by the Clinton administration. And, let me begin 
by reminding the

[[Page S11420]]

Senate that the administration did not even use accurate information in 
evaluating this and other projects.
  Fort Campbell, KY, is home to the 101st Airborne, Air Assault, the 
``Screaming Eagles.'' This unit is one of the most important assets in 
the U.S. Army, and is often the first to deploy in a crisis situation.
  As a result, the soldiers at Fort Campbell must maintain the highest 
level of readiness in order to deploy at a moment's notice. Yet, 
because President Clinton decided this was a pork-barrel project, over 
200 soldiers a day are forced to work in facilities that are more than 
50 years old, but were meant to last no more than 15 years when they 
were constructed.
  Let me say that another way. Over 200 of America's finest soldiers 
are working, everyday, in facilities that should have been replaced or 
torn down over 40 years ago. These structures are literally falling 
down on top of the men and women working in these facilities.
  Instead, Mr. President, the soldiers of the 101st are working in 
dilapidated, dysfunctional structures with little or no heat, faulty 
electrical wiring, no fire control systems and are riddled with 
asbestos.
  An OSHA inspection of these facilities would do what no army in the 
world could--shut down one of our premier combat units and prevent it 
from meeting its mission requirments.
  Conditions are so poor that work is often performed outside on gravel 
parking areas and not at all when temperatures reach severe levels.
  The $9.9 million appropriated for this project would have provided 
much needed facilities to the 86th Combat Support Hospital--a rapid 
deployable unit equipped with the Army's most modern medical systems, 
and whose mission it is to support soldiers on the front lines of 
combat.
  To meet its mission requirement, Mr. President, the 86th must 
maintain more than 1,200 pieces of equipment in top, deployable 
condition around the clock. And, as you can imagine, much of this 
medical equipment requires conditions which cannot be met by these 
inadequate facilities.
  Mr. President, the examples are numerous, but the most telling 
example is truly shocking. In 1991, one of the structures slated to be 
replaced burned to the ground in a matter of minutes. Fortunately, no 
one was hurt in this incident, this time.
  If this is not a readiness and quality of life issue, I do not know 
what is.
  Clearly, the condition of these facilities is incompatible with 
maintaining a premier fighting force and with retaining the quality men 
and women who work there.
  Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying the line-item veto was 
intended to be an instrument of precision and not the weapon of blunt 
force trauma. It was meant to deter wasteful spending--not endanger the 
lives of American service men and women.
  But, the President's action was not, as he claimed, ``another step on 
the long journey to bring fiscal discipline to Washington'' rather it 
was a reckless abuse of authority that must be rejected. It is time we 
stop paying lip service and truly commit ourselves to meeting the needs 
and quality of life issues of these dedicated soldiers. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in voting to restore the funding President 
Clinton eliminated.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to defend two projects the 
President of the United States chose to veto in the military 
construction appropriations bill. The President claimed that three 
criteria had to be met for an item to be cut. First, the item was not 
requested in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget; second, it would 
not substantially improve the quality of life of military service 
members and their families; and third, architectural and engineering 
design of the project has not started, making it unlikely funds can be 
used for construction in fiscal year 1998. Only the first criterion 
was, in fact met in the two cases I rise to support.
  The first project the President struck was a tactical equipment shop 
at Ft. Campbell. The $9.9 million project would provide a vehicle 
maintenance shop, storage for a forward support battalion, and a combat 
support hospital. The project replaces a 55-year-old building that was 
constructed in 1942 as a temporary structure to last until the end of 
World War II. This project was, please note, fully designed, and 
therefore did not meet the President's third criterion.
  This facility is Ft. Campbell's No. 1 priority mission support 
project. The structure is literally falling down around its occupants 
and is ridiculously expensive to maintain. The Army wastes tens of 
thousands of dollars on Band-Aid repair jobs every year just to keep 
the structure barely functional.
  The old structures have significant environmental problems: No oil/
water separators, no sumps for battery acid, and the buildings contain 
asbestos and lead-based paint. In addition to the environmental issues, 
the structures have old faulty wiring that caused a fire in October 
1991. Also, there is no eye wash area or vehicle exhaust system.
  The new structure would support the 101st Airborne, whose operational 
deployment requirements have increased 300 to 400 percent to support 
Operations Other Than WAr. In 1995 alone, the Clinton Pentagon spent 
$6.6 billion in Operations Other Than War in places like Bosnia, Haiti, 
and Somalia. Combined, the cost of both of the Tennessee projects 
vetoed by the President are about the same as one day's spending at 
that rate.
  Ironically, according to the President's formula for cuts, if this 
facility were an arts and crafts center, it would have been classified 
as a ``quality of life'' project sale from cuts. Of course, the 
building's current state of disrepair is a ``quality of life'' issue to 
the young Army troop who is spending 8 to 12 hours a day working in the 
facility.
  The other Tennessee project canceled by the President was an 
atmospheric air dryer facility at Arnold Air Force Base. This $9.9 
million project would construct an air dryer facility to replace the 
antiquated facility currently used. The new facility would support the 
mission of the propulsion wind tunnel facility used to test several new 
weapon systems, including the F-22 and joint strike fighter.
  Mr. President, both of these projects are vital to military readiness 
and national security. It is my hope that my colleagues will take a 
close look at the projects in this legislation and cast a vote for this 
critical legislation. We must not allow our forces to decline further 
into a hollow state reminiscent of the late 1970's.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks about the 
legislation before us. I am a strong supporter of the line-item veto. I 
believe we must use whatever tools we have at our disposal to restrain 
Federal spending.
  That said, I agree with my colleagues that we have a right to expect 
the President to exercise his line-item veto authority in a manner that 
is fair. If he says he is going to use a set of criteria, then he 
should. Unfortunately, some but not all of the project vetoed met the 
President's own criteria.
  For example, the President used his line-item veto authority to 
eliminate funding for an aerial port training facility at the General 
Mitchell Air Reserve Station in Milwaukee based on erroneous 
information. The administration has admitted as much. There is no 
question that this project is 35 percent designed with a site selected 
and is ready to be constructed in fiscal year 1998. In addition, this 
project was authorized in the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization 
bill conference report and is included in the Pentagon's 5-year plan.
  I should also add that this project makes a significant contribution 
to the military readiness of a unit which plays an important role in 
our Nation's defense. The merging of the 34th Aerial Port Squadron, 154 
persons, and the 95th Aerial Port Squadron, 102 personnel, has 
overburdened the current training facility. The 34th Squadron must 
train its reserve airlift specialists to load and unload military cargo 
aircraft using one bay of the base warehouse and a leased modular 
facility. Even with the temporary facility, overcrowding is so severe 
that the unit cannot train together. Some reservists must train on 
weekends that are not normal unit training assembly weekends, depriving 
them of working with the rest of the unit personnel. Using the 
warehouse bay has also created a shortage in onbase storage. Members of 
the 34th Aerial Port Squadron have been deployed to support our mission 
in Bosnia, and they will continue to be

[[Page S11421]]

called upon to support other active duty and reserve units.
  Funding for the aerial port training facility is not included in the 
legislation before us today. It is my hope that the Department of 
Defense will recognize the importance of this project and will move it 
up 1 year to include it in the fiscal year 1999 budget, and I am 
working to that end.
  Mr. President, it is our job to make difficult choices. I am not 
willing to support a bill that restores all of the projects which were 
line-item vetoed. Some of these projects were not 35 percent designed. 
Some of these projects did not meet the President's criteria. Some of 
these projects did not need to be built this year.
  If this legislation included just the project which met the 
President's criteria that would be a different story, but that is not 
the bill before us today. Thus, Mr. President, I cannot support this 
legislation and I urge my colleagues to uphold the President's line-
item veto.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, just a few weeks ago President Clinton 
vetoed 38 projects in the military construction appropriations bill. 
Two of those projects were in Kentucky, one at Fort Knox and one at 
Fort Campbell. These projects were included despite the fact that 
neither one fell within the administration's criteria for a veto.
  That criteria included projects 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 Department of Defense reported that no architectural 
and engineering design work had been done.
  Both the qualification range at Fort Knox and the tactical equipment 
shop at Fort Campbell were requested in the Army's 5-year plan, both 
have well over the necessary amount of design work completed, and both 
could begin construction in 1998.
  Over 50 percent of the design work is completed at Fort Knox and with 
funding, construction would begin in 1998. This project replaces 10 
1940 vintage multipurpose small arms training ranges which generate 
high costs for maintenance and use--into one modern multipurpose range. 
This project was the number two construction priority for Fort Knox.
  The Fort Campbell tactical equipment shop project is in the second 
phase of an effort to replace World War II era buildings. With 90 
percent of the design work completed, construction can also begin as 
soon as the money is made available.
  Mr. President, the projects at Fort Campbell and Fort Knox were 
included in the appropriations bill because the Army considered them 
priorities. And while I am for getting rid of government waste as much 
as anyone else, these two projects clearly do not meet that criterion.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1292, the Military 
Construction Appropriations Line Item Veto Disapproval bill.
  I have long questioned the line-item veto in general terms. I am not 
convinced of its merit and I am particularly concerned with the manner 
in which it was applied to the Military Construction Appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1998.
  Like my colleagues I believe that wasteful spending must be cut. 
However, since the line item veto was exercised for the first time on 
the Military Construction Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, we 
have learned that even the White House now recognizes that its own data 
and process for identifying ``wasteful'' items to be subjected to the 
line item veto were seriously flawed. Indeed, OMB Director Franklin 
Raines wrote in the official Statement of Administration Policy, ``. . 
.we are committed to working with Congress to restore funding for those 
projects that were canceled as a result of the data provided by the 
Department of Defense that was out of date.'' Indeed, it is my 
understanding that the Administration is seeking ways to right these 
wrongs through other avenues. Moreover, I am perplexed by the theory 
that only the Administration knows what deserves to be in the budget. 
Instead, I believe there is plenty of wisdom here in Congress as well 
as the White House to establish budget priorities based on rational 
compromise and debate. Lastly, I would suggest to supporters of the 
line item veto that the real task of balancing the budget requires 
votes like the one I cast in 1993 for deficit reduction, not line item 
vetoes.
  There are also some who believe the line item veto is an innocuous 
device that could never be used for purely political purposes. However, 
the people of Rhode Island know full well what giving the President the 
authority to pick and choose specific budget items means. Rhode Island 
has already experienced a Presidential effort to eliminate an essential 
program. In 1992, President Bush tried to rescind funding for the 
Seawolf submarine program which is vital to our nation's defense and 
the livelihood of thousands of working Rhode Islanders. Fortunately, 
Democrats were able to beat back the attempt to rescind funding for the 
Seawolf, but this experience led me to believe that a line item veto 
would make future battles even more of a lopsided battle than a fair 
fight. In addition, a President, of any political party, could use the 
line item veto to eliminate other programs that are important to Rhode 
Island without fear because a small state like mine only has four votes 
in Congress.
  Mr. President, The line item veto is of untested constitutionality. 
Without a Constitutional amendment, the line item veto act transferred 
significant power from the Legislative Branch to the Executive. I would 
hope that the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the line 
item veto in the near future so the Congress can act accordingly. In 
the interim, I believe the two principle tests on the use of the line 
item veto should be: One, is a particular line item veto politically 
motivated? Two, is a particular line item veto the outcome of a 
rational and coherent analysis based on sound policy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________