Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)

[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

____________________