[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H358-H362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DISAPPROVING THE CANCELLATIONS TRANSMITTED BY PRESIDENT ON OCTOBER 6, 
 1997, REGARDING PUBLIC LAW 105-45--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF 
                           THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of the veto 
message and the bill (H.R. 2631) disapproving the cancellations 
transmitted by the President on October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 
105-45, from the President of the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of November 13, 1997, 
Part II, at page H10942.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
2631) disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on 
October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-45.
  The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) for purposes of debate only, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the veto message and the bill, H.R. 2631, from the President 
of the United States, and that they may include tabular and extraneous 
materials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?

[[Page H359]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge all Members to vote to 
override the President's veto of H.R. 2631, a bill disapproving the 
President's line item vetoes of the Military Construction 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I do this for three simple reasons. First, in his first-
ever use of the line-item veto on an appropriations bill, the President 
used this new power in this instance carelessly and casually without 
doing his home work. The administration did not even consult with the 
Pentagon.
  The administration admitted making several mistakes. The President 
said he would correct these mistakes by putting these projects in the 
fiscal year 1999 budget. Well, we have just received the fiscal year 
1999 budget, and only one of the 38 projects that he line-item vetoed 
was put in his budget proposal, so he has not corrected his mistake. We 
simply want to make those corrections today.
  Second, according to the Pentagon, all of these projects are 
executable and address valid and military requirements. By executable, 
I mean they are executable in this fiscal year. In fact, we ran all of 
these projects through the Defense Department and not one raised any 
objections.
  Nearly all of these projects are in the Pentagon's 5-year plan. Each 
of these 38 project were scrubbed very carefully by our subcommittee.

                              {time}  1315

  Finally, all of these projects were approved by the authorizing 
committee and fall well within the budget limits set by Congress. There 
is absolutely no wasteful spending. In fact, Members should all know 
that spending on military construction has been reduced significantly 
every year for the past 3 years, an 18 percent cut in the past 2 years 
from $11 billion to $9 billion.
  We gave the President the line item veto power and authority to use 
judiciously. I still support the President having that power, and 
whether my colleagues support the President having the authority or 
not, they should not support the misuse of that authority. A vote today 
to override is not only a vote for our men and women in uniform, it is 
a vote to ensure that the line item veto is used fairly, carefully and 
responsibly in the future.
  Last September, 413 of us here in this body voted for these projects 
when the conference report came to the floor; 352 of us voted to 
disapprove the President's line item veto of the 38 projects. That vote 
was last November 7. Nothing has changed. There is no reason for anyone 
to change their vote from aye. I urge every Member to restore these 
quality of life projects to our men and women and families in the 
military service by voting aye on this override resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a first for this committee. We have worked very diligently in 
the past years when I was the chairman of the committee and we worked 
with staff. The staff did a tremendous job. We had hearings. We had 
people come in from all of the services, and we worked together as a 
bipartisan group to put together what we thought were bills over the 
past years that were in the best interest of our men and women in 
service.
  We have had to fight some difficult battles because our budget has 
been shrunk, and we have actually been in free fall for a few years, 
and we are not even up to what we were several years ago. It is a 
little bit disappointing that the President and the folks down at the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue would be looking for some things to 
scratch in this bill. I think they are absolutely misguided in their 
direction on our bill.
  Some of the folks said that these were not already designed, but most 
of these projects could be completed, they are in the 5-year plan. Not 
everything has to be a certain percentage designed because some of them 
are off of the shelf, and they can be implemented right away. They are 
all good projects. They have been considered by four committees, and 
they all have a contribution to our national defense.
  I spoke against and was totally opposed to the line item veto because 
I do not think it serves democracy very well. And so the Members that 
would say, I voted for the line item veto and I cannot very well go 
back on my vote, if they read this bill and if they look at the things 
that it does, when they voted for the line item veto, they did not take 
a blood oath that anything that was vetoed that they would go along 
with. That is not the way our democracy works.
  This is a good bill. It has been well thought out. The staff did a 
tremendous job along with the other body. It is a bipartisan bill and 
has absolutely, to our knowledge, it has absolutely no errors in it. Of 
course that would be speaking a little bit presumptuously to say that 
there are no errors, but this is a good bill. Everybody in this House 
should vote to override this veto. I would ask that Members give us 
their vote on overriding the President's line item veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues, I rise in the 
strongest support for this vote to override the President's veto. This 
is both a pro-defense and a pro-line item veto vote that we are going 
to be casting.
  As the chief proponent and the author of the line item veto, and I 
believe very strongly in it, the line item veto was written to give any 
President, regardless of party, the authority to highlight questionable 
spending provisions in omnibus bills in his judgment. Likewise the law 
was written specifically to protect Congress's ability to defend its 
spending decisions and priorities by providing for expedited 
consideration of bills to disapprove of the President's actions and, if 
subsequently vetoed, to use the constitutional process to override that 
veto.
  This is stage four in the line item veto process. First Congress 
passed the military construction appropriations bill. Second, the 
President exercised his line item veto authority to cancel 38 
provisions from that bill. Third, the House and Senate voted 352 to 64 
and 69 to 30 respectively for a bill disapproving the cancellations. 
Today we reach stage four in the process.
  Let me just say this to my colleagues. The reason they need to come 
over here and vote to override this veto is this: We wrote the line 
item veto so that any items that are vetoed and those vetoes stand, it 
takes away from the overall appropriation. In other words, we reduce 
the amount of money we are going to spend on our defense budget. That 
has already reached the low figure of 15 cents on every dollar.
  The reason that we are here today in this Congress is to provide for 
the common defense for our 50 States. That is the main reason we are 
here, and we are close to going back to 1979 when we had to cannibalize 
15 helicopter gunships just to get five that would work. And then three 
of those failed, and so did the rescue of our hostages. Let us not go 
back there. Let us come over here and vote to override this veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this vote to override the 
President's veto of the Military Construction Appropriations 
disapproval bill, pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act.
  This is both a pro-defense and a pro-line item veto vote.
  As a chief proponent of the line item veto in the House and as 
Chairman of one of the Committees charged with oversight over that law, 
I believe such an action would be fully consistent with the intent of 
the line item veto.
  The line item veto was written to give any President, regardless of 
party, the authority to highlight questionable spending provisions in 
omnibus bills.
  Likewise, the law protects Congress' ability to defend its spending 
decisions and priorities by providing for expedited consideration of 
bills to disapprove of the President's actions and if subsequently 
vetoed to use the Constitutional process to override that veto.
  This is stage four in the Line Item Veto Process. First, Congress 
passed the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for FY 1998. 
Second, the President exercised his line item veto authority to cancel 
38 provisions from that bill.
  Third, the House and Senate voted 352-64 and 69-30 respectively for a 
bill disapproving

[[Page H360]]

those cancellations last November. Today we reach stage four in the 
process. As provided in the Constitution, Congress can override the 
veto of such canceled provisions with a two-thirds vote of both Houses.
  Indeed the fact that this measure is on the floor of the House today 
demonstrates that the line item veto process works and that Congress' 
Constitutional prerogatives are protected.
  Under the line item veto, any canceled dollars are dedicated to 
deficit reduction, as the spending cap for the affected bill is lowered 
by the value of the cancellations. In this particular instance the 
spending ceilings for defense programs would be reduced by $287 
million.
  However, if these provisions are overridden total defense spending 
would not be reduced. This is the 13th straight year of inflation-
adjusted cuts in the defense budget. No other major account in the 
entire federal budget has been reduced by this much.
  Consequently, it is imperative that we maintain the current level of 
defense spending to ensure that we equip our uniformed men and women 
with the best that money can buy and that research and development can 
obtain.
  Congress can agree with granting the President line item veto 
authority while disagreeing with how that authority is exercised.
  This is clearly the case here today. Each member is able to look at 
each cancellation individually and decide for themselves whether or not 
to vote to override the President's action.
  The line item veto law provides Members that opportunity and I am 
proud to stand here today with my colleagues in casting a strong vote 
in favor of overriding the President's veto. This is a yes vote for our 
national defense and a yes vote for the line item veto.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies.
  (Mr. Skeen asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I support the override of the President's 
veto.
  I rise in support of the override of the President's veto of H.R. 
2631, the military construction line-item disapproval bill.
  Passage of this legislation is necessary to correct the mistakes that 
were made during the President's vetoes of 38 projects included in the 
bill which passed the House by a wide margin last year.
  I thank the leadership for allowing this bill to come to the floor, 
and I am especially grateful to Chairman Packard and Mr. Hefner for 
their work in sheperding this legislation.
  This bill has been called by several of my colleagues as the 
``military construction line item integrity bill,'' since this 
legislation restores integrity to the line-item veto process by 
ensuring that decisions are made on the basis of facts, not mistakes.
  The Office of Management and Budget has acknowledged that mistakes 
were made which led to the President's line-item vetoes, and passage of 
this legislation would allow those mistakes to be corrected.
  This bill has broad bipartisan support, and has received the 
endorsement of the National Guard Association of the United States.
  I ask all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to support 
this legislation to ensure that our laws are based on factual 
information, not mistakes and erroneous information.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to take just a moment to thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hefner), this being his last year, although we will get 
to work together on the next bill, but I want to tell him personally 
how much I appreciate the work he has done on this bill.
  He certainly has been a joy to work with and has made a great 
contribution to our country and to our men and women in the services. 
This bill reflects his priorities as it does mine. It has been a real 
pleasure to work together.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time to me.
  I want to rise in strong support of H.R. 2631. I want to give my 
colleagues one good example why it is appropriate to do that. On the 
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I became familiar with a proposal 
of a particular construction project in Fort Derussey, Hawaii. It is to 
relocate the Asian Pacific Center for Security Studies to a building 
that is existent. It is used as a reserve center. This center today is 
renting very high-cost space. That building is waiting to be renovated. 
All parties concur that this was an appropriate and agreed decision and 
appropriation item. Its inclusion on the veto list was an inexplicable 
error that ought to be corrected by our override on the veto.
  Undoubtedly there are other such cases in the hastily prepared and 
inadequately vetted veto list, but this is one that saves the taxpayer 
money. Everybody agrees it should have been done. It was inexplicable 
error. It is another reason why we should vote to override the veto.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 2631, 
legislation to override the President's veto of military construction 
programs. Certainly, the President has the authority to exercise the 
line-item veto on occasion when fiscal responsibility demands. No one 
disputes that prerogative; however, this authority must be exercised 
very judiciously.
  This Member would tell his colleagues that there are many meritorious 
programs that the President targeted for elimination without careful 
consideration of the consequences. In particular this Member would 
point to one particular construction project, that of Fort Derussey, 
Hawaii. This is to become the future home of the Asia-Pacific Center 
for Security Studies which was established in September 1995.
  Relocating the Asia-Pacific Center from its current location to Fort 
Derussey will eliminate a very major rental cost now being borne by the 
Center and the American taxpayer. It makes sense to use the existing 
U.S. government facility after renovations rather than continue to pay 
the high rental costs. All parties concur that this is the proper and 
agreed decision and appropriations item. Its inclusion on the veto list 
was an inexplicable error that ought to be corrected by our override 
vote of the veto. Undoubtedly, there are other such cases in the 
hastily prepared and inadequately vetted veto list.
  The Asia-Pacific Center's mission is to serve as a focal point where 
national officials, decision makers, and military officers of the 
United States and other Asia-Pacific nations gather to explore pressing 
issues and achieve a greater understanding of the challenges that face 
the Asia-Pacific region. This center can help foster early rapport 
among the leaders of tomorrow and promote U.S. interests throughout the 
region.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member urges support for H.R. 2631.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to override 
the President's veto of H.R. 2631, legislation to restore funding for 
the 38 military construction projects which were proposed for 
cancellation late last year.
  The projects proposed for cancellation by the Administration are 
among the most heavily reviewed military construction projects in 
history. This vote will mark the sixth time the House has rendered 
judgment upon them. In every case, support for these projects has been 
overwhelming and I hope the same will be the case today.
  The facts are clear. First, each of these projects meets a validated 
military requirement. Second, each of the 38 projects is executable in 
this fiscal year. Third, nearly all of these projects--85 percent--are 
in the Administration's own defense program. And fourth, the $287 
million to complete these projects are within the limits established by 
the budget agreement.
  The Administration admits mistakes were made in the extensive 
exercise of the line-item veto on the Military Construction 
Appropriations Act and, it is my understanding, that the Administration 
no longer opposes this legislation.
  The evidence on the public record provides ample justification to 
restore these projects. I urge my colleagues to support the restoration 
of funds to meet critical facilities shortfalls affecting the armed 
forces. I urged the House to support H.R. 2631.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 2631, the Military Construction Veto Disapproval. I have the 
privilege of representing Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas. One 
of the thirty-eight projects stricken from the military construction 
bill was in my district so I have a very personal interest in this 
legislation, but I believe that the President made the decision to 
strike many projects in the bill based on poor advice and inaccurate 
information.
  One of the reasons the President gave for vetoing these projects was 
that they did not meet a so-called ``quality of life'' requirement. I 
don't know what the President's definition of quality of life is, but I 
do know this: these thirty-eight projects which were eliminated 
included facilities to provide a safe working

[[Page H361]]

place for the men and women we entrust with the defense of our nation.
  In the case of the squadron operations facility to be built at Dyess 
Air Force Base, there are currently no existing facilities to house the 
13th Bomb Squadron. Without this facility, the men and women of the 
13th Bomb Squadron will be denied the tools they need to do their jobs.
  How does this add to their quality of life or their ability to 
discharge their duties? ``Quality of life'' involves a great deal more 
than housing and child care facilities and gymnasiums, although those 
are very important. I cannot imagine how the quality of work life could 
be much worse than importing 500 to 1,000 men and women to do a job 
without any facilities in which to house that work.
  The projects line item vetoed by the President were included in the 
military construction bill because they are essential to the mission of 
our military. Most of these projects were included in the five-year 
plans of the military services so that the money for these projects 
will be spent eventually. These projects were considered by four 
different Congressional committees with expertise in the area of 
national security and were reviewed by the Pentagon. The House and the 
Senate voted by overwhelming majorities to approve the military 
construction appropriation act.
  Yet the President and his staff acting in haste crafted a new 
criteria for military construction projects--quality of life. While I 
do not oppose the use of quality of life as a consideration for 
determining the merit of a project, it should not be the only criteria, 
and it should be clearly defined and fairly applied. In the case of the 
13th Bomb Squadron Operations Facility and many of the other projects 
cancelled by the President, it was not. The President incorrectly 
substituted his judgment for that of the Congress and the Pentagon. I 
urge my colleagues to support our men and women in uniform by voting 
again to override the President's line item veto to restore these 
projects.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support once 
again for H.R. 2631, legislation to override the President's line item 
vetoes of projects in the fiscal year 1997 Military Construction 
Appropriations Bill.
  Last October 6, the President line item vetoed 38 military 
construction projects worth $287 million. The other body overruled him 
on October 30, by a 69-30 vote. The House followed suit on November 8, 
voting 352-64 to restore funding. Despite two-thirds margins in both 
Houses, however, the President vetoed the bill disapproving his line 
item vetoes.
  There are many reasons why Members should support this bill. Every 
one of the 38 vetoed projects was properly authorized by Congress. 
Every one of them met strict criteria established by the committees 
with oversight for military construction. The vast majority--33 of the 
38--were in the Pentagon's 5-year plan, and those that were not were 
only absent because they were emergent requirements. And the inclusion 
of all of these projects was completely consistent with both the 
Congress' constitutional responsibility to provide for and maintain our 
Armed Forces, and the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution.
  When President Clinton originally signed the bill giving him line 
item veto authority, he argued that it would help him cancel projects 
that are ``special interest boondoggles, tax loopholes or pure pork.''
  However, according to OMB Director Franklin Raines, ``the great 
majority, if not the overwhelming majority of these [vetoed] projects 
can make a contribution to our national defense.'' Moreover, in vetoing 
these items, the President himself said that these projects ``have 
merit but should be considered in the future.''
  Then, after the vetoes, the administration itself admitted that it 
acted on erroneous data. Initially, the White House said two projects 
should not have been vetoed. Later, the number grew to 11. Still later, 
the White House admitted to as many as 18 mistakes.
  Finally, I should note that anyone inclined to support the 
President's position should understand that they are not saving money 
by endorsing his vetoes. Rather, they will be costing the American 
taxpayer more money. These projects will all get built, because they 
are all validated military requirements and are in the services' 
extended budgets. Postponing them will only drive up costs due to 
inflation.
  Given all of these considerations, I believe every Member ought to 
support the override bill. These projects were not pork, but had merit. 
The process that the administration used to select them was deeply 
flawed. Postponing construction of these projects will only cost more 
money.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter of this 
bipartisan bill which would disapprove the President's line-item vetoes 
of 38 critically-important projects included in the fiscal 1998 
Military Construction Appropriations Act. Each of these projects is 
needed by the military. Each complies with the spending limits 
established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. And each, if funded, 
can be started during this current fiscal year.
  I can speak about one of these projects from first-hand knowledge.
  Included in the vetoes was $6.8 million to construct an operations 
and training facility for combat-ready rescue personnel in the 41st 
Rescue Squadron based at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Georgia, 
located in the District I represent. The job they do is dangerous and 
absolutely essential to the safety and well-being of our airmen and 
civilian populations on the ground. These highly-trained rescue 
specialists not only serve areas of Georgia and Florida in the general 
vicinity of the base, it is believed they perform more deployments 
throughout the world than any other Air Force units. Rescue personnel 
from Moody are assigned right now to the Persian Gulf.
  They were transferred to Moody Air Force Base from Patrick Air Force 
Base during the first six months of last year. Although there was no 
available building for these units at Moody, the Air Force planned to 
build one as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, they had to be housed in 
temporary, rented trailers at a cost of $108,000 a year.
  These trailers are cramped and totally inadequate for the work these 
units do, including operations planning and on-going training 
exercises.
  If anyone can overcome difficulties such as this, it is the men and 
women who serve in our armed forces. But it will be a disgrace if we, 
in Washington, D.C., keep these rescue units stuck in crowded temporary 
facilities any longer than necessary. We will fail in our 
responsibility if we send these troops into harm's way without 
providing them the basic support they need.
  It will also be more costly. Not only will construction costs go up, 
we will continue paying the rent--and that is pure waste.
  I believe the Administration acted in good faith. These are projects 
they truly believed could wait. But, I also believe the White House was 
acting on misinformation.
  Based on the veto message, the White House apparently thought the 
rescue personnel had not yet been relocated to Moody, that the planning 
was not far enough along for construction to begin this fiscal year, 
and that this was not a quality-of-life project.
  This was incorrect on all counts.
  The rescue personnel had been transferred months before. Work can 
begin this year. Without question, providing adequate working 
conditions for military personnel, and particularly for those involved 
in life-and death operations, is a quality-of-life issue.
  In fact, a number of these vetoes were evidently based on mistakes.
  Moreover, there is no question that each and every one of the vetoed 
projects is needed for military readiness.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yea'' on this bill and live up to our 
responsibility to provide our military forces the basic tools they need 
to carry out the missions that keep our country secure and help protect 
freedom throughout the world.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of MILCON veto override.
  Most of the projects on the President's cancellation list were in the 
Pentagon's future years defense plan.
  All of them are executable this fiscal year.
  Three of the projects were Air Force Reserve projects, and together 
they represent 50 percent of the Air Force Reserve's construction 
budget for fiscal year 1998.
  While the active Air Force and the Air National Guard have suffered 
some cuts over the last few years, the Air Force Reserve's MILCON 
Program is literally being driven out of existence.
  The President's fiscal year 1999 budget submission includes only one 
new Air Force Reserve project. One project. That's it.
  Enough is enough.
  The MILCON bill was the only appropriations bill where fiscal year 
1998 spending was below fiscal year 1997.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support motion to override.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker I thank my friend, the distinguished chairman 
of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, for yielding.
  I rise in support of this override effort because I am a strong 
supporter of the line-item veto and the process it provides for 
ensuring careful scrutiny of Federal spending. In this case, Mr. 
Speaker, Congress is asserting its power of the purse, insisting to the 
President that we have carefully considered the items in the military 
construction spending bill that the President--I believe in haste and 
in error--chose to line-item veto. Contrary to the claims of some 
naysayers, we did not write Congress out of the spending process when 
we crafted the line-item veto. Quite the contrary, in fact, we provided 
very explicit procedures by which Congress could assert its authority--
as we witness by today's proceedings.

  Some pundits and even some Members have pointed to the President's 
application of the line-item veto on the military construction

[[Page H362]]

spending bill as an example of why the line-item veto isn't a good 
idea. I firmly disagree. The line item veto has accomplished exactly 
what those of us who spent years bringing it about intended--it has 
brought greater accountability and sunshine to the process of spending 
the taxpayers' money. And it has provided a real opportunity for saving 
more than one point $2 billion. Sure, in the cynical world of 
budgeteers and inside-the-beltway types, that may seem like a rounding 
error--but to the American people, $1.2 billion is serious money. And 
there's more to come, I am sure. I share with many of my colleagues 
some disappointment that this President did not spend more time and 
take more care in developing sound criteria and preparing to use the 
powerful new tool we delegated to him in the form of the line-item 
veto. But I remain firmly committed to the idea that we did the right 
thing by implementing the line-item veto--and I hope this exercise of 
override will chasten the administration to think first and line item 
second during the upcoming budget cycle. I urge support for this 
override effort.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are others that have 
come on the floor that want to speak, but in deference to my colleague 
from North Carolina, who has yielded back the balance of his time, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the yeas and 
nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 347, 
nays 69, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               YEAS--347

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--69

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Chabot
     Conyers
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Engel
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kind (WI)
     Klug
     Leach
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Owens
     Payne
     Petri
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Towns
     Upton
     Vento
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Armey
     Becerra
     Burton
     Dellums
     Eshoo
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Herger
     Klink
     McKeon
     Porter
     Schiff
     Wynn

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. LOFGREN and Messrs. SHAYS, SALMON, MARKEY and GREENWOOD changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mrs. MALONEY of Connecticut and Messrs. NADLER, RUSH 
and PALLONE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was passed, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The Clerk will notify the 
Senate of the action of the House.

                          ____________________