[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11423-S11434]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            DISAPPROVAL ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we still have two more Senators who have 
indicated to us they wished to make statements on this particular 
issue, and we will give them a chance to get here. I warn Senators they 
should come to the floor and make their statements now because we want 
to get to a vote on this issue. We have other business pending in the 
Senate that we would like to get to. But if those Senators can get to 
the floor and make those statements, we will wait a few minutes on 
them. If not, then I would choose, with the permission of the 
leadership, to move to third reading on this bill.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I rise today in support of S. 1292, a bill to 
disapproved of President's Clinton decision to veto over 30 military 
construction projects.
  I will add, Mr. President, I am a proponent of the line-item veto. I 
believe the line-item veto can be an effective tool to eliminate 
wasteful spending but I believe the fact that the White House now 
admits it used faulty data when it decided to veto a number of military 
construction projects demonstrates that this important authority must 
be used wisely and carefully.
  I would like to speak for a moment about the two military 
construction projects the President vetoed in the State of Idaho. Both 
projects were intended to support the combat requirements of the 366th 
Composite Wing based at Mountain Home Air Force Base.
  A recent letter to me from Secretary of Defense Cohen described the 
critical role played by the 366th Composite Wing: ``As one of the first 
units to deploy to a problem area, it has the responsibility to 
neutralize enemy forces. It must maintain peak readiness to respond 
rapidly and effectively to diverse situations and conflicts.''
  In an ironic twist of fate, the 366th was doing its mission on 
deployment in the Persian Gulf when the President took inaccurate 
information, provided by the Air Force, and vetoed two projects 
intended to support the combat effectiveness of this unit.
  President Clinton used his line-item veto pen to delete $9.2 million 
for an avionics facility for the B-1 bombers and $3.7 million for a 
squadron operations facility for an F-15 squadron.
  In his veto statement, the President claimed the vetoed construction 
projects could not be started in fiscal year 1998 because there was no 
design work on the proposed projects. This assertion has now been 
proven false by a letter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, John 
Hamre, which now acknowledges that the DOD provided inaccurate data 
about the status of design work.
  With respect to the two projects at Mountain Home Air Force Base, the 
outdated Air Force data provided to the White House listed both 
projects at zero percent design when in fact, as now verified by Air 
Force, both projects are in fact over 35 percent designed. Moreover, 
before any of these projects could be included in the fiscal year 1998 
Defense authorization bill, the services were required to certify that 
each of the projects could be initiated in fiscal year 1998 and that is 
what they did, without exception.
  As my colleagues know, the Department of Defense puts together a 
future years defense plan which projects the DOD budget 6 years into 
the future. Regarding the two projects at Mountain Home, I note that 
the avionics facility is contained in the Air Force's 1999 budget and 
the F-15 squadron operations facility is contained in the service's 
2000 budget.
  As the President ponders the use of the line-item veto, I think there 
needs to be dialog with the legislative branch. If there had been 
dialog, we might have been able to point out the faulty data being used 
by the White House that was provided by the U.S. Air Force.
  Early this year Congress and the President reached an historic 
agreement to balance the budget and increase defense spending above the 
President's request. Congress went through its normal deliberative 
process and we used the additional defense dollars to move forward 
funding for projects on the service's unfunded requirements lists. 
Indeed, the B-1 avionics facility was one of the top 10 unfunded 
military construction projects identified by the Air Force. In 
addition, the funds were within the budget caps agreed to by the 
Congress and the President.
  Let me read a document, prepared by the 366th Wing, which explains 
why we need the B-1 avionics facility. This was written by the civil 
engineer at the base avionics facility:

       Current facility is inefficient, aging, wooden building 
     misconfigured for avionics functions. Numerous false alarms 
     in the fire suppression systems cause excessive avionics 
     support equipment down-time and often cause damage to test 
     equipment. This facility supports over $1 billion of avionics 
     equipment for the wing's fighter aircraft with $115 million 
     in testing equipment. Current avionics facility is 
     approximately one-half the size required for all the wing's 
     aircraft and has severe operational problems supporting 
     fighter aircraft of this wing. About 33,000 sq. ft. of the 
     existing 54,000 sq. ft. facility is condemned for personnel 
     usage. B-1 avionics is currently being maintained at 
     Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota due to inadequate facilities at 
     this base. Engineering estimates by the Army Corps of 
     Engineers found the current facility is uneconomical to 
     renovate. Construction of a new facility collocating avionics 
     for the B-1 and fighter aircraft is the most economical 
     solution and finalizes the B-1 beddown program.

  The Office of Management and Budget and the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense acknowledge the President used outdated and inaccurate data to 
make his decisions. The Senate should give the President another 
opportunity to do the right thing and pass the pending disapproval 
legislation.
  Let me thank the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Stevens, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd for their quick 
and decisive action to bring this important legislation to the Senate 
floor. I urge my colleagues to support the pending legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. I think the Senator from Idaho has brought up a good point 
making the case for his facility because I think we found this 
throughout this whole message from the administration, that, again, 
they don't give us the criteria before we finally pass the conference 
report and send it down there. All at once, then the criteria change. I 
guess that should not surprise me. We ought to get used to dealing with 
folks who have goalposts on wheels; they sort of change every now and 
again.
  I hope we could make it through this thing and the Members realize 
that every project has been through the screens, two or three of them. 
The ranking member on this subcommittee, the chairman, and the ranking 
member of the full committee have set their satchel down, set certain 
standards, and we tried to meet those standards.
  I thank the Senator from Idaho for his comments.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BURNS. I will yield.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. It is just for a question.
  Would the Senator from Montana agree with me that as we are provided 
the data, although the idea was that these projects were not necessary, 
were not needed, yet we find they are in the President's own budget for 
the very next year or the year following that? And, since we have all 
of this data and we have established, through written information from 
the Air Force, the inaccuracy of the data that they provided the White 
House, the President and the White House should not find themselves in 
a situation where they feel they have drawn a line in the sand and 
there is no way they can back away from this; that it is best for the 
Nation and our national defense for the White House to acknowledge 
that, based on inaccurate data, we all should review this and come to a 
different conclusion, and that is to allow these projects to go 
forward?
  Mr. BURNS. One advantage of the line-item veto right now is it 
demands

[[Page S11424]]

of us a dialog with the people who have to administer the programs. 
That is good. So I agree with the Senator's statement wholeheartedly, 
and I thank the Senator from Idaho.
  I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, are we on a time limitation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 hours remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I didn't want to cut some other Senator short, but 
clearly----
  Mr. BURNS. How much of that 4 hours would you like, Senator?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not going to impinge on anybody with my remarks. I 
have been in another hearing and for that reason I have been trying to 
get recognition as soon as I can, and I will be as brief as I can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
resolution of disapproval of the fiscal year 1998 military construction 
appropriations bill. In his special veto message, the President offered 
the following three criteria for each of the canceled items: ``The 
project is being canceled for because:
  ``First, it 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 engineering and design of this project has not started, 
making it unlikely that these funds can be used for construction during 
fiscal year 1998.''
  Mr. President, the Congress gave the President line-item veto 
authority to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending. The Congress 
examined all of these projects very carefully and found them to be 
merit worthy and mission essential. In fact, the Appropriations 
Committee used stringent criteria including:
  First, whether the project was mission essential; second, whether the 
project will enhance readiness, safety, or working conditions for 
service personnel; third, whether a site has been identified for the 
project; fourth, whether any money has been spent on the design or the 
project; fifth, whether the Department can begin to execute the project 
during fiscal year 1998; and, sixth, whether the project was included 
in the Department's future year defense plan.
  Mr. President, these projects substantially meet the criteria 
established by the Appropriations Committee. Moreover, the 
Appropriations Committee worked closely with the military services in 
crafting its bill. In contrast, it is widely known that the President 
neglected to consult the military services in deciding which projects 
should be vetoed on this bill.
  First, I want to make clear that if the President thinks that the 
only good project is one that he recommends, then he will continue to 
meet strong opposition in the Congress. I remind the President that 
article I, section 8, of the Constitution gives the Congress the right 
to raise and support armies. That means that if the Congress believes 
that a particular project will support the needs and requirements of 
the military that is not only their right, but their responsibility, to 
do so.
  I am heartened by the fact that the President has used his line-item 
veto pen more sparingly on the various appropriations bills that have 
been sent to him since this military construction bill. However, Mr. 
President, let's be clear about his action on this particular bill. I 
believe it was an abuse of his authority for three reasons. First, 
vetoing these projects will not eliminate unnecessary or wasteful 
spending. Second, it is clear that none of the spending in this bill 
violates the budget agreement. Finally, using the President's own 
criteria, it is clear that the President made several errors.
  On October 6, 1997, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
conducted a hearing to review the status of the 38 vetoed projects. 
Throughout the hearing, Senators asked the witnesses whether particular 
vetoed projects met the criteria as set out by the President. Most 
questions centered on the issue of whether each project could be 
executed in fiscal year 1998 and if that project were mission 
essential. In every case, Mr. President, the answers were affirmative.
  Among the items the President vetoed were two New Mexico projects. 
The first project was $14 million for the construction of a new 
building for the theater air command control and simulation facility 
[TACCSF] at Kirtland Air Force Base [KAFB]. This project is in the 
Department's fiscal year 2002 budget. It is mission essential; 35 
percent of the design has been completed with $1.4 million the Congress 
appropriated last year for this purpose. A site has been chosen for the 
project, and it is executable this year. Clearly, Mr. President, the 
President made a serious error in vetoing this project.
  The TACCSF is the only facility where fighter crews, command control 
personnel, and air defense teams operate together in a realistic 
virtual war fighting environment. TACCSF allows Air Force war fighters 
to train with Army and Marine personnel under one roof, often their 
only opportunity to rehearse shoot-don't shoot procedures in a complex 
friend or foe environment.
  Expanding TACCSF's simulation capabilities will support cost-
effective development of Air Force systems. TACCSF has flexible 
simulation architecture that allows new concepts, components, or 
procedures to be tested in a virtual environment, giving hands-on 
experience years prior to first prototype--user feedback during early 
design results in enormous development cost savings.
  TACCSF's present building does not allow for any expansion. A new 
facility is needed to meet growth needs. It is impossible to expand the 
current facility sufficiently to accommodate the simulators, supporting 
infrastructure and personnel growth needed to maintain TACCSF's 
preeminent capabilities. Failure to provide the requested new facility 
seriously jeopardizes TACCSF's ability to support DOD and the Air 
Force's vision for modeling and simulation in support of the war 
fighter.
  The second project the President vetoed was $6.9 million for the 
launch complex revitalization program at White Sands missile range. 
Once again, using the President's own criteria, he made a serious 
error. This project will substantially improve the quality of life of 
military service members, 10 percent of the design has been completed, 
and the project is executable in fiscal year 1998. The project is 
mission essential and there is no question that it will enhance safety.
  Four launch complexes at WSMR are suffering from deterioration in 
crumbling structures, failing facility components and below-par 
sanitary and sewage systems. Many of the complex facilities do not meet 
current safety laws and regulations. Adequate fire detection and 
suppression systems do not exist in the buildings and explosive 
handling areas. WSMR spokesmen have stated, ``This totally involves a 
safety issue. There's quite a bit of activity that is conducted at 
these launch complexes. It is a potential breeding ground for 
hantavirus if infrastructure improvements to these areas is not made.'' 
Moreover, Mr. President, the commanding general of WSMR stated in a 
letter to the delegation members that he was very concerned about the 
safety of his people who worked in these facilities.
  Mr. President, the President made serious errors on both these 
projects. All of them are mission essential and can be executed in 
fiscal year 1998. The Presidents' arbitrary and unfair exercise of his 
power demands the Congress' action. I applaud the chairman and ranking 
member for acting timely on this matter. I strongly support it, and 
hope my colleagues will do the same.
  Mr. President, I have a letter dated April 18, 1997, from General 
Laws, Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Commanding General at White Sands 
missile range, to House of Representatives Member from New Mexico, the 
Hon. Joe Skeen. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

[[Page S11425]]

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                       Department of the Army,

                                                  August 18, 1997.
     Hon. Joe R. Skeen,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Skeen: This information is provided in response to 
     your question on the health and safety matters at launch 
     facilities at White Sands Missile Range. As you are aware 
     from your recent visit to White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), 
     extensive parts of our infrastructure, particularly the vital 
     launch complexes, are in disrepair or an unserviceable. Many 
     of these conditions entail critical safety and environmental 
     problems that earnestly must be addressed as soon as 
     possible.
       Recently, we were required to disconnect the water supply 
     that feeds a fire suppression system at a major missile 
     assembly building due to uncontrollable and excessive 
     plumbing leaks. We have many buildings at these launch 
     complexes with inoperable heating and cooling systems. We 
     also have septic systems that have or are failing, and will 
     have to be deactivated due to environmental reasons. The 
     resource reductions of the last several years have 
     exacerbated the already significant backlog of maintenance 
     and repair to the aging infrastructure of WSMR.
       Aside from the increasing difficulties for our personnel to 
     accomplish the critical test and evaluation mission for major 
     programs of all the services in DOD, I am very concerned for 
     their safety and health from working in such conditions. I 
     deeply appreciate your consideration of these issues.
           Sincerely,

                                                Terry L. Laws,

                                                Brigadier General,
                                    U.S. Army, Commanding General.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, now I would like to talk to my fellow 
Senators. In particular I would like to talk to the Republicans on this 
side of the aisle. I say that because I hear some of them asking 
questions about why were we for line-item veto and how can we justify 
voting to override the President. If it fits some Senators' concerns on 
the other side, fine.
  Let me just say, fellow Republicans, we took the lead, once we got 
control of the House and Senate, to pass this new law called line-item 
veto. I want to make sure everybody understands that we could not have 
intended to say that we would never override a President's line-item 
veto. Obviously, when we passed that, inherent in our passage of that 
measure was the fact that Congress still had to have some significant 
say about the propriety, the validity, the appropriateness of line-item 
vetoes. If it means, if we supported the original line-item veto 
legislation, whatever the President chooses to do under line-item veto, 
since we voted for that law we have to concede the President's 
authority, then I don't think any on this side of the aisle would raise 
their hands and say that is what they voted for line-item veto to mean. 
I can assure you I did not.
  As a matter of fact, I would submit that it is quite right for the 
Senate of the United States to stand on its two feet and say to the 
President: You have line-item veto authority but it does not mean you 
can exercise it any old way you want. The sooner we send that signal to 
this President--either a Republican President or this one--the sooner 
you send the signal that there are certain circumstances under which, 
by virtue of our authority, that we would say ``no'' to a President, 
the better the President will respect the propriety of the notion that 
we are equal under the Constitution and that the President didn't gain 
superiority over appropriations when we passed the line-item veto 
legislation.
  So it is almost as if we have a gift of the right situation to send 
that signal to the President, because in this case there is no doubt of 
the following set of circumstances.
  No. 1, it is now acknowledged by the White House that many of the 
line-item vetoes, if not all, were issued and done by the President in 
error. Nobody will come to this floor and deny that. The problem is, 
they won't tell us how many are in error. We have concluded that almost 
every one that is on this list, in this bill of override, is in error, 
if we believed the statements by the White House as to why the line-
item veto was used in the first place. We went through each one. We put 
the financial management officers for the three armed services in front 
of the Appropriations Committee and asked them the questions that 
related, not to something we dreamt up, but something the White House 
told us were the criteria.
  Mr. President, they were simple criteria: Is project in the 1998 
budget request, or did we just dream it up? Question No. 1. Second, has 
the engineering and design has started? And tied into that one is that 
the project contracts could be issued in 1998, the year of this 
appropriation. And the third one, that it was something that would 
improve the quality of life of military men and women and their 
families?
  Frankly, we asked the questions of the military financial officers. 
In almost every one of these 38 projects, they said they were in the 
Defense Department 5-year plan, or they did do substantial improvement 
to quality of life, to family life, or third, design had been started 
and the project could commence during the appropriation year of 1998.
  When the White House then says, well, it may be that we in the White 
House made mistakes; that 18 of these vetoed projects don't fit our own 
criteria; it may be that 16 didn't fit our criteria--in any event, we 
are not going to tell you exactly which ones. I say to the Senators who 
are wondering whether they should vote for this, that is enough to vote 
for the override. If you ever want to change the power structure, then 
let a President get by with that. He line-item vetoes and then he says, 
``I made a mistake, but I am sticking with them and I am not going to 
tell you which ones I made a mistake on.'' If you can't discern that, 
then it seems to me you have to send it back to him with a great big 
vote in the Senate and the House saying, ``Since you won't tell us, we 
are giving them all back to you. And if you send them back, we are 
going to adopt them in law and override your veto, because you haven't 
squared with us.''

  I can think of some other reasons. Each Senator who voted for the 
line-item veto and who is worried about whether he can now vote to 
override, I ask just a simple question. Did you really mean you would 
never override? Of course you would say no. If you meant you might 
override sometimes, what is a more perfect case than this? You have two 
reasons: The projects are bona fide projects that meet any reasonable 
criteria; and the President will not tell us which ones are incorrectly 
vetoes, although he says there are some, that don't fit the criteria.
  I know there are some former Governors in the Senate who are going to 
speak to line-item veto. I don't know which way they are coming down on 
this. But I take it from many Governors that they never had such a 
large argument over line-item veto in many years of being Governors; 
that all of a sudden you get 38 projects out of one bill, $287 million, 
and they don't know why it was done or why others were left in.
  So, from our standpoint, this is the appropriate time to send a 
signal that line-item veto is not a one-way street; that Congress has a 
role. If it is not used reasonably and rationally as a policy 
instrument, then it will be overridden, and I hope we do that. I hope 
it is a very big bipartisan vote, because I think it is apt to be the 
same in the U.S. House of Representatives. We will start this process 
off on the right track.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that a table from the 
Congressional Budget Office comparing the pending bill to the 
President's original line-item veto message be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S11426]]


  EFFECT OF S. 1292, DISAPPROVING CANCELLATIONS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT ON OCTOBER 6, 1997, REGARDING P.L. 105-45
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Outlays
                                                                 Budget  ---------------------------------------
                                                               Authority   1998    1999    2000    2001    2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total CBO estimate of cancellations made by the President to        287       28     102      79      46      16
 P.L. 105-45.................................................
Projects not disapproved in S. 1292, as reported in the
 Senate
  Military Construction, Navy
    Chemical-Biological Warfare Detection Center, Crane Naval         4        8       2       1       1   (\1\)
     Surface Warfare Center, IN (97-15)......................
  Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
    Base Civil Engineer Complex, Grissom Air Reserve Base, IN         9        1       4       2       1       1
     (97-16).................................................
    Aerial Port Training Facility, Mitchell Air Reserve               4        1       2       1       1   (\1\)
     Station, WI (97-41).....................................
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, Military Construction, Air Force Reserve......        13        2       6       3       2       1
  Military Construction, Army National Guard
    Aviation Support Facility, Rapid City, SD (97-31)........         5    (\1\)       1       2       1   (\1\)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total projects not disapproved in S. 1292, as                22       10       9       6       4       1
         reported in the Senate..............................
Difference between S. 1292 and the President's cancellations.       264       18      93      72      42      15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office. Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. \1\=Less than $500
  thousand


  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I am here to speak on two of the specific projects 
that are covered by this veto and now the proposal to override that 
veto, and then, second, I will make some remarks based on my own 
personal experience as to how the relationships between the legislative 
and the executive branches should function when the Executive has the 
line-item veto.
  First, let me turn to two projects with which I have extensive 
familiarity.
  First, a pier improvement project at the Mayport Naval Station near 
Jacksonville, FL. Mayport has been designated by the Navy to be the 
second Atlantic coast major naval facility, the first being Norfolk. In 
order to carry out this role, it has been determined by the Navy that 
it is necessary to make certain improvements to the piers that serve 
Mayport Naval Station. The improvements were included in the 5-year 
Navy plan.
  The Navy made another decision, and that was to utilize a design-
build process as the means for constructing these pier improvements. In 
contrast to a traditional procedure in which a project is fully 
designed and then contractors bid on those completed designs, design-
build merges the creative and the execution stages which one firm is 
responsible for submitting a bid to both design a project that will 
meet the needs of the client, in this case the Navy, and then to 
construct that project. It also has the benefits that the project can 
be segmented, so that if there are portions of the project that can 
proceed ahead on a more rapid pace because they are less complex or 
have less design requirements, they can be doing so.
  The result of this design-build process for the Navy has been both a 
significant savings in time and cost.
  A recent study by the Design-Build Institute of America states that 
over the last 4 years, naval facilities utilizing this design-build 
process have led to a timesaving of 15 percent over the conventional 
method of first design, then bid, then build, and a cost savings of 12 
percent. That design-build process was determined to be appropriate to 
this pier improvement at Mayport.
  The significance of that, Mr. President, is that it runs in conflict 
with one of the criteria that the President used in determining which 
projects to veto, because one of those criteria was, was this project 
one which had been designed and, therefore, construction could commence 
in this fiscal year? In the case of a design-build project, you don't 
have a separate sequence of design. The design and the construction 
project are issued as one.
  In the case of Mayport, the Navy expectation is that they will issue 
their design-build contract in March of 1998. At this point, some of 
the real benefits of design-build begin to take effect. As an example, 
the toe wall of these particular piers will use a similar design to the 
toe wall of piers that are immediately adjacent, and, therefore, the 
expectation is that they will use the same designs which have already 
been done, therefore allowing the construction work on the toe wall to 
commence in June of 1998.
  Another important component of this pier improvement is to add a new 
electrical circuit so that the ships which have higher electrical 
demand today, because of all of their computerization and other 
electronics, will be adequately served. This electrical work represents 
a fifth circuit to the already existing four circuits. And so, again, 
no significant new design work will be required. It is expected that 
the electrical construction work will also commence in June of 1998.
  So the facts of this case are that, if the purpose of that standard, 
which was, is the design complete so construction can start? has been 
met, the only difference is because this is a design-build contract as 
opposed to a traditional contract, you can't answer the question, is 
there a completed set of designs here ready to be bid upon? It is 
ironic that the design-build process was specifically recognized and 
applauded in the reinvention-of-Government study that was done in 1993 
as the wave of the future as to how the Federal Government should go 
about much of its construction activity.
  So, Mr. President, with that background on Mayport, I believe this 
clearly is one of those projects where the facts do not substantiate 
the reasoning that was given as the basis of the veto. We have an 
important project meeting a clear national defense need which the Navy 
has stated should be completed within the 5-year plan. The Navy has 
selected a design-build process which will result in construction 
commencing on important elements of this pier improvement in June of 
1998.
  The second item which is of concern to me relates to Whiting Field, a 
major Navy aviation training center in Santa Rosa County, FL. Whiting 
Field is the centerpiece of actually a series of fields of runways and 
other training facilities that are located throughout northwest Florida 
and south Alabama.
  The Air Force and the Navy have decided on an eminently reasonable 
new joint project, and that is, that rather than having the basic 
training of naval aviators being done exclusively by the Navy and Air 
Force aviators being done exclusively by the Air Force, that they will 
develop joint training at the primary and advanced levels. Whiting 
Field has been designated as the field upon which approximately half of 
the primary training for both Air Force and Navy pilots will occur.
  A new aircraft has been selected, called JPATS, which will serve the 
needs of both the Navy and the Air Force. This new aircraft has some 
different requirements than the aircraft which the Navy has used for 
many years at Whiting Field. One of those is a slightly longer runway 
for safety purposes. It is a somewhat higher performance aircraft.
  In this legislation was $1.2 million to add to the length of one of 
the outlying fields which serves Whiting, which happens to be located 
in Brewton, AL. Also, as part of this $1.2 million, will be a safety 
zone built around one of these runways in order to enhance the safety 
for aviators with this new higher performance JPATS aircraft. Again, 
this is in the Navy's 5-year plan. The JPATS aircraft are going to be 
delivered in the year 2000.
  The work to be done is not high-tech, it is the extension of an 
existing runway, and, therefore, the development of complicated designs 
is not relevant to the project to be performed. Therefore,

[[Page S11427]]

again, the rationale for the veto, which was that unless design had 
been conducted, assumedly construction could not start in the fiscal 
year and, therefore, the project became a candidate and, in fact, a 
victim of the President's veto.
  Just as the project at Mayport, this meets all the tests. In this 
case, the Navy and the Air Force have agreed that this is a needed 
project to secure an important new joint relationship between our two 
principal aviation services which will result in significant savings to 
the Nation and, hopefully, enhancements in the quality of training and 
the jointness of training of the Air Force and the Navy.
  I had the opportunity to visit Whiting Field in August of this year, 
and I can state from personal experience and discussions with the 
leadership of this important naval facility that there is great 
commitment to seeing that this joint training is a success and a 
contribution to the Nation's security. All this is going to have a key 
date of the year 2000 when the new aircraft begin to be delivered.
  So, Mr. President, I urge that these and the other projects that are 
contained in the legislation to override the President's veto be 
supported, because I believe they are the kind of projects which the 
Nation will need for its long-term national security. I commend the 
leadership of the Appropriations Committee and the Military 
Construction Subcommittee for their careful attention to these two 
projects.
  If I can take a brief period to comment about the line-item veto 
process. I was Governor of the State of Florida for 8 years with the 
line-item veto authority, and I utilized that authority where I thought 
appropriate. I believe that the most significant use of the line-item 
veto is in its deterrence effect. The fact that legislators who might 
be inclined to submit and seek passage of a project that did not have 
the positive qualities of Mayport and Whiting Field would be inclined 
to do so but for the fact that they knew the Executive could identify 
them as being inappropriate and, therefore, subject that sponsoring 
legislator to the public scrutiny of having advanced such a proposal.
  But I believe for that deterrence to be effective, there are some 
requirements on the side of the executive branch which were not met in 
this first test of the line-item veto at the Federal level.
  Two of those requirements are, first, no surprises. Neither of these 
projects are new to the Navy, to the Air Force, to the Office of 
Management and Budget, to the White House. These projects represent the 
completion of important previously determined military priorities: 
Mayport as the second naval port on the Atlantic coast; joint training 
of Air Force and naval aviators.
  Therefore, as these two projects moved through the appropriations 
process, there were plenty of opportunities, if it was felt that they 
were going to be subject to veto, to have sent up such a signal. No 
such signal was sent.
  The assumption was, since they had the support of the Department of 
Defense, and they were within the 5-year plan, that they were projects 
that had a time urgency, that they were appropriate.
  In the future, I would urge whoever is the Executive authority to be 
engaged in this process at a much earlier stage to indicate if there 
are some problems and what the nature of those concerns will be. As the 
chairman has indicated, apparently even he did not know what the 
criteria were to be for these projects until after the Congress had 
passed the final bill and sent it to the White House for its 
consideration.
  And the second is that after the bill has gone to the White House, 
and they are looking at these items, if they see an item that they 
believe is a candidate for veto, they owe it to themselves, they owe it 
to the sponsoring individuals and agencies, and they owe it to the 
national objectives which are sought to be achieved to have a frank 
discussion with the parties who are most knowledgeable so that they can 
get the facts.
  I made an effort on both of these projects to educate who I thought 
were the appropriate people. Obviously, my attempt at education was not 
successful. But I am confident that had there been a full opportunity 
to review the facts that I have briefly submitted here this afternoon, 
that the White House would have made a different decision relative to 
these two projects.
  So I think, second, that the White House needs to have the practice 
to bring into the process before the final decision those who are most 
knowledgeable so that never again will it have to issue statements 
that: ``I'm sorry I did this. And I did it out of ignorance.'' 
Ignorance declared is a sign of a person who is ready to enter into 
confession and redemption, but this process is too important to have 
very many confessions and redemptions. We ought to try to be operating 
based on facts and knowledge and the importance to the national 
security of these significant defense items.
  So, Mr. President, with those comments on these two specific 
projects, and a little unsolicited advice to the White House, I urge a 
strong Senate vote in favor of this proposal.
  I hope that our colleagues in the House will follow suit and the 
President will see the wisdom of the line-item veto process in its full 
extension of a dynamic relationship between two equal branches of the 
U.S. Government. Thank you.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have one other scheduled speaker after 
Senator Graham, and then Senator Byrd has requested some time. But I 
ask unanimous consent that the vote on S. 1292 take place at 4:30 this 
afternoon, and reserving 10 minutes for the ranking member of the full 
committee and recognizing Senator Bumpers as the next speaker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Who controls the 
time on this side?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Ten minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I believe I am in control of time, am I not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator 10 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, we are here today debating this issue which was a 
political creation in the beginning. It was a terrible idea and in my 
opinion, plainly unconstitutional. Ronald Reagan was President. He had 
promised the American people he would balance the budget by 1984 after 
he was sworn in in 1981. And in 1984 we did not have a balanced budget. 
On the contrary, deficits were soaring wildly out of control.
  And then we begin to hear and read where the President said, ``Well, 
you can't blame me because, you know, I can't spend a penny that 
Congress doesn't appropriate.'' And I am not going to belabor that 
argument, but the next thing we heard was, ``If only the President 
could pick out all those pork projects and veto them, these deficits 
wouldn't be soaring out of control.''
  First of all, if the President had full line-item veto authority at 
the time, according to most calculations, the amount of dollar savings 
as a result of those vetoes would have been infinitesimal in comparison 
to that staggering deficit. All that line item veto talk was nothing 
but a sheer diversionary tactic in the face of a promise that had not 
been kept.
  And I do not mean to denigrate President Reagan. But that rhetoric 
was the genesis of a very bad idea and in my opinion a patently 
unconstitutional idea.
  I am almost bitter, Mr. President, at the passage of this line item 
veto. The worst thing that can happen to a politician is to allow 
himself to become cynical or bitter, so I will say that I am elated. I 
am elated that this day has come.
  A lot of the people in this body stood and made magnificent speeches 
about how wonderful the line-item veto would be. They declared that 80 
percent of the American people favored the line-item veto. I understand 
that; I took a lot of political heat, along with a lot of people on 
this side of the aisle who stood up against the line item veto. Senator 
Hatfield, who is no longer in the Senate, stood up against

[[Page S11428]]

it, along with a few people on that side of the aisle. We all took 
unbelievable political heat back home because it was wildly popular. 
The people had been led to believe, and they did in fact believe that 
the real problem with the spending habits of Congress was that the 
President did not have the line-item veto. So I don't know how many 
times the line item veto proposal was presented in this body, but I 
promise you I voted no, no, no every time.
  So I am elated today because a lot of the people who got a lot of 
political benefit out of their support for the line item veto are now 
complaining. They are not saying that it was a mistake to pass it in 
the first place. No, they say that the trouble is that the President 
has abused the authority. Regardless of whether the President has 
properly vetoed these items before us today, I am not surprised at 
their protests. This is precisely what we told them they could expect 
if they passed the line-item veto. It is a bad idea, and plainly 
unconstitutional in the way it transfers the power of the purse to the 
President.
  I heard Senator Graham from Florida about his use of the line-item 
veto when he was Governor of Florida. I had the line-item veto when I 
was Governor of Arkansas--and I used it. You know how I used it? I 
would call a legislator down to my office and say, ``You just voted 
against that administration bill, and you have a $250,000 appropriation 
coming for a big project in your district. And I can tell you, that 
sucker's toast unless you get down there and change your vote.'' That 
is what I did.
  One of the arguments we made here was that the President could cow 
virtually any Member of the U.S. Senate with a line-item veto. I do not 
think President Clinton intended to insult Members of this body when he 
vetoed these 34 items, but it was a terrible political mistake.
  Any time you veto bills that affect more than 25 States, you are in 
trouble. I do not think the President was really thinking about that. 
Incidentally, he followed me as Governor of Arkansas. And he used the 
line-item veto pretty extensively when he was Governor. But one of the 
main reasons I object to it is that it gives the President unbelievable 
power over the Members of this body. And I can tell you, the Framers of 
the Constitution never intended for a President to have that kind of 
power. That is the reason they said: The Congress will pass the laws, 
and present them to the President, not item by item, but bill by bill.

  So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say I hope some of my 
colleagues will take this to heart and not trivialize the Constitution. 
It is almost contemptuous the way we treat our Constitution sometimes. 
I have voted for one constitutional amendment since I came to the U.S. 
Senate. That was the Equal Rights Amendment. I am sorry I voted for 
that, because it is not necessary. I have voted ``no'' 37 times on 
constitutional amendments, and ``yes'' once, and I regret that one. 
That is not to say I will never vote for a constitutional amendment, 
obviously. I reserve judgment on that.
  But the thing that chagrins me more than anything else is that every 
time somebody comes up with a cute political idea, they want to put it 
in the Constitution. And I have taken heat on prayer in school and the 
balanced budget amendment and flag burning and term limits, and court-
stripping proposals. I have taken my share of heat on all those things, 
almost every one of which undeniably was political.
  So, as I say, if some of my colleagues--if as many as one colleague 
today is thinking, ``I regret having voted for this thing. I regret 
having voted for something that in my heart I knew was 
unconstitutional,'' I hope those members will think hard about this 
vote. Let me close, Mr. President, by saying that I am going to vote to 
uphold the President's veto. That may sound a little bit perverse, I 
suppose, based on what I have been saying. I do not know all the merits 
of these 34 items. That probably does not speak well for me, but I can 
tell you one thing, if one of them affected Arkansas, I would be voting 
to override it. And this entire package of line item vetoes is going to 
be overwhelmingly overridden by this body. There may not be five votes 
to uphold the President.
  But I will vote to uphold the veto and I will tell you precisely why. 
I want to make it so painful to support the line item veto that when we 
come to our senses and the legislation comes up to repeal the line-item 
veto, that it will be passed 100 to nothing. So the more pain we 
inflict, the more likely that is to occur.
  Ultimately, I think the line item veto will be repealed. I think that 
if Senator Byrd could bring up his line-item veto repeal today, I would 
like to believe it would pass almost 100 to zip. It was a terrible 
idea. And the time has come when the Senate should think better of it.
  I look forward to getting a piece of legislation up here even before 
the Supreme Court strikes it down. I personally believe the Supreme 
Court has very little alternative but to declare this thing 
unconstitutional when it is presented to them by somebody with 
standing.
  So, Mr. President, this is really a happy day for me, now that the 
Senate is addressing this item.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia [Mr. Robb] 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  And I thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia for 
yielding me time because he knows, as I have already alerted him to the 
fact, that I am going to speak against the position that he has taken 
for so long and with such eloquence.
  And as the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas departs, let me 
say, I agree with almost everything he said, save one small part of the 
speech that he just made. And I have joined him in voting against most 
of those other amendments.
  But I rise today to oppose S. 1292 because I believe the credibility 
of the Senate is on the line.
  Just last year, 69 U.S. Senators voted to give the President line-
item veto authority. As a former chief executive who had the line-item 
veto authority, as indeed most Governors have that authority, I 
supported that decision. I did not use it in the way the senior Senator 
from Arkansas used it, but I had the authority. And I support it 
because I believe that only the President has the singular ability to 
reconcile the competing spending interests of all 535 Members of 
Congress and make decisions that will be based on our national 
interests.
  Today, unfortunately, we stand ready to emasculate completely the 
line-item veto authority.
  I realize that many distinguished Members of this body, some of whom 
have been heard today, many of whom have been heard from on previous 
occasions, oppose the line-item veto, and have consistently opposed the 
line-item veto, and indeed believe it is unconstitutional.
  I would concede that it is quite possible that the Supreme Court will 
declare it unconstitutional when they consider it on the merits in a 
suit brought by plaintiffs who have standing to do so. But let's not 
pass a bill disapproving the President's veto of nearly every single 
project he lined out in the military construction appropriations bill.
  What credibility can supporters of the line-item veto have if, in the 
first appropriations bill out of the gate, we vote to disapprove the 
President's action simply because one of our projects is on the list?
  Mr. President, I don't diminish the political difficulty this 
legislation poses for Members who have projects on this list. I have 
three projects on the cancellation list that are in my home State of 
Virginia. Since I believe these projects have merit, I will work to 
fund them in future bills. While I do believe strongly that we need to 
develop some objective criteria for the President to follow when making 
veto decisions, I never thought that the implementation of the line-
item veto would be popular with either the President or Congress.
  What I find objectionable about this legislation is that we didn't 
even try to determine the merits of the President's cancellations 
except for individual Members within their individual States. Instead, 
to maximize political

[[Page S11429]]

support, we gave, in effect, every Senator line-item veto authority in 
reverse--allowing each Member to decide whether appropriations for his 
or her own projects would be restored. The result is that funding for 
34 of the 38 projects vetoed by the President are included in this 
bill.
  Is that what line-item veto supporters had in mind last year? It is 
certainly not what I had in mind, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, quite simply, this legislation is a test of our 
resolve to stick by our decision to impose a measure of fiscal 
discipline on the appropriations process. We gave the President the 
authority. We expected him to use it. Even those who opposed the 
legislation expected him to use it. And he did. I am simply not 
prepared to say that all of the President's actions were totally 
without justification.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this disapproval 
bill. Passage of this bill will increase the deficit and set a 
dangerous precedent that I believe will lead to the emasculation of the 
line-item veto. But most importantly, Mr. President, passage of this 
bill would illustrate once again our own failure to make the tough 
choices, our own failure to be fiscally responsible.
  Mr. President, I am under no illusions about what is going to happen 
in this particular case. But I hope before Senators cast their votes, 
they will think about what it was they thought they were doing when 
they voted for the line-item veto last year and vote in accordance with 
the convictions they had last year when they vote on this bill this 
year.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, with particular thanks 
to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, who knew I was 
going to speak against the legislation, which I know he has so 
eloquently opposed for so very long.
  Mr. STEVENS. I understand the position of the Senator from Virginia, 
but I would like him to consider this: We had $800 million allocated to 
the military construction budget out of the budget agreement that was 
entered into with the President. That still left us $700 million below 
the 1997 level. The action of the President in vetoing 38 projects here 
has removed $287 million from that.
  If this bill does not pass, that money is gone. But not only is it 
gone, the President has announced the 18 he made a mistake on he will 
fund by reprogramming over other money. So the net result of the 
President's veto is an excess of $450 million that is lost from the 
defense budget this year.
  Now, it was a mistake. This was not a line-item veto that made sense. 
It was a sheer mistake. They will not tell us which projects, by the 
way, he made a mistake on. I wonder if the Senator from Virginia knows 
that?
  The net result of not passing this bill will be that almost half a 
billion of the money that we got through the negotiations with the 
President to increase the defense budget will be gone forever, 
including quality-of-life projects, barracks, mess halls, housing. I 
ask the Senator, how can you justify voting for this if you are in 
favor of the line-item veto?
  I was the chairman of the Senate conference on the line-item veto. I 
know the requirements of the line-item veto law. The President did not 
follow it. He did not establish criteria. He announced the criteria 
after--after--after the decision was made.
  In the case of Virginia, as the Senator pointed out, the criteria 
didn't fit the Virginia projects. That was true on 36 of the 38 
projects. Those 36 are in this bill.
  Now, I say to my friend from Virginia, bad facts make bad law. If 
this bill doesn't pass, I guarantee the Senator from Virginia, this 
case will be taken to the courts, and if it is taken to the courts, 
this will be the vehicle that will lead to the destruction of the line-
item veto.
  We are coming at it from different directions, the Senator from 
Virginia and I. I still believe in the line-item veto, but if the 
President's veto is not overridden, I will join the Senator from West 
Virginia in seeking to repeal the line-item veto, because this is 
wrong. This is arrogance, an abuse of power, and it is an overwhelming 
mistake on the part of the executive branch.

  I thank the Senator for listening to me. If the Senator from Virginia 
wishes to have time to respond, I yield from our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to respond very 
briefly to my friend and colleague and the distinguished senior Senator 
from Alaska, for whom I have enormous respect.
  I suggest two things: No. 1, that I share the concern about the 
imperfect process that was followed in this particular instance. I have 
shared my concerns directly with the White House, and I hope we will 
not have a repeat of the lack of prior consultation, et cetera. So I am 
not in disagreement with that particular aspect.
  But the matter of how many dollars are actually involved is not the 
issue, as far as I'm concerned. It is the principle. If we believe that 
the President ought to have this particular authority because we 
believe only a President can reconcile all of the disparate interests 
of 535 Members of Congress who may have an interest in a project that 
may not have true national interest, then we have given him the 
authority to veto that particular item, and given us an opportunity to 
override it.
  If this particular legislation were designed to collect only those 
about which there was agreement or only those individual projects which 
we could consider on their merit, I might well support the 
distinguished Senator's bill.
  My objection with this legislation is that we have, in effect, taken 
every single request by any Senator who asked to have one of the items 
that was vetoed included in this bill and said, ``We are going to, in 
one single bill, notwithstanding whatever merit or lack of merit may be 
evident in these particular items, we are going to tell the President 
he can't do that.'' I simply disagree.
  Second, I disagree with the principle that if you are for the line-
item veto in principle but can't stand the heat when it applies to a 
project in your particular district, then, indeed, you ought not to be 
for the line-item veto.
  I would not argue with the basic premise of the Senator's remarks 
that if the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia's 
legislation to repeal the line-item veto were offered again today, that 
it might well garner overwhelming support, although I am in a position 
to suggest that it might not be unanimous.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is no Alaska project that was eliminated by the 
President.
  Second, the difficulty that I really have with what the Senator has 
said is the line-item veto was intended to eliminate waste or projects 
that would lead to a deficit. We asked for the list. Can the Senator 
now tell me what 18 or 19 projects the President made a mistake on? Can 
he give us a list? We never got a list. We have 36 to 38 projects in 
this bill--because we never got a list from the White House as to what 
projects the President admitted were erroneously line-item vetoed.
  Mr. ROBB. If the Senator will yield to respond on that particular 
matter, Mr. President, I remind the distinguished Senator from Alaska 
that I could not agree with him more. I think it is wrong.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona, with whom I discussed the 
problem earlier, that we ought to establish clear criteria, and those 
criteria ought to be made known to those who would be affected by them, 
as well as all the rest of the Members of this body.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. While the distinguished Senator from Virginia is on the 
floor, I disagree with the Senator in suggesting that we all ought to 
enter into some kind of an agreement with the White House as to what 
the criteria ought to be in applying the line-item veto. I think if we 
do that, we are further legitimizing what is an illegitimate end run 
around the Constitution. I'm not for entering into such agreements 
concerning criteria.
  While I have the floor, I am not supporting this measure because it 
has an item in it that was wrongfully vetoed by the President and 
because that item is now included in this resolution. I'm supporting it 
because I think the administration was arbitrary and capricious in 
exercising the line-item veto

[[Page S11430]]

in the way it used it. That is why I have said that Senators can vote 
for this resolution even though they support the line-item veto. A vote 
for this resolution doesn't mean they support the line-item veto, nor 
does it mean they are against the line-item veto.
  It says that Senators believe that the administration, in applying 
the line-item veto, acted capriciously, acted arbitrarily, acted 
without justification, acted without a credible basis. That is what 
Senators are voting on. That is why I hope they will all vote for the 
resolution.
  May I say to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, don't count me 
in when it comes to helping the administration to establish criteria by 
which it will apply this infernal, nefarious line-item veto.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I simply acknowledge that no one has been 
more eloquent or consistent in their position that this is not 
appropriate legislation. From the very time that I entered this body I 
have known that the distinguished Senator, who was then chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, felt that this was not a proper allocation of 
power under the Constitution, that it should be reserved for the 
legislative body. It was not appropriate to give this to the executive 
branch.
  We have a disagreement on that matter in terms of the distribution of 
power, but as to the interpretation of the Constitution, I suspect that 
the Court will probably ultimately verify or validate the distinguished 
Senator's views and this debate may be moot.
  My concern today, and I accept the Senator's view that nothing in 
West Virginia is included, but I am concerned if there were 69 of us, 
if that indeed is the count, who were willing to vote for the line-item 
veto and now come back simply because there is an item in our States 
and say we are against it because it happened to gore the ox in our 
pasture, then we are not maintaining the kind of principle that most 
Members of this legislative branch believe in in all the other dealings 
they take part in.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am not willing to assume that the 
President has a monopoly on wisdom. I have represented the people of 
West Virginia now for 51 years in one office or another. I think I have 
a pretty good idea of what they need, what they want, and so on.
  But in this particular instance, the item that was vetoed for West 
Virginia was on the Department of Defense's 5-year plan.
  He vetoed the item that would have been in West Virginia, and I say, 
let's give it right back to him by his own criteria. He made a mistake 
in vetoing it. I say let's put it right back on the President's desk, 
let him exercise his constitutional veto, and then let the Congress 
exercise its constitutional option of either overriding that veto or 
sustaining it.
  I have sat right here and listened to three former Governors talk 
about the line-item veto. What is beyond my comprehension is how 
Senators can confuse the so-called line-item veto at the State level 
with the line-item veto at the Federal level. They are two different 
spheres of action. The distinguished Senator from Florida, the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia, and the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas, all three of whom are former Governors, came from States that 
have the line-item veto. Well, so what? As Governors, they were acting 
under the constitutions of the State of Virginia, the State of Florida, 
and the State of Arkansas. But now they are operating under the aegis 
of the United States Constitution. They are two different things. I 
don't find the constitution of the State of Virginia written into the 
U.S. Constitution. I don't find the constitution of the State of 
Florida written into the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution 
refers to legislative powers ``vested in a Congress of the United 
States.''
  Mr. ROBB. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. ROBB. With all due respect to the distinguished senior Senator 
from West Virginia, that is the reason that we are proposing, proposed, 
and have effected the line-item veto, and propose it as a 
constitutional amendment, recognizing that the Constitution of the 
United States did not grant this power to the President that it grants 
to 40-some Governors and their respective States.
  Mr. BYRD. We are talking about two different powers. We are talking 
about the powers that the 47 Governors have, dealing with the so-called 
line-item veto. Those are powers under their State constitutions. But 
the Senator from Virginia is no longer a Governor; he is a Senator. The 
Senator from Florida is not a Governor any longer, and he is not to be 
governed in his actions here by the constitution of the State of 
Florida; he is to be governed here by the oath he took to support and 
defend the U.S. Constitution--not the constitution of the State of West 
Virginia, not the constitution of the State of Virginia, but the United 
States Constitution. That is the Constitution by which we are governed 
here.
  The line of demarcation, the line of separation of powers, the line 
of checks and balances is more strictly delineated at the Federal 
level. It is more strictly drawn, more finely drawn at the Federal 
level than it is at the State level.
  Mr. ROBB. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, without the power to amend, this Senator 
will observe that we would not have had the Bill of Rights, much less 
the other amendments to the Constitution. So there is a procedure that 
is set forth for subsequent generations to reconsider the wisdom of the 
Founding Fathers, and it appears that the Founding Fathers accepted the 
fact that there might have to be some changes even in their seminal 
document, the Constitution.
  I don't intend to continue the debate, Mr. President, with the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I understand his point 
of view. I respect him and I respect him for it. I expect that this 
particular bill will probably achieve something in excess of 95 votes. 
So I am not sure that we need to protract the debate on this particular 
issue.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't intend to protract the debate. But I 
agree that if this is going to be done, if we are going to have the 
line-item veto, let it be done the way the framers provided that it be 
done; namely, through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not by 
statute. I don't think we can do it by law. I do hope that the High 
Court of the United States will uphold the contention that I am making 
and will strike this infernal and nefarious law dead, dead, dead!

  I thank the distinguished Senator. How much time does the Senator 
from New Mexico need?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will ask for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 5 minutes. I believe the Senator from 
New York wants 5 minutes also, and I will yield him that time when he 
comes in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me talk separately about two issues. 
One is this Senate resolution disapproving the cancellations that were 
transmitted by the President resulting in this S. 1292.
  Let me first indicate the reasons that I support the resolution, and 
then I will say a few things about the line-item veto issue, the larger 
issue that the Senator and others have been discussing here. First, I 
do support the legislation, S. 1292, for the simple reason that I 
believe the administration acted to cancel worthy projects on the basis 
of erroneous information and that it is our duty in the Congress to 
override that decision if we have the votes to do that. The 
administration has admitted as much to us in a statement that we 
received today, and the President continues to insist that he will not 
allow the passage of this resolution to be signed into law.
  At a minimum, I believe that if this override effort proves 
unsuccessful, the administration owes it to the military personnel in 
the country and to their families and to those of us in Congress to 
ensure that there is funding provided for the projects that were 
incorrectly included in the President's line-item veto package. The 
Senate received a statement from the administration today indicating 
that some military construction projects that the President vetoed were 
canceled on the basis of erroneous information. Mr.

[[Page S11431]]

President, that is exactly what happened on the two projects that I am 
most familiar with, the two in New Mexico. The project at Kirtland Air 
Force Base and White Sands Range.
  In both of those cases, we had information from the Department of 
Defense indicating that those projects had been substantially designed, 
and they were ready to be executed in this fiscal year, and as such, 
they did not meet this criteria that the President has indicated he 
used and the Office of Management and Budget used in deciding which 
items to line-item veto.
  In fact, I had a conversation with Franklin Raines, head of the 
Office of Management and Budget, on the day that the decision was 
announced by the President, and I discussed with him the information we 
have received from the Department of Defense and how it conflicted with 
the information that he had which he was urging the President to use in 
making the decision.
  So I am persuaded that the decision as to those two projects was 
based on erroneous information. I believe, based on what the President 
has indicated in his letter to us, that the decisions on many other 
projects were also based on erroneous information. So I believe it is 
in our best interest and it is our duty, in fact, to go ahead and pass 
this legislation. I intend to vote for it.
  Let me say a couple words about the line-item veto itself. I am not 
one who supported the line-item veto legislation. I opposed it for many 
of the reasons that the Senator from West Virginia has articulated so 
well here on the Senate floor. First of all, I don't believe it is good 
policy. I think the Founding Fathers had it right when they determined 
that this was not a power that should be granted to the President, and 
so I support the basic structure that was put into our Constitution.
  Second, if we were going to try to enact some type of line-item veto 
and grant that authority to the President, it cannot be done by 
statute; we would have to amend the Constitution. We would have to go 
through the very elaborate procedure set up in the Constitution to 
amend the Constitution. Clearly, that was not done in this legislation.
  Let me also say that all the debate over the last several years in 
the Congress about the line-item veto has been an effort to describe it 
as something which was needed in order to impose fiscal responsibility 
on the Government. My experience here in the Congress has led me to 
conclude that fiscal irresponsibility is just as much a result of 
action in the executive branch as it is a result of action here in the 
Congress. There are many instances where those of us in Congress are 
fiscally irresponsible. I have witnessed that on many occasions. But I 
have also witnessed many examples where the executive branch and the 
President in the budget sent to the Congress were also fiscally 
irresponsible. So I don't think the case has been made that fiscal 
irresponsibility is just a province of the Congress.
  I do believe we should pass this resolution. I believe that the 
Supreme Court, when it gets the opportunity, will declare the 
legislation that enacts the line-item veto to be unconstitutional. I 
believe the issue will be back before us at that time to see whether we 
want to do a constitutional amendment. I will urge my colleagues not to 
do a constitutional amendment at that time.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President. I appreciate the time.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 12 minutes 37 seconds, plus 
10 minutes to close, which has been allocated separately. The minority 
has used up all their time, but they still have 10 minutes to close.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield such time to the Senator from Texas, from my 12 
minutes, as she wishes to use.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified if I go over 
5 minutes, which I don't expect to do.
  Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Stevens' putting this bill 
forward, along with Senator Burns, because I think this is exactly the 
way the process should work. I am, frankly, puzzled by some of my 
colleagues who are arguing that they aren't going to vote for this bill 
because they voted for the line-item veto. I voted for the line-item 
veto. This is exactly the way the process should work. The President 
vetoes, and the Congress does not take away its right to disagree with 
the President. The Congress has not taken away its right to override. 
In fact, that is part of the process. That is the way it is supposed to 
work.
  I don't accuse the President of partisanship. I think he has vetoed 
projects that he probably considers were not worthy in States and 
districts represented by Republicans and Democrats. But I do think the 
President is wrong. I think the President did not have the facts 
straight, and I think he has vetoed essential projects that the 
military has asked for, and I think we need to override this veto. In 
fact, the President vetoed these measures that are operational. Let me 
just read you a couple of examples: A repair of the launch facilities 
for missile systems in White Sands, NM; to expand ammunition supply 
facilities at Fort Bliss; consolidation of B-1B squadron operations 
facilities.
  These are projects the military has said are essential. They are in 
the military 5-year plan. The reason they weren't in the President's 
budget is because the President always comes in below Congress in the 
military budget. Congress believes the military has certain needs for 
our readiness, and Congress has increased the President's budget every 
year since I have been here. So it is not unusual that the President 
would not have in his budget some of the needs that Congress believes 
are essential. In fact, the President left in many military 
construction projects at NATO facilities that are exactly the same type 
of facilities that he vetoed on American bases.
  So I think this is exactly the kind of override that the process 
calls for. The President did not have his facts. The Department of 
Defense admits that their data was not up to date. The military asked 
for these projects. They are very important for readiness. And I think 
it is time for us to exercise our rights as Congress to override the 
President's veto, not because we think he was sinister in what he was 
trying to do but because we think he was wrong.
  It is Congress' prerogative to do this. I think it is important that 
we stand by the needs for the military that we have studied and that we 
believe are necessary, and that we stand by what we did and override 
the President's veto.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from New York 
when he comes. I know he wants to make a statement.
  But the Senator from Texas has just made the point that I have been 
trying to make. This is the process of the Line-Item Veto Act. It is 
the first time we have attempted to use it. This is the override 
mechanism that is provided by that act, and it was provided by Congress 
because mistakes could be made. In this instance we now know that 
mistakes were made.
  The statement came to us today from the Office of Management and 
Budget that admits there was erroneous material given to the President 
on which they matched against the criteria that they had used under the 
Line-Item Veto Act to determine whether any projects should be 
eliminated. We asked for the list of those projects.
  My staff tells me we still have not received the ones that mistakes 
were made on. We have no alternative under the circumstances than to 
include them all. There are two here that are not included because of 
the specific requests of the States involved not to have their projects 
involved. But the administration has now clearly said on the record 
that there were mistakes made.
  The veto message, as I said, violates the spirit and intent of the 
balanced budget amendment.
  That again is why the override mechanism is in the act. This action 
taken by the administration does not comply with the act. We have a way 
of saying to the Presidency we intended that money be spent, and we 
want it spent for these projects.
  Let's look at this criteria again that the administration used.
  It set forth three criteria, one of which was that the project had to 
be in the President's budget by definition. In this instance, that was 
an erroneous

[[Page S11432]]

criteria because the Presidency had agreed to increase the amount of 
money that was in the President's budget for defense by $2.6 billion. 
In the budget agreement that was worked out with leadership. Of that 
$2.6 billion, $800 million of that was allocated to military 
construction. Nothing came forward from the administration that 
indicated that it had any desire to decide where that money went.
  So our committee allocated the money. In allocating it, we gave money 
to these 38 projects. Our criteria was they had to be projects that the 
military supported. We had a hearing after the line-item veto took 
place. At that hearing the military witnesses stated that every project 
on the list was supported by the Department of Defense military people. 
They were essential to the program. And I believe all but five were in 
the long-range program. The other five were covered by changes in 
circumstances since the long-range 5-year program was devised. But they 
were specifically supported by the military witnesses.
  The criteria that the Presidency used to determine whether to apply 
the line-item veto does not stand up to the scrutiny of this Congress.
  I am corrected about one thing. One of the criteria was that no 
design work had been done. The impact of that is that again there were 
projects where the information was erroneous that was received by the 
White House. These projects were in fact underway and could be 
completed in the next fiscal year.
  I thank you for telling me about that.
  But the problem of the criteria is they were not designed to find 
projects that were wasteful, or would increase the deficit.
  In this instance, I failed to point out that since we obtained the 
increase in money allocated to our committee for defense we looked into 
the long-range program, and we brought up into the 1998 year years that 
are in the long-range program but were specified to commence at a later 
time. We did that because some money had already been allocated to 
those projects by the Department of Defense, and those projects could 
be more efficiently completed if money was available this year.
  My point is these are not wasteful projects. No one can claim that 
there any one of these projects that meets the criteria of the Line-
Item Veto Act will increase the deficit. By definition they are within 
this budget. They are within the amount that the administration agreed 
could be spent this year for defense. And, second, they are not by 
definition wasteful.
  Those are the two criteria of the Line-Item Veto Act. The President 
can use the Line-Item Veto Act to eliminate wasteful projects, or 
projects that would increase the deficit. Neither apply to any one of 
the 38 projects.
  Under the circumstances, Mr. President, having allocated $800 million 
to military construction, what we find now, as I said just a little 
while ago, is a line-item veto eliminates $287 million from the $800 
million which was part of the $2.6 billion overall increase for 
defense. The line-item veto eliminated 35 percent of the money we put 
into projects to use the increased amount which was available for 
military construction. That means right now that if the administration 
goes forward with what is stated in this announcement today from OMB 
that Senator Byrd has read, they will reprogram money from other 
projects that have already been approved by the Presidency and move it 
over to the 18 in which the mistakes were made.
  What does that do to the rest of the budget? It means that we are 
paying twice. We have lost the $287 million, if this bill does not 
pass. And, in addition to that, they are going to take somewhere in the 
vicinity of $175 million. We believe it will be $450 million not spent 
for needed projects, if this bill is not passed.
  Mr. President, this is the mechanism. That is why I say I will 
support and, as a matter of fact, introduce a bill to repeal the act, 
if this mechanism doesn't work. If there is any example where it should 
work, it is this one. It is admitted that there are 18 projects on 
which they made mistakes. They refused to tell us which ones.
  I don't know how to handle this when people say you can't do this 
because this violates the spirit of the Line-Item Veto Act. This is the 
spirit of the Line-Item Veto Act. And I urge Senators who supported the 
line-item veto to consider that. If this mechanism is ever to work, 
this is the point where it should work. If it won't work in this one 
there is no reason to support this act anymore, in my opinion, because 
this is really the worst example I could think of a situation where 
information provided to the President leads the President to line-item 
veto items that were eliminated by mistake.
  Another avenue, of course, is for this to go to court. If it goes to 
court, and the court finds in the final analysis that the line-item 
veto is unconstitutional, which is what my good friend from West 
Virginia says, then the money will be restored thereto.
  But let's see if the mechanism works. There are already some court 
challenges. I don't see any reason to have another court challenge to 
the Line-Item Veto Act. The Senate and the House ought to do its duty 
on this and the duty is to try to remedy the mistake that was made when 
the line-item veto was wrongfully exercised in connection with these 38 
projects.
  Mr. President, I don't see anyone else seeking time.
  I ask how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes for the majority, and 
there are 10 minutes remaining for the minority prior to the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Sarbanes, the distinguished senior 
Senator from Maryland, is coming to the floor and he wants 5 minutes. I 
wish to have the Chair alert me when I have remaining 5 minutes. In the 
meantime, may I address a question to the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska?
  In the statement of administration policy, we are told, and I quote, 
``The administration strongly opposes this disapproval bill.''
  Well, if I understand it, the administration is willing to work with 
the Congress in restoring half of these items; half of the items. I 
cannot understand how it can disapprove the bill when it is willing to 
restore half of the items that are in the disapproval bill.
  Also, the statement of administration policy that comes from the 
Office of Management and Budget says, ``The President's action saves 
$287 million in budget authority in 1998.''
  In the very next sentence, it says, ``* * * 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.''
  How much is the President's action really saving? He claims to save 
$287 million by virtue of the exercise of the line-item veto. But he 
follows in the next sentence, and says, ``* * * we are committed to 
working with Congress to restore funding * * *''
  How much really can the administration claim to have saved?
  Mr. STEVENS. It would be very hard, Mr. President, to figure out the 
net amount. The actual savings would be determined by how much of the 
projects fall into this year by reprogramming and then how much more 
money has to be requested next year to pay for the money that is spent 
for the projects that had been delayed because of the transfer of the 
money to these projects. I believe that the net will be that there will 
be $450 million less this year. But I do believe it will increase the 
cost of defense in later years because of the fact that these projects 
have been deferred and other projects will be deferred in order to pay 
for the 18 according to that document.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask that it be charged equally to both sides; charge the first 2 
minutes to mine, and then bring it down.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have time remaining. I yield to the 
Senator

[[Page S11433]]

from New York such time as he wishes, and I reserve the remainder of 
the time to be equally divided between the Senator from West Virginia 
and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would very much like to thank the 
senior Senator from Alaska, the Chairman, for the graciousness with 
which he has yielded to me. I will not take long.
  I want to acknowledge that I am a cosponsor of this legislation. And 
in the interest of full disclosure, I will say there are two small 
projects in New York State that would be affected. But the proposition 
to be addressed once again, as the senior Senator from West Virginia 
has said, is that the Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional, and we 
are already beginning to see the constitutional consequences, the 
extraordinary increase in the power of the Presidency as against the 
legislature that is implicit in the newly enhanced bargaining position 
of the President.
  If you want to change this power, which is very carefully set forth 
in article I of the Constitution, then amend the Constitution. But, 
Senators, listen to Senator Byrd. Listen, if I might just presume to 
say, to Justice John Paul Stevens. In the course of our challenge, 
which reached the Supreme Court last June, the Justices simply said, 
well, they don't have standing. However, in a powerful dissent, Justice 
Stevens, who was the only Justice to comment directly on the merits of 
the case, said they surely do have standing. He wrote of the Act:

       If the procedure were valid, it would deny every Senator 
     and every Representative any opportunity to vote for or 
     against the truncated measure that survives the exercise of 
     the President's cancellation authority. Because the 
     opportunity to cast such votes is a right guaranteed by the 
     text of the Constitution, I think it clear that the persons 
     who are deprived of that right by the Act have standing to 
     challenge its constitutionality. Moreover, because the 
     impairment of that constitutional right has an immediate 
     impact on their official powers, in my judgment they need not 
     wait until after the President has exercised his cancellation 
     authority to bring suit. Finally, the same reason that the 
     respondents have standing provides a sufficient basis for 
     concluding that the statute is unconstitutional.

  Again, Justice Stevens said, not only do they have standing but the 
measure is unconstitutional. Two Federal judges have spoken to this 
issue: Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia--who took just 3 weeks from having heard the case 
to declare it unconstitutional--and then Justice Stevens.
  I can report that three new constitutional challenges have recently 
been filed and now consolidated, I believe is the term, in the District 
Court, and we will hear from the Supreme Court before this term is out, 
I should think.
  But in the first instance remember that the large issue here is that 
of the Constitution. We take an oath to uphold and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic. I had never thought, Mr. President, when I first took that 
oath that there were any ``domestic'' enemies to the Constitution, but 
now as I look about us, I recall that celebrated immortal line from 
Pogo: ``We have met the enemy and he is us.''
  Now, there will be time to overcome that. For the moment I simply 
wish to thank the Senator from Alaska, the distinguished chairman, for 
an opportunity to express my view on this subject.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each manager has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. Each side has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Could I get 3 minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes. That will leave how much 
time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Two minutes to each side.
  Mr. BYRD. Two minutes to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from 
Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the 
pending measure overriding the line-item vetoes of the military 
construction appropriations bill.
  During last year's debate on the line-item veto legislation, I spoke 
at length--and I do not intend to do that again today--on how giving 
that authority to the President would strike a major blow against the 
intricate, carefully conceived system of checks and balances that the 
Framers of the Constitution crafted over 200 years ago and that has 
stood the Nation in such good stead ever since.
  With the line-item veto authority, the President needs only one-third 
plus one of either House of Congress, not even both Houses of Congress 
but either House, to negate legislation that the Congress has passed 
and the President has signed--I repeat, legislation that the Congress 
has passed and the President has signed. Then, after that process, the 
President can go back in and pull out those items he wants to cancel.
  In my view, giving such authority to the President cannot be done by 
statute, and I believe that the measure we passed last year is 
constitutionally deficient. I trust when it is finally determined by 
the courts they will agree. In the meantime, of course, we have to deal 
with the legislation.
  Furthermore, I simply want to point out that as a matter of policy, 
the line-item veto gives the Executive extraordinary power to determine 
the priorities of the Nation and to use that power, if he chooses to do 
so, to pressure Members of Congress on a whole range of other 
legislative issues. In other words, the Member is told, well, here is 
this item in this bill that is very important to your State, but on 
other matters on which I need your support--nominations, treaties, you 
name it.
  A Member of Congress is then under tremendous pressure to support the 
President's priorities. That is clearly not the arrangement the 
Founding Fathers envisioned when they established a system based on a 
sharing of policymaking authority between the legislative and the 
executive branches of Government.
  The Congress of the United States is distinguished amongst 
legislative branches in the world because it has some real measure of 
power and authority. This line-item veto approach is, in my judgment, 
well on its way to eroding that status.
  Some asserted during last year's debate that the line-item veto was 
necessary as a deficit-reduction mechanism. The response from many of 
us was that to reduce the deficit the Congress need only make the right 
budget decisions, which in fact we have done as demonstrated by the 
dramatic decline in the budget deficit.
  I am sure that many of my colleagues who voted for the line-item veto 
last year are having second thoughts after having seen it in action. In 
fact, the President's use of the line-item veto here does not even 
track the criteria which the executive branch itself said it was going 
to use in applying it.
  I welcome this opportunity to join in the effort to undo the 
President's use of that authority. However, my colleagues should 
realize that as long as this legislation remains on the books, we will 
be back here time and time again waging an uphill battle against the 
Chief Executive seeking to impose his set of priorities on the Congress 
and the Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield back whatever time remains 
to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes equally divided.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators who have spoken 
on this important matter. I thank those who take the position contrary 
to the position I have taken. I appreciate the opportunity to close the 
debate on this matter along with my dear friend, the Senator from 
Alaska [Mr. Stevens].
  Mr. President, Cato, the Elder, lived between the years 234 B.C. and 
149 B.C. He was a great Roman statesman, and he once went to Carthage 
and viewed the operations of the Carthaginians and saw the progress 
they were making in building a prosperous regime and one that had 
considerable warmaking power. Cato brought back to the Roman Senate 
some figs that had grown in Carthage just to demonstrate the fact that 
Carthage was ``not very far away, gentlemen. This is a country you had 
better keep your eye on. You

[[Page S11434]]

had better watch these people. They are growing stronger every day and 
they don't live very far away, as evidenced by these fresh figs from 
Carthage.''
  And, indeed, that great statesman, Cato, the Elder, henceforth closed 
every speech, every communication, every letter, with the words, 
``Carthage must be destroyed!'' I shall close this speech now and 
perhaps some future ones with the words, ``The line-item veto must be 
repealed!''
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is always a pleasure to be in the 
Chamber with the Senator from West Virginia. But mine is a more mundane 
task right now, and that is to try to get the Senate to understand that 
this is the process provided by the Line-Item Veto Act. If it is not 
followed, the defense budget per se and the military construction 
budget in general will be lowered. If we pass this act and it becomes 
law, the President still has control over these projects. He has 
already reprogrammed money for military projects for Bosnia. Next 
spring we will face another problem of paying for Bosnia. But should we 
let $450 million go astray here now because of mistakes? I regret that 
the mistakes were made, but I hope the Senate doesn't make another one. 
This bill should be overwhelmingly passed to tell the Presidency the 
line-item veto is a very discrete mechanism and it must be used with 
care. Above all, its use cannot be based on mistakes.
  I ask for the yeas and nays if they have not been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass? On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 287 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--30

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Nickles
     Robb
     Sessions
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coats
       
  The bill (S. 1292) was passed, as follows:

                                S. 1292

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     Congress disapproves of cancellations 97-4, 97-5, 97-6, 97-7, 
     97-8, 97-9, 97-10, 97-11, 97-12, 97-13, 97-14, 97-15, 97-16, 
     97-17, 97-18, 97-19, 97-20, 97-21, 97-22, 97-23, 97-24, 97-
     25, 97-26, 97-27, 97-28, 97-29, 97-30, 97-32, 97-33, 97-34, 
     97-35, 97-36, 97-37, 97-38, 97-39, and 97-40, as transmitted 
     by the President in a special message on October 6, 1997, 
     regarding Public Law 105-45.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________