[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S961-S972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CANCELLATION DISAPPROVAL ACT--VETO

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the veto message.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield to no Senator, with the possible 
exception of Robert C. Byrd from the great State of West Virginia, in 
my contempt for and disdain for the line-item veto bill that we passed 
in the 104th Congress and which two district courts have held to be 
unconstitutional. But I intend to vote to sustain the President's veto.
  I stood on this floor day after day, year after year, saying that the 
line-item veto was a lousy idea, an unconstitutional idea. When I think 
of the abuse that I and Senator Byrd and the people who stood fast on 
the floor of the Senate against the line-item veto--when I think of the 
abuse we took, the political abuse we took for resisting what was a 
palpable political idea, that still rankles me. Like so many ideas that 
have been floated through this body in the past 23 years that I have

[[Page S962]]

been here, they have immense popularity but they are lousy ideas, and 
the line-item veto stands out about as high as any next to the 
constitutional amendments related to prayer in school, flag burning and 
term limits and all those others things that people love to bring up 
here so they can run on them because they are popular.
  A little history. When Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980 he ran 
on the single proposition that he would balance the budget, and the 
people of this country were becoming, at a time when the national debt 
was $1 trillion--the people were not only becoming apprehensive about 
the ability of Congress to control its habits, they were becoming 
downright frightened. So the soothing voice and the soothing promise of 
Ronald Reagan played very well with them and he was elected in a 
landslide. He carried 44 States. He promised that he would balance the 
budget in 4 years and maybe in 3.
  I believed him. I thought he really was committed to a balanced 
budget. Frankly, not to denigrate the President, I think he really was 
committed to a balanced budget. I just think, somehow or other, his 
advisers gave him bad advice and convinced him that, somehow or other, 
the budget would take care of itself just because he was President. So 
he came with one of the strangest economic programs in the history of 
this country. The Nobel laureate at MIT, whose name I forget, who won a 
Nobel prize for economics, said it was the most profligate, 
irresponsible economic policy, not in the history of America, but in 
the history of the world.
  And what was it? We would balance the budget by cutting taxes. That 
is a new one, isn't it? You balance the budget by cutting taxes. And, 
to his credit, he offered a lot of spending cuts. Some of them were 
foolish. I remember making ketchup a vegetable in the school 
lunchrooms. I didn't think that was a very appropriate way to balance 
the budget. I didn't think considering Hamburger Helper to be an entree 
was a very good way to balance the budget. But I voted against his tax 
cuts. There were 11 Senators, 11 Senators who voted against the tax 
cuts which were, as usual, mostly for the rich. But on the spending 
cuts I voted ``Aye.'' Eleven Senators voted against the tax cuts, and I 
said--if you want to read a beautiful speech, write my office and I'll 
send you a copy of it--I said, ``If you pass this bill, you are going 
to create deficits big enough to choke a mule.'' I was wrong. They were 
big enough to choke an elephant.
  But then when it came time to vote for the spending cuts, and there 
were a lot of programs that I liked that President Reagan was proposing 
to cut, some to eliminate, and I voted with him. And you know 
something? There were only three U.S. Senators who voted against the 
tax cuts and for the spending cuts.
  The budget would have been balanced in 3 years if a majority of the 
Members of Congress had voted that way. Three Senators--Bill Bradley 
from New Jersey, Fritz Hollings from South Carolina and yours truly. I 
want that put on my epitaph.
  As the deficits began to soar, first to $100 billion and then later 
to $200 billion, that was scary. That was scary, Mr. President, when we 
doubled the national debt of $1 trillion, which has taken us 200 years 
to accumulate, and all of a sudden the first 4 years of Ronald Reagan's 
administration we doubled it. We did not balance the budget, we doubled 
the national debt, and people were scared. That is when President 
Reagan said, ``What we need is a line-item veto. If you will just give 
me a line-item veto, I can balance the budget.''
  Every thinking person knew at that time that you weren't going to 
balance the budget with a line-item veto.
  I can remember when entitlements represented almost as much as the 
entire income to the Federal Government. I used to do a study every 
year on seven programs: defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
interest on the debt, Civil Service pensions and one other thing which 
eludes me. Seven things. When you added those seven things up, not 
counting any other discretionary spending, you used up virtually all of 
the income the Federal Government had. To suggest that a line-item veto 
could be used to bring this budget into balance in light of those kinds 
of statistics was absolutely inane, if not insane.
  I can remember when I ran for reelection in 1986, the question was 
always--of course, first of all, I had to face prayer in school. But 
you know something, Mr. President, with my constituents, I was the only 
southern Senator who voted against a constitutional amendment for 
prayer in school. When I explained to my constituents why I voted 
against it, I got 62 percent of the vote. That sounds like a boast. I 
don't mean that. All I am saying is, when people hear common sense, 
they respond in a commonsensical way.
  Not only was I having to defend myself against prayer in school, I 
was having to defend myself against the so-called line-item veto. Why 
do you not want the President to have the right to stop all those pork 
projects? It was like Gerald Ford said when he was first elected 
President. He learned early on the difference between those very 
meritorious projects out in his district in Michigan and all those poor 
projects in the rest of the country.
  The point is, every analysis that was done of the Federal budget 
showed that if a line-item veto were used to the very maximum, it would 
have a minuscule effect on the deficit. It was nothing but a 
distraction, but a very politically popular one. A lot of us who stood 
up for the Constitution paid dearly. We were abused politically by 
admittedly unsophisticated people, well-meaning people, but people who 
really did not understand the Constitution, which says Congress shall 
pass a bill and present it to the President. It did not say for the 
President to pick and choose what he wants. It said he shall sign it or 
not sign it. If he does not sign it, he can veto it. Approve or not 
approve, those were his options.
  The President has the right and the power--he has the bully pulpit. 
Anytime the appropriations committees are meeting in the U.S. Senate, 
the President can call over here and say, ``If you put this, this, this 
and this in that bill, I am going to veto it.'' I have seen Presidents 
do it a lot of times. Bill Clinton does it all the time.
  Do you know what we do? We normally take it out because we do not 
want the bill vetoed. That is a Presidential prerogative. But John 
Adams, James Madison, people who drafted the Constitution, would be 
whirling in their graves if they knew this body passed such a piece of 
legislation as the line-item-veto bill.
  Mr. President, I feel badly sometimes when I talk the way I am 
talking right now, because a lot of well-meaning Senators really 
believed in the line-item veto, I think. I don't mean to 
denigrate anybody who disagrees with me on this. It is just that I feel 
so strongly about the Constitution.

  I have to say, the Congress is the worst place in the world for 
trivializing the Constitution. It is incredible the things that people 
come up with. There was even a resolution in 1976 in the House of 
Representatives saying it shall be unconstitutional for any President 
to run who hasn't got enough sense to get out of a hail of bullets. Not 
out of the rain, out of a hail of bullets.
  Mr. President, 11,000 resolutions have been submitted in the Congress 
since this great Nation was founded--11,000--to change the 
Constitution. If you take the Bill of Rights out, to the eternal credit 
of both Congress and the American people, we have only tinkered with it 
17 times. No thanks to Congress, in one way, because there have been 
plenty of efforts, 11,000 efforts, to amend the Constitution, the 
greatest organic law in the world.
  So every time we get a chance to do something politically popular, it 
is always the Constitution that suffers, that magnificent document 
crafted by the greatest assemblage of minds under one roof in the 
history of the world. People around here treat it as though it is a 
rough draft.
  I do not want to wait for the Supreme Court to declare the line-item 
veto unconstitutional, which they will surely do. I want the people who 
passed the line-item veto bill in the first place to repeal it. It is 
our solemn duty to undo one of the most miserable mistakes we have ever 
made.
  I spoke to some of my good friends who supported that thing, and now 
they tell me they supported it because they believed there would be a 
new President in 1996--I must say a lot of people voted for the line-
item veto because they thought Ronald Reagan

[[Page S963]]

would have been elected forever for life. Nobody ever thought about 
William Jefferson Clinton being in the White House when the line-item 
veto took effect, and he likes it. He had it when he was Governor. I 
was Governor of Arkansas before he was and I liked it. I used it. I 
used to call those legislators up and say, ``You know that vo-tech 
school down there in your hometown. There is $250,000 in this budget. 
If you don't get down there and behave, there isn't going to be any vo-
tech school in your hometown.'' If you want to straighten up a 
legislator's conduct, that is the way to do it.
  As I say, I am not being cute about this, I am just simply saying I 
am going to vote to sustain the President's veto, because I want the 
line-item veto to be painful enough that a majority of the people in 
this body will be willing to undo a miserable mistake we made.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, as one who fought for 10 years to pass the 
line-item veto, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2631, which would restore 
$287 million for 38 military construction projects which were 
eliminated by the use of the line-item veto from the fiscal year 1998 
Military Construction Appropriations Act. I urge my colleagues, a 
significant majority of whom supported enactment of the line-item veto 
authority, to vote against this egregious waste of taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. President, many arguments have been mentioned as a compelling 
reason to restore this funding. Sadly, most of these arguments seem to 
be thinly veiled attempts to provide a convenient rationale for 
Congress' self-serving pork barrel spending. Some of my colleagues have 
argued that the President's use of the line-item veto to eliminate 
those unrequested low-priority military construction projects was 
politically motivated. These arguments conveniently ignore the possible 
political motivations of the Members of Congress who added the 
projects.
  Others defend various and sundry projects saying they meet the 
criteria established by Congress to provide a rudimentary method to 
evaluate group requests by Members of Congress for military 
construction add-ons. Others simply say that it is the prerogative of 
the Congress to add projects to the budget request. While true, 
Congress should not abuse its power over the purse strings by wasting 
money on special-interest projects in our home States or districts. 
Finally, some of my colleagues simply object to the line-item veto 
authority. Although I do not share their opinion, I respect it.
  Today, I would like to point out that the exercise we are completing 
today was set up in the Line-Item Veto Act to ensure that Congress has 
the last word in determining how Federal funds are spent.
  While I disagree with the expected outcome of the Senate's action on 
this veto override bill, I believe it supports the constitutionality of 
the line-item veto by demonstrating that the prerogatives of Congress 
to control the Government's purse strings are protected in the law.
  Now, I understand that not long ago my friend from Arkansas spent 
time talking about how terrible the line-item veto is. I do not quite 
understand how, in this setting, that my colleague would be averse to 
the line-item veto since what we are seeing is exactly what the line-
item veto was intended to do, and that is, if the President vetoes and 
the Congress does not believe that that veto is warranted or 
legitimate, Congress has the right to override the veto.
  My friend, the Senator from West Virginia, kept talking about how 
terrible it would be if we enacted the line-item veto because then 
there would be this arrogance of power and blackmail exerted on Members 
of Congress.
  Have we seen any manifestation of that, Mr. President? I have not. 
And if anyone has, I would like to hear about it. Maybe I have missed 
something.
  The reality is, what we are seeing today is an affirmation--even 
though I regret what is probably the outcome--we are seeing an 
affirmation of the line-item veto. Because there will be times, I say 
to my colleagues, that the line-item veto will be exercised, and the 
President's line-item veto will not be overridden for various strong 
and compelling reasons.
  This is a time where as much as I object to it--and I will elaborate 
shortly about my objections--the President's veto will be overridden. 
So the process works. So there has not been a huge transfer of power as 
so eloquently articulated by some of my colleagues, most of them on the 
other side of the aisle, when we passed the line-item veto. This has 
not destroyed the entire appropriations process as was predicted. In 
fact, the opposite has happened.
  In my view, the President of the United States has exercised the 
line-item veto all too little--all too little. There are billions of 
dollars in these appropriations bills that he should have--that he 
should have--vetoed and did not. So to those of my colleagues who 
somehow use this particular exercise where we are about to override the 
President's veto as an argument against that line-item veto, I 
respectfully disagree with your assertion. This is an affirmation--an 
affirmation--that the Congress has indeed not abrogated its power nor 
consigned it to the executive branch. In fact, the opposite is 
happening.
  I look forward, as I have for the last 10 years, to debating this 
particular aspect of the issue with my most respected and revered 
colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.
  Most of the arguments in favor of this bill miss the point that 
wasting scarce defense dollars on pork barrel projects is a disservice 
to the men and women who serve our military and is potentially 
detrimental to our national security.
  Mr. President, I want to repeat that. Most of the arguments in favor 
of this bill miss the central point of my remarks and the central point 
of this issue: Wasting scarce defense resources on pork barrel projects 
is a disservice to the men and women who serve in our military and is 
potentially detrimental to our national security.
  The question is not whether these unrequested military construction 
projects can be defended as meeting the Senate's review criteria or as 
actions within the prerogatives of Congress. The question is whether we 
are directing scarce defense resources where they will do the greatest 
good for our country and for the men and women of our All Volunteer 
Force. I believe we are not.
  Today, the United States has approximately 30,000 men and women 
deployed to the southwest Asia theater of operation, preparing to go 
into harm's way in Iraq if so ordered. There are 8,000 American troops 
deployed in support of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and another 
70,000 U.S. personnel deployed in support of other commitments 
worldwide. That is a total of 108,000 personnel of a 1.4 million men 
and women force, a force that is nearly half the size of our force a 
decade ago, deployed overseas in support of our Nation's interests.
  Now, Mr. President, that is a lot of people gone for a long time 
under very difficult conditions. We have an All Volunteer Force. I 
promise you, I promise my colleagues, if we continue to waste scarce 
defense dollars on unwanted projects, unwanted weapons systems and 
unneeded programs that have nothing to do with defense, you will see a 
dramatic and continued erosion of the All Volunteer Force.
  I will give you one example--one example--although I could give many. 
An Air Force pilot is obligated for 8 years of service after completion 
of that pilot's training. At the end of 8 years is the first time a 
pilot has the option of leaving or remaining in the U.S. Air Force. The 
year before last, 30 percent of those Air Force pilots who had the 
option of leaving the U.S. Air Force left. Last year, 60 percent--60 
percent--of the most highly trained young men and women who are young 
Air Force pilots left the Air Force. What was the reason? There was 
primarily one reason that dwarfed all other reasons--too much time away 
from their homes and families; too much time away from their homes and 
families. Almost all of them are married. Almost all of them have 
children. And yet we are going to

[[Page S964]]

spend--in this case we will override $287 million--$287 million. I will 
describe to this body what that $287 million would buy.
  Never before has the U.S. military been more heavily committed 
overseas in time of peace, and not since before World War II has our 
standing force been this small. The increasing demands placed on our 
shrinking Armed Forces coincide with more than a decade of national 
defense budget cuts. In the last 10 years, the defense budget has been 
cut in half as a percentage of the gross domestic product and, in real 
spending terms, by over $120 billion. Yet, America's military personnel 
have performed admirably, bridging the gap between decreased funding 
and increased commitments with sheer dedication to duty and 
professionalism.
  Mr. President, in 1998, the U.S. Air Force is one-half the size that 
it was in 1991--one-half. The U.S. Air Force is half the size and has 
four times the amount of commitments that they had during the cold 
war--four times. Some of these young people are meeting themselves 
coming and going as they go from one deployment to another.
  By the way, one of the reasons why I am so skeptical about this 
latest agreement with Saddam Hussein is: We are going to keep our 
forces out there for an indefinite period of time? All these aircraft 
carriers, all these aircraft and people deployed for an indefinite 
period of time?
  Mr. President, I will tell you, it is called the All Volunteer 
Force--the All Volunteer Force. We are having trouble right now 
recruiting them, and we are having a terrific problem retaining them. 
They are responsible for some multimillion dollar and sometimes even 
billion dollars worth of equipment.
  The Clinton administration has consistently underfunded our Nation's 
defense requirements. Although the Republican Congress has increased 
funding overall for national defense, we failed to allocate those funds 
to meet the highest priority needs of our Armed Forces.
  In fact, the tendency of Congress to waste billions of defense 
dollars on low-priority pork projects may be just as potentially 
harmful to our national security as the administration's neglect of 
those needs in its budget requests.
  Last month--last month--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
General Shelton, sounded a warning about the state of readiness of our 
forces. He said:

       There is no question that more frequent deployments affect 
     readiness. We are beginning to see anecdotal evidence of 
     readiness issues in some units, particularly at the tactical 
     level of operations.

  To many of us, these words sound a lot like the cautious criticisms 
of top military leaders in the late 1970s, when our Army had been 
hollowed out after years of inadequate funding and inattention to 
training and operational readiness. It took nearly a decade to restore 
force readiness and the morale of our troops.
  Let us look at the warning signs of declining readiness.
  Recruitment and retention shortfalls are beginning to significantly 
impact our Armed Forces. The Army is not meeting requirements for 
infantry units which are already undermanned; pilot shortages are 
affecting all of the services.

  Large force training exercises have been reduced due to funding 
shortfalls.
  Last year, the military had to come hat in hand to Congress to ask 
for an additional half a billion to fund flying hour accounts to 
provide pilots and aircrews with required training. By the way, I have 
been told by the administration that they will be coming over for a 
supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the latest exercise in the 
Persian Gulf. I hope that is the case. It has not always been the case 
in the past.
  Aircraft maintenance backlogs are up. At last count, nearly $900 
million was required to clear those backlogs. The Navy alone had 172 
aircraft awaiting critical depot level maintenance in 1997.
  It has been reported that, of 200 tactical aircraft on the front line 
in the Arabian Gulf region, only 160 aircraft are mission capable. Let 
me emphasize, this is the front line force, the very force sent to the 
Gulf to prepare for combat.
  The aircraft at home are in worse shape. In many of today's Navy 
squadrons, commanders are forced to remove hydraulic actuators, flight 
control surfaces and laser targeting pods from shore-based squadrons in 
order to keep their deployed aircraft mission capable.
  Over the past three years, Congress has added more than $20 billion 
to the defense budget requests submitted by the Clinton Administration. 
So why do we still have these serious and growing deficiencies in 
readiness? Because the practice of Congress has tragically been to 
misuse billions of these scarce defense dollars to add unrequested 
programs and building projects to the defense budget.
  Let's look at military construction, which is just a small part of 
the defense budget.
  Since 1990, in 1998 dollars, the Congress has spent $8.2 billion on 
unrequested military construction projects, including new National 
Guard armories and reserve centers in every state. Not a single one of 
these projects was requested. Many were not in the long-range military 
construction plan. Some projects added by Congress were actually at 
facilities that were to be closed. We paid to build facilities at bases 
that were scheduled to be closed.
  One need only look at the 129 unrequested military construction 
projects at a cost of nearly $1 billion in the FY 1998 Military 
Construction Appropriations bill to realize the pork habit has become 
an addition.
  I have no doubt that many of the projects may be needed, but I do 
question whether any one of these low priority projects are more 
necessary than the basic welfare and readiness of our armed forces. If 
this veto is over-ridden and we have to pay the $287 million price tag 
for this bill, we will be sending an embarrassing message to the 
American taxpayer, and more importantly, to the men and women of our 
armed forces.
  The message we will be sending to aircraft mechanics is that we know 
they can't keep their aircraft mission capable because there are not 
enough parts. But Congress thought it more important that Fort Irwin, 
California get a new $8.5 million car wash and Oakdale, Pennsylvania 
get a new $25 million replacement reserve center.
  The message we will send to our pilots who are ready to go into 
harm's way is that, even though they have lost significant training 
opportunities due to budget cuts, Congress thinks it more important 
that there's a new $9.5 million facility at the Asian-Pacific Center 
for Security Studies in Hawaii.
  Picture a young enlisted member and his family that must use food 
stamps to pay the grocer. What's the message to his family as they 
struggle to make ends meet? We found a way to spend $12.7 million on 
the construction of the Olympic village in Utah, a project for which 
land has not yet been purchased and where environmental concerns have 
not even begun to be addressed.
  Each of these projects were included in the long-term military 
construction plan of the Department of Defense, but in the year 2003, 
the very last year of the six-year plan. Certainly, projects in the 
earlier years of the FYDP should logically be deemed higher priority 
than these projects. There are over $32 billion worth of programs that 
the Pentagon included in its plan as higher priorities than these 
projects.
  There are other examples of projects that are less than critical to 
the primary mission of the services.
  $7.7 million was earmarked for the expansion of an ammunition supply 
point at Fort Bliss, Texas, at a facility that was upgraded in 1991, 
just a few years ago.

  Eight million nine hundred thousand dollars was added to build a 
civil engineering complex at Grissom Air Reserve base in order to 
improve facilities that were admittedly serviceable but not optimum. It 
is interesting to note that the DoD project data sheet was blank 
regarding the planned year of the project.
  At a time when the rest of the Defense Department was shrinking, $14 
million was set aside for an aircraft hangar at Johnstown, PA, for an 
activity that had not yet stood up into existence.
  So why did Congress deem these projects worthy of fiscal year 1998 
funding? Because a Member of Congress asked that they be moved forward, 
and because that's the way these deals have always been made.

[[Page S965]]

  Mr. President, the message will get through, loud and clear, to the 
men and women who volunteered to serve their country that Congress 
cares more about pork-barrel spending than their well-being. And a vote 
to over-ride the veto of $287 million in unrequested, low-priority 
military construction projects is an endorsement of each and every one 
of those messages.
  Our military is wearing out its machines and wearing out its people. 
Military health care remains under funded, and there are reports that 
as many as 11,787 service members and their families are on food 
stamps. These are the priority problems facing our armed forces, and 
we, the Congress, are not addressing them.
  What could we have done with the $8.2 billion we wasted on 
unnecessary military construction projects?
  According to recent estimates, the costs incurred in support of 
peacekeeping in Bosnia total $6.7 billion. The estimated costs of the 
force buildup in the Persian Gulf will be about $1 billion. We could 
have paid the bills of those commitments and still had nearly half-a-
billion dollars left.
  That $500 million would be enough to fully fund the short-term 
modernization of the Navy and Marine Corps Hornet fleet. That 
modernization would put new radios, global positioning equipment, 
upgraded defensive countermeasures, improved mission computers and a 
datalink system that would make all 618 C and D model Hornets ready 
today to operate in the information centered warfare environment of the 
next millennium, not to mention be better equipped to face Iraqi 
defenses, if necessary.
  And that's just the military construction pork. In last year's 
Defense Appropriations bill, Congress added nearly $2 billion for 
programs that were clearly funded for special interests in their States 
or districts. Since we added only $2.6 billion overall to the defense 
budget last year, clearly, pork-barrel spending consumed the entire 
add-on and more, and took precedence over the real priorities for 
national security.
  Unfortunately, we cannot undo the damage done by past wasteful 
spending. Today, however, we are faced with the historic opportunity to 
halt the source of Congress' undisciplined spending and prevent the 
waste of defense dollars in the future.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity to send 
the right message to our servicemen and women by voting against the 
veto over-ride. It is the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote to 
override the President's line-item veto of these 38 military 
construction projects which we approved in the 1998 budget.
  I think the recent district court decision that would reverse 
legislation granting the President the right to veto individual 
projects confirms my view of what the Constitution requires. I opposed 
extending the line-item veto authority to this President or to any 
President because I believe that those who wrote our Constitution had 
it right. The separation of powers assigned by the Constitution 
prevents political manipulation that does a disservice to the 
democratic process.
  Aside from the constitutional question, however, I want to say a few 
words about why I believe that the President's choices, at least the 
ones I am familiar with, for program vetoes were ill-advised, at least 
in the case of the projects in New Mexico that are included in this 
bill. These were not pork barrel projects. I understood my colleague 
from Arizona and his comments about opposition to pork barrel spending 
in the defense bill, and I commend him for that because I agree with 
him that there are numerous instances each year where projects are 
added that cannot be justified on a military basis. I do not condone 
that in any way.
  By its own admission, the administration canceled a number of the 
projects this year in this bill because in the administration's view 
they did not meet the criteria that they had set up for selection. In 
spite of what the administration concluded, I'm persuaded that many of 
these projects were important to the quality of life of military 
personnel and their families. In addition, many of these projects had 
been able to complete significant planning that would permit their 
construction to begin in 1998.
  Let me just indicate the sequence of events that occurred with regard 
to some of the projects in New Mexico when this list of projects that 
the President was going to line-item veto came out. On the list were 
some projects that I will refer to later, including White Sands Missile 
Range, to refurbish aging facilities at White Sands Missile Range. I 
called the director of the Office of Management and Budget and asked 
why they had chosen to delete these particular projects. His response 
was that according to the information he had been given by the 
Department of Defense, the necessary planning and design work for 
construction or refurbishing of those facilities had not been done and 
the money could not be spent in 1998.
  We went back to the Army, which is the military service that had the 
funding in its budget, and asked if we had false information here or 
inaccurate information and what their understanding was. They assured 
us, as they had before, that this money was needed, that these were 
projects where design and construction planning had occurred, and that 
the money could well be spent in 1998.
  I am persuaded that at least with regard to those projects, the 
Office of Management and Budget was giving the President incorrect 
advice or incorrect information and that incorrect information was the 
basis upon which the President chose to line-item veto those particular 
projects. I don't think this was intentional on anyone's part. Nobody 
was intentionally misrepresenting the situation, but in its haste to 
compile a list of projects to veto and in its concern for maintaining 
secrecy about that list, the administration did not submit candidate 
projects to the kind of thorough review that such important decisions 
normally warrant.
  I blame the process that was used. Obviously, as I have said before, 
I believe the process is unconstitutional and has fatal flaws in that 
regard. But clearly, in addition to that, I think this process was 
flawed because of this inaccurate information that was given to the 
President.
  As I stated before, part of what the President vetoed was funding to 
refurbish aging facilities at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. 
Of course, I am concerned about that because many of my constituents 
work on that facility and believe that facility is important. But I am 
also concerned because, as General Reimer recently testified before the 
Armed Services Committee, White Sands is a critical national asset; it 
is our most capable test evaluation center. It is the premier facility 
that we have with unique capabilities to test new technologies and 
weapons, to ensure continued technological superiority over any 
potential adversary.

  The test range is operated by the Army, but it supports testing by 
all of our various military services. Also, it supports testing by many 
companies in the private sector. Because of that fact, that the Army 
does not exclusively benefit from the work at White Sands, the 
installation has been vulnerable to budget and personnel cuts in the 
Army that threaten the continued capability of that range. Accordingly, 
it threatens the continued long-term national security of the country.
  Since 1995, for example, White Sands has lost about 43 percent of its 
military contingent needed to ensure that the users participate in the 
design, test, and operation of new weapons systems. If the Department 
of Defense Quadrennial Defense Plan is fully implemented, then White 
Sands would eventually lose all of its soldiers who are assigned to 
operate, maintain, and test systems being evaluated.
  Similar severe cutbacks have occurred in the civilian work force 
needed to support the scientific work and operations of the test range.
  Meanwhile, the testing workload at White Sands continues to increase 
as the services move toward this high-tech weaponry of tomorrow's 
military services. I am concerned because I did visit White Sands this 
last week and I had the opportunity to observe the conditions of the 
range firsthand. Many of the facilities on the base date back to World 
War II. Some of the launch facilities are lodged in makeshift trailers 
with jury-rigged air conditioning and outdoor toilet facilities.

[[Page S966]]

  The risk of fire hazard is great at many of White Sands' widely 
dispersed facilities, and the ability of the base to combat a blaze 
effectively is extremely limited. Personnel risk their personal safety 
in some of these facilities that the President's line-item veto would 
prevent from being replaced.
  Mr. President, my concern extends beyond the refurbishment of the 
aging buildings at White Sands. I am concerned, also, that the 
instrumentation that we have in place to conduct and analyze tests at 
White Sands is inadequate to meet the challenges of new technologies 
and weapons systems of the future.
  Instrumentation at the range is simply not capable of meeting high 
optical, radar, and telemetry standards needed to observe, report, and 
evaluate tests of new technologies that are now being designed.
  Scientists and the military personnel at White Sands indicated to me 
that it could cost in the range of $110 million to modernize the 
instrumentation at White Sands sufficiently in order to meet future 
test requirements.
  While we fully intend to modernize our military weapons, we are not 
taking the steps necessary to ensure through testing that those weapons 
will work as designed and as needed.
  White Sands is critical to meeting these requirements. If we permit 
the President's line-item veto to stand, we would endanger our national 
security interests by continuing to allow the Nation's preeminent 
testing facility at White Sands to atrophy further than it already has.
  I call on my colleagues to reverse the President's veto and to join 
me in ensuring the future effectiveness of White Sands during this 
year's defense authorization and appropriations debates.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
resolution to override this line-item veto. I have heard the argument 
both philosophically about not overriding the President and on the 
specifics, and I am not persuaded in either case because I supported 
the line-item veto. I see absolutely no inconsistency in supporting the 
line-item veto and supporting this override because that is exactly 
what was intended by the line-item veto in the first place. It was to 
let the President have a chance to cut projects that he considered 
inconsequential or not necessary, and Congress reserved the right, as 
it always does, to override a President's veto by two-thirds vote. It 
is a higher standard. I think this meets the test of the higher 
standard, because the President went back and looked at the line-item 
vetoes he had made and admitted he had made mistakes in his 
calculations.

  The Department of Defense also said that some of the information was 
erroneous. For instance, these projects are in the military 5-year 
plan. Many of these projects are very important for our military 
readiness. In fact, one of the specifics that was mentioned by the 
Senator from Arizona, the Fort Bliss ammunition storage facility, is 
necessary and will actually pay for itself because you won't have to 
pay for the transportation of ammunition 20 miles from a firing range 
into Fort Bliss. So you are going to save transportation costs and, 
most of all, you are going to have a safety factor that will be better 
because you are able to have the ammunition stored in and next to the 
firing range where it will be used.
  This is the end of a project that has already been started. So this 
is just one instance. I don't disagree with, perhaps, the other 
suggestions of the Senator from Arizona. I don't know much about that. 
I know that at Fort Bliss the ammunition storage facility is essential. 
In fact, I thought it was interesting that the President signed the 
bill for ammunition storage facilities in Europe. He signed the bill 
for facilities such as operations headquarters in Europe, and yet he 
vetoed those that were in the budget in the United States. So I think 
he has shown that he sees the importance of operational headquarters 
and the importance of ammunition storage facilities. I just think we 
need to have those at our bases where they are necessary and where they 
are in the 5-year plan in our military here.
  I think it is important, as we are testing the line-item veto in 
Congress--and it is already being tested in court--the test should be 
exactly what we are looking at today. It should be the importance of 
these projects where Congress has said in its budget submission to the 
President that they are a high priority. The military has given them a 
high priority, and I think Congress certainly should have the ability 
to add to the priorities. In fact, Congress has added to the military 
budget every year that I have been in Congress and that President has 
been in office. President Clinton cuts the military budget and Congress 
puts it back in because Congress values military spending.
  Congress believes that the readiness of our forces depends on many 
things, such as quality of life, pay raises, our military construction, 
our equipment being maintained. All of this is an issue between 
Congress and the President, and it is a legitimate issue. Congress has 
spoken. The President has spoken. Congress has the right under the 
line-item veto, with a two-thirds margin, to override the President and 
say these are in fact priorities.
  So I hope the President will understand that we have our set of 
priorities. We are going to fund the military. We are going to make the 
military a priority. This is our national security at stake, and we 
believe these projects meet the test. The Senate has a rigorous test. 
We don't even add in the Senate military budget a military construction 
project that isn't already in the Defense Department 5-year plan. We 
never do that. That is our standard. So it is not like we picked 
something out of the air that the military didn't think was important. 
It is in the military 5-year plan, and we believe that spending this 
money for military construction is part of readiness. As we have added 
equipment, training, salary increases, we are also adding military 
construction for the overall readiness of our troops.
  We cannot continue to add to the responsibility of our military and 
cut the spending for the military budget. We cannot do it. We are 
facing a crisis in Iraq, which we must meet, and I support the 
President sending troops to make sure that we shore up our situation in 
the Persian Gulf. I hope the President will give us a plan of action 
for the future there. We support that. But we can't take from military 
readiness accounts all over the world when we have a situation like we 
do in Iraq where we need to respond. That is why we are trying to plan 
for the future, and that is why it is important to override this line-
item veto of the President, so that we can maintain that readiness.

  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I don't anticipate consuming more than about 5 or 6 minutes.
  Madam President, I come before my colleagues today with a sense of 
duality regarding the measure we have before us. On the one hand, the 
line-item veto override contains two items that are very important to 
me and to the State of Indiana, and also important to the national 
defense of our country. On the other hand, embodied in this line-item 
veto override is a fundamental question that goes to the very root of 
the principle of the Line-Item Veto Act. That question is whether 
Congress will abandon the longstanding practice of chasing good money 
with bad money, of holding worthy projects hostage to unnecessary 
funding.
  So, for me, this vote represents a choice of parochialism and a 
choice of principle--the former rooted in the hard realities of the 
military construction process and the latter rooted in the Line-Item 
Veto Act and the critical necessity of fiscal discipline.

[[Page S967]]

  During the markup of the fiscal year 1998 military construction 
appropriations bill, a preestablished criteria, jointly agreed upon by 
Congress and the Pentagon, was used to determine what projects would be 
funded.
  There were four criteria:
  First, is this project consistent with past action?
  Secondly, is the project requested in the future years' defense plan?
  Third, is the project necessary for reasons of national security?
  Fourth, could a contract be awarded for construction of the project 
during the next fiscal year, this being fiscal year 1998?
  However, the Congress ultimately appropriated five projects that did 
not meet the jointly established criteria. The President abandoned this 
criteria when determining which projects he would veto. Thus, both the 
legislative and executive branches were guilty of abandoning the fiscal 
discipline established under the joint criteria.
  Madam President, I assert that it is impossible to have a 
disciplined, consistent budget process if the Congress and the White 
House can't stick with a preestablished plan.
  You see, further aggravating this situation is that, following the 
President's veto, there came admissions from the White House that 
errors had been made in evaluating projects for the veto, errors beyond 
the obvious abandonment of the joint criteria. This is of particular 
frustration to this Member, as two of the projects that were 
incorrectly vetoed reside in my home State.
  However, the Congress has a veto override process designed to address 
such situations. That is what we wrote into the law. But in an act of 
regression to past fiscal habits, the override resolution before us 
today contains those five projects that didn't meet the criteria in the 
first place, totaling $50 million, that, as I said, failed to meet the 
criteria, the preestablished criteria.
  One is tempted to conclude--and maybe the only conclusion is--it's 
business as usual. It is just an indication of how extraordinarily 
difficult it is for Members of Congress, all of us, to curb our 
compulsion for spending taxpayer dollars.
  In this case, the cost of abuse is compounded because the game is 
being played with our national security at stake.
  A maintenance facility for chemical and biological warfare detection 
devices at Crane naval surface warfare center, and a civil engineering 
center a Grissom air reserve base are included in this resolution. Both 
projects are in my home state, and both meet the joint criteria.
  The Crane chemical/biological detection center, a $4 million project, 
relates to a mission shortfall in chemical and biological warfare 
detection capabilities that should be built as soon as possible.
  It would address the Navy's growing need to provide maintenance and 
support for chemical and biological warfare detection devices aboard 
surface ships such as those deployed in the Persian gulf today.
  Current facilities are inadequate and lack the required environmental 
controls. The Navy supports the project and local officials have 
already entered into a contract for the design of the facility. So it 
meets the criteria that we established.

  I want to inform my colleagues and the Members of the Indiana 
delegation, those who work at Crane, the Department of the Navy, that I 
intend to work with them expeditiously and as conscientiously as I can, 
along with the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Air 
Force, to accelerate this Crane project--not just support but to 
accelerate, as well as the Grissom Project, in an effort to ensure that 
our national defense capabilities are not weakened as a result of the 
cancellation of these projects.
  However, as I previously stated, there is embodied in this resolution 
the violation of a principle basic to the line-item veto, a principle 
of fiscal discipline and restraint.
  Senator McCain and I fought a long battle for passage of the Line-
Item Veto Act. We did so in the belief that it would apply a measure of 
discipline to a Congress that seemed consumed by a spending habit, and 
particularly egregious--a practice which loaded otherwise meritorious 
acceptable spending with that which had not met the criteria and gained 
the support of a majority of Members of Congress in an up-or-down vote, 
or straightforward debate on that particular item, but attached to 
something that was popular, attached to something that was needed with 
the intent of having it ride through on the train of something that was 
important. Unfortunately, the resolution before us today embodies that 
same practice, that same budget chicanery that has taken place in the 
past.
  Though there are many projects of merit contained in this resolution, 
these meritorious projects are being used to spirit through those that 
are without merit.
  This resolution is a missed opportunity. As the Supreme Court readies 
itself to ponder the final fate of the Line Item Veto Act, Congress had 
the opportunity to send the President a resolution that embodied the 
principle and the practice of fiscal discipline. Instead, we have 
squandered this opportunity by providing legislation handicapped by 
fiscal indiscipline.
  Mr. President, though I am disappointed in this particular measure, I 
firmly believe that it demonstrates that the line item veto process is 
both practical and constitutional.
  Judge Hogan has now placed the final question on the Line Item Veto 
Act before the Supreme Court. As such, I would like to comment briefly 
on the constitutional strength of the measure.
  I believe that the Line Item Veto Act conforms to the presentment 
clause of the Constitution and that Congress is within its 
constitutional right in granting to the President the authority to 
rescind, or withhold from obligation, spending, as he administers the 
law.
  As Walter Dellinger, then assistant attorney general testified before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee: ``Unlike line item veto bills that our 
office previously found unconstitutional, S. 4 would not violate any 
aspect of the presentment clause: It would not authorize the President 
to veto some portions of a bill and also sign the remaining portions 
into law. Rather, it would permit the President to rescind 
discretionary spending after the enactment of an appropriations act 
that would remain law. Such rescission authority would not implicate 
the specific textual requirements of Article I, Section 7: It would 
apply to the administration by the executive of a duly enacted law, not 
to the constitutionally prescribed procedures for a bill's enactment.''
  Timothy Flanigan, a former assistant attorney general during the Bush 
administration went further, stating that:

       This approach avoids the presentment clause problems . . . 
     by doing nothing to alter how an appropriations or spending 
     bill becomes law. It would not alter the presentment process 
     but instead authorizes the President to rescind specific 
     spending items, unless Congress within a certain time acts to 
     approve that particular item.

  The process established by the Line Item Veto Act is not new. Rather, 
it is the essential restoration of a budget process that existed prior 
to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
  On the delegation of powers question, just as Gramm-Rudman survived 
constitutional scrutiny, so shall the Line Item Veto Act. In that case, 
the courts ruled that appropriations power was not distinguishable from 
other powers that had been successfully delegated in the past. The 
court equated Congress' power to appropriate with the power to tax. 
Taxing power has been successfully delegated in the past.
  I am confident that the Line Item Veto Act is fully constitutional.
  Opponents of the line item veto have long argued that any such 
measure could face constitutional challenges in two key areas. They 
suggest that a line item veto may violate the presentment clause 
because a bill no longer would be signed or vetoed in whole, but in 
part. Secondly, they suggest that the line item veto represents an 
unconstitutional delegation of Congress' power of the purse. The 
district court bought into this argument, and the supreme court will 
now have final say on the question.
  The Line Item Veto Act clearly meets the presentment clause standard. 
It does not allow the President to individually veto sections of a bill 
when it is presented to him. Rather, the act grants the President 
authority

[[Page S968]]

to rescind, or withhold from obligation, spending, as he administers 
the law.
  In hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Walter Dellinger, 
former Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice testified 
about the line item veto:

       Unlike Line Item Veto Bills that our office previously 
     found unconstitutional, S. 4 would not violate any aspect of 
     the presentment clause: It would not authorize the president 
     to veto some portions of a bill and also to sign the 
     remaining portions into law. Rather, S. 4 would permit the 
     president to rescind discretionary spending after the 
     enactment of an appropriations act that would remain the law. 
     Such rescission authority would not implicate the specific 
     textual requirements of article I, section 7: It would apply 
     to the administration by the executive of a duly enacted law, 
     not to the constitutionally prescribed procedures for a 
     bill's enactment. Our office has carefully reviewed S. 4 and 
     concluded that it is constitutional.

  In fact, Timothy Flanigan, former Assistant Attorney General during 
the Bush Administration, testified that of the various line item veto 
proposals, enhanced rescission is on the strongest footing 
constitutionally.

       A far more promising legislative proposal, S 4, the Dole-
     McCain-Coats legislative Line Item Veto Act of 1995, is aimed 
     at giving the President greater control over the expenditure 
     of funds. This approach avoids the presentment clause 
     problems by doing nothing to alter how an appropriations or 
     spending bill becomes law. Senator Dole's bill would not 
     alter the presentment process but instead authorizes the 
     President to rescind specific spending items, unless Congress 
     within a certain time acts to approve that particular item. A 
     statute of that type would amount to a restoration to the 
     President of power taken by Congress during the Nixon 
     Presidency in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

  Just as the Line Item Veto Act meets the presentment clause 
challenge, it in no way exceeds Congress' constitutional Authority to 
delegate its functions to the Executive.
  Gramm-Rudman-Hollings survived a constitutional challenge. The courts 
ruled that appropriations power was not functionally distinguishable 
from other powers that had been successfully delegated in the past. The 
court noted that Congress' power to appropriate was particularly akin 
to its power to tax which has been successfully delegated in the past.
  In 1989, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a plea that Congress' 
power to tax may not be delegated, the court stated:

       Article I, section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the 
     powers of Congress. First in place among these enumerated 
     powers is the `power to lay and collect taxes, duties, 
     imports and excises . . .' We discern nothing in the 
     placement of the taxing clause that would distinguish 
     Congress' power to tax from its other enumerated powers . . . 
     in terms of the scope and degree of discretionary authority 
     that Congress may delegate to the executive. . . . (Skinner 
     v. MidAmerica Pipeline Co., 109 S. Ct. 1726, 1732, 1733 
     (1989).

  Walter Dellenger testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee,

       Although [delegation] is a significant constitutional 
     issue, we are confident that the Supreme Court would sustain 
     S. 4 or similar legislation. It is well established that 
     Congress may delegate sweeping discretionary powers to the 
     executive, including powers that related directly to the 
     nation's fiscal policy. For example, Congress may authorize 
     the President to raise or lower tariffs, to set the price of 
     agricultural commodities, or to recover excess wartime 
     profits. Indeed, on only two occasions--both of which 
     occurred nearly sixty years ago--has the Supreme Court struck 
     down a statute on the grounds that it impermissibly delegated 
     power to the President.

  Timothy Flannigan added,

       Although this type of bill has previously been attacked on 
     the ground that it would constitute an unconstitutional 
     delegation of congressional power, there is no foundation in 
     the constitution for that claim. The constitution requires 
     that no money be drawn from the treasury except ``in 
     consequence of appropriations made by law,'' (Article I, 
     Section 9, Clause 7), but there is no requirement that the 
     President spend all moneys that are appropriated. Indeed, 
     such a policy would either encourage gross fiscal 
     irresponsibility by the President or would require Congress 
     to micromanage all aspects of Federal procurement. There is 
     nothing in the Constitution that requires either result. 
     [Timonthy Flannigan, Subcommittee of the Constitution, Senate 
     Judiciary Committee, January 17, 1995].

  I am confident that the Line Item Veto Act is constitutionally sound 
and that it will be upheld by the Supreme Court.
  Let me conclude by stating that I am saddened to be confronted with a 
resolution that places my principles in conflict with the interest of 
my State. However, we are entrusted by the people who elected us to 
make the tough decisions that will ensure the long-term health, 
security, and fiscal soundness of this great Nation. As such, I cannot 
support a resolution that continues the fiscal chicanery of the past. 
Thus I must vote against it, and urge its defeat.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, we didn't make our opening statement a 
while ago because we had sort of a logistics problem. But we have most 
of that ironed out.
  There are a couple of points that I would like to make on which the 
support for the override of this veto is very important. I assure my 
good friend from Nebraska that I will not take long.
  We have worked with Senator McCain, who serves on the Armed Services 
Committee, in developing parameters and guidelines on what we should do 
when making determinations of spending that money on military 
construction. I am beholden to him, and I thank him for his leadership, 
because not only did it help us develop our guidelines but also it 
helps us to at least coordinate the activities of military construction 
with Armed Services.
  There are two different entities here. I agree that it is alarming 
whenever we see the attrition, especially an accelerated attrition and 
losing people who are essential to make our fighting forces really 
effective--in other words those pilots, those specialized people, who 
are highly technical and necessary to operate in today's modern Army, 
Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps.
  There has been some attention given to Guard facilities. There is a 
very good reason for that. This administration since it came to town 
has been integrating Guard and Reserve units with regulars wherever 
they can because the force structure and our cutback in defense 
spending has required them to do that. In each one of those places 
where you have Guard or Reserves, it takes facilities that at least 
come up to the standard that you would find in any regular unit.
  So there is a new way of looking on how we build facilities and what 
facilities are going to be needed. I also say that losing through 
attrition these people that we depend on in technical positions 
concerns me. But it also concerns me that if they do not accept 
advancement or more money to fly 5 or 6 more years, then there is 
another reason why they are leaving the military. You say they are away 
from their families. I would say quality of life has a lot to do with 
that. And the emphasis of the last 3 years or 4 years or so has been on 
quality of life--not only quality of life for the person that is 
serving in uniform, or serving in our particular services, but also the 
spouses of those men and women because that is just as important, too, 
when we take a look at family life on any base, post, or operation.
  It might surprise a lot of Senators that the biggest share of 
appropriations--the lion's share--goes to environmental cleanup caused 
by BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The ranking 
Member and I have looked at some figures, and fully a third of next 
year's appropriations will be in environmental cleanup. It does nothing 
to add to the quality of life nor to build facilities nor to integrate 
anything that has to do with the security and the defense of this 
country.
  There we ought to make some changes, because I think sometimes when 
we go into environmental cleanup when a base is closed and all of these 
requirements we are putting on, a lot of these bases are not going to 
end up being day care centers. Maybe we ought to find out what they are 
going to be used for and go to that degree as far as environmental 
cleanup. I am not against environmental cleanup. I do not want to go as 
far as I can to eat off the floor of barracks. But that is what we are 
talking about here. All of these so-called add-ons were authorized by 
the committee. Those are the guidelines. Those are the guidelines and 
the parameters that were set down.
  We will continue as long as I am chairman of this committee to press 
for quality of life, and also the new

[[Page S969]]

thrust of how we are going to prepare our young men and women for the 
defense of this country. And if we are going to integrate what we would 
call regulars with the Reserves or with the National Guard, then it is 
going to take a new thrust in the way we allocate money to maintain the 
infrastructure for that to happen. That is the thrust we have used 
today.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. COATS assumed the chair).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take the time today to announce my 
support for the upcoming vote to override the President's veto of the 
Military Construction Line-Item Veto bill. This bill would have 
restored the funding to several very important construction projects in 
twenty-four states, one of which is my own.
  I voted for the line-item veto law. This law has recently been 
adjudged unconstitutional. We could simply wait for the Supreme Court 
to strike this law down. But I want to be on record reaffirming my 
belief that the President should have the authority to strike certain 
portions of congressional appropriation bills. However, I also want to 
be on record affirming the error in the President's line item in this 
instance of a certain Colorado project, as well as many others which my 
colleagues will attest.
  In vetoing the restoration of funding to these projects, the 
President commented, ``the projects in this bill would not 
substantially improve the quality of life of service members and their 
families, and most would not likely use funds for construction in FY 
1998.'' Mr. President, I can assure you that this assumption is 
certainly not the case for the appropriation for work on the Army 
railyard expansion at Fort Carson. It is not, as the President seems to 
imply, a ``pork project.'' In fact, the Army itself stated it needs 
this project. It is included in the Army's 5-year development plan.
  This project is necessary to expand Ft. Carson's rail capacity to 
meet the minimum requirements to deploy several assigned units and 
potentially very large number of reserve units. Let me repeat that: 
this project is necessary to enable Ft. Carson meet the minimum 
requirements of deployment. In other words, Ft. Carson currently does 
not meet the minimum deployment requirements.
  In addition, the project would add several basic infrastructure 
components, including rail spurs, an operations support building and a 
maintenance shop. If these improvements are not made, the railyard's 
ability to deploy units, as a member of the ``contingency force pool,'' 
will be severely limited.
  As you can see, the project's completion is necessary in the Army's 
opinion. I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the override 
of the President's veto of the fiscal year 1998 Military Construction 
Appropriations Bill. On November 13, the President vetoed H.R. 2631 
which would have restored funding for the 38 military construction 
projects he earlier line-item vetoed. It had passed the House by a veto 
proof margin (352-64) November 8, 1997, and been passed by the Senate 
in its own version of the same bill by a vote of 69-30.
  Mr. President, I believe the Senate will overwhelmingly override the 
President's veto of this bill. The President listed as one of the 
criteria used that none of the 38 projects he line-item vetoed was 
requested by the DoD in FY98. I want to caution the President. Article 
I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States says the Congress 
has the responsibility to raise and support the military. That means 
that he does not have the only say how to raise and support our troops. 
If the Congress believes that certain projects will support our 
military, it is our right and responsibility to fund those projects. I 
supported the line-item veto when it was originally passed, but I agree 
with the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and others who have 
stated that his action on this particular bill was an abuse of 
authority.
  The President stated in his line-item veto announcement, ``The 
balanced budget that I signed into law this summer will extend 
America's fiscal discipline into the next century. It will bring 
enormous dividends in our long term economic health. But it will 
continue to require difficult choices. American government will live 
within its means.''
  It should be clear to everyone, neither the Military Construction 
Appropriations bill, or any other appropriations bill this Congress has 
passed, violates the Budget Agreement. America is living within its 
means, and none of the 38 projects the President vetoed changes that 
fact.
  The President states that the projects he is canceling do not make 
substantial contribution to the quality of life and well-being of our 
men and women in uniform. I believe that those who put this list 
together for the President made a grave error in calculating what 
exactly can be called a contribution to the quality of life and well-
being of our men and women in uniform. It is my belief that calculation 
should take into account the health and safety of those working at the 
facility in question. In our case, at WSMR, $6.9 million was 
appropriated for Launch Complex Revitalization. At the current Launch 
Complex, personnel are potentially exposed to HANTA virus due to 
infestation by rodents below existing structures. If that does not 
qualify as making a contribution to the quality of life, I do not know 
what else will.
  In addition the President line-item vetoed $14 million for the 
construction of a new Theater Air Command Control and Simulation 
Facility and Kirtland Air Force Base. This facility was in the 
Department of Defense's five year plan, it met the President's 
requirement for 35% design being completed, and it was deemed to have 
been a military essential project.
  In both cases, as with the rest of the 38 projects the President 
vetoed, these items are important to strengthening and protecting the 
health and safety of the Department of Defense and those who work at 
these facilities. The President made grave errors when he put this list 
together, and I am gratified that after a lot of hard work, today we 
will be correcting his mistake once and for all. All of these projects 
were scrutinized by the Appropriations Committee in detail. The 
Committee found that in many cases the criteria were not correctly 
applied. This effort is to correct those mistakes.
  I ask all my colleagues to support the veto override. I believe it is 
the appropriate action for us to take. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there is another vote that will occur here 
tonight at 6 o'clock that is very important. That is a veto override. I 
ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of this and the 38 
military construction projects that the President vetoed last fall. He 
is a bit embarrassed about that now. Somehow the communication between 
he and the Defense Department on those projects that he had already 
penciled off on for this year's budget but that we found and the budget 
process found adequate moneys for, he vetoed.
  I am one who supported the line-item veto, but I will say if it is 
going to be used as haphazardly as it was used in this instance, I will 
have to reconsider my support, as I think others do.
  Mr. President, today the Senate is considering whether to override 
President Clinton's veto of 38 military construction projects last 
fall. The President argued that these projects weren't requested, 
couldn't be completed in FY 98, and did not contribute to quality of 
life for service member. Mr. President, I strongly disagree. I offer 
that his reckless veto of these projects is an indication of his 
disregard for important defense matters and sloppy work by his staff.
  Let me begin by setting the record straight. The President claimed 
that the projects he vetoed were not in the future years defense plan 
(FYDP). Wrong, Mr. President. 33 of the 38 projects were in the FYDP. 
The President also contended that design work for the projects wasn't 
complete and couldn't be executed in the coming fiscal year. Wrong 
again, Mr. President. For example, the two projects vetoed for Mountain 
Home Air Force Base in Idaho are currently designed at 50 percent or 
more, and could be awarded this year.
  This President has consistently underfunded the military construction 
budget, and then had the audacity to veto projects that the Congress 
thoughtfully restored. This isn't frivolous, Mr. President, the total 
Military

[[Page S970]]

Construction Appropriations approved by Congress FY 98 was already $610 
million below FY 97, but the President's budget was lower--because it 
was reckless in underfunding the military construction and quality of 
life projects. In July, this body approved the additional funds for 
military construction recommended by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee to help provide money for rundown bases facilities and other 
high priority projects submitted by the military services that were not 
funded in the President's budget. It think it is noteworthy that both 
the authorizing Committees in the House and the Senate noted the 
continuing low priority military facilities received, despite 
maintenance and modernization backlogs.
  Congress knew better than to cut defense as deeply as the President. 
It's pretty clear to me that this Commander-in-Chief doesn't have the 
regard for the men and women in uniform that they deserve. What also 
angers me also is that the Administration never tried to negotiate or 
object to any of these projects when they came before the Congress for 
a vote. It seem apparent that these vetoes were either afterthought or 
politically motivated.
  Despite my frustration by the President's action, I do want to 
reiterate my support for the line-item veto. However, today Congress is 
also exercising its right to object and vote down those vetoed items. 
Certainly, a vote to override the President's veto is not a vote 
against the line-item veto, it's a vote against arbitrary and reckless 
vetoes of important projects.
  One of the items vetoed is the B-1 Bomber Avionics Shop at Mountain 
Home Air Force Base. I can hardly think of a more worthy candidate for 
military construction funds. Currently, it is difficult to keep the 
proper environment necessary to perform required maintenance tasks on 
the composite wing aircraft avionics and EMC systems. In fact, 
sometimes the avionics projects have to be flown off base and back to 
finish the required work. This mission essential avionics shop not only 
supports the B-1 beddown, but will also restore inefficient avionics 
repairs for the F-15 and F-16 which are done in an aging misconfigured 
building. The current facility has repeated power dumps from faulty 
fire suppression alarm system, leading to equipment failures and costly 
repairs.
  The President also vetoed the F-15 Squadron Operations Facility. This 
project replaces a 28 year old, substandard facility that is 
misconfigured for flight operation and geographically separated from 
the flight line. The new facility will provide adequate space to plan, 
brief, and critique combat crews, and direct the F-15 flight 
operations. Administrative space is required for the commander and 
staff to program and conduct mission briefings and command activities 
and to care for, store and issue equipment.
  Mr. President, although military construction represents a small 
portion of the overall defense budget, it is a very important part. The 
quality of our facilities and installation directly strengthens or 
weakens the safety and readiness of our troops. It seems apparent to me 
than many of the vetoed items enhance quality of life of our troops and 
directly contribute to the mission that our service men and women are 
asked to perform--no one is asking for country clubs, or golf courses 
here. These projects are essential to national security interests and 
improving the readiness of our forces. Mr. President, your vetoes are 
simply not justified.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of HR 
2631. Let there be no mistake, I support the line item veto, but, 
perhaps just as important, I support Congressional authority to 
override the veto if deemed necessary. In fact, one of the reasons that 
I support the line item veto is to make Members go on record in support 
of or against the vetoed items. I am willing to go on record and 
support this Resolution without hesitation. One such program is to fund 
the Army Strategic Mobility Program railhead project at Fort Carson. 
This project is recognized by the Department of the Army as a need for 
readiness and is included in the Administration's own Five Year Plan.
  To give a brief history, the current railhead at Fort Carson was 
built in the 1940's and includes several one-story wooden warehouse 
buildings that were built during the same period. Since then, the 
railhead has received no major improvements or overhaul.
  While the loading and storage capabilities were adequate for many 
years, they are no longer. Fort Carson is now home to two TIER I units, 
the 10th Special Forces and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. As you 
know, TIER I units must be able to deploy within 72 hours upon 
receiving notification. The current capabilities fall far short of this 
requirement. The Army Strategic Mobility Program requires that the 
railhead deliver 500 cars for a two day outload. The current railhead 
only allows for 314, well short of that required for the ASMP.
  The 3rd ACR is the only heavy cavalry unit in the Army's inventory, 
and as such it can be sent to any theater of operations. It is critical 
that this unit be able to meet its deployment requirements. 
Unfortunately, at this time it cannot due to the inadequacy of the Fort 
Carson railhead.
  Also, Fort Carson would serve as a major staging area for numerous 
National Guard and reserve units in time of war and the rail-loading 
and warehousing deficiencies could hamper those activities as well.
  Mr. President, when Congress granted the President the line item veto 
we did not make him the final voice on budget priorities. Congress has 
the Constitutional obligation to have the final say on all revenue and 
outlay matters. This is how I believe the system should work. The 
President vetoes projects and if the Congress disagrees, then two-
thirds of the Members in each body must vote to override. Today, it is 
my belief that Congress will use its veto-override power to approve 
these projects which are in the Administration's Five Year Plan.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is considering the question 
as to whether the Senate shall override the President's veto of 
legislation to disapprove his line item veto of projects in Public Law 
105-45, the FY 1998 Military Construction Appropriations Act.
  In his first use of the line-item veto authority on an appropriations 
measure, the President proposed to cancel $287 million in budget 
authority for 38 military construction projects.
  The President used three criteria upon which to evaluate these 
military construction projects for use of his line-item veto authority: 
The project was not requested in the President's 1998 budget; the 
project would not substantially improve the quality of life of military 
service members and their families; and the project almost certainly 
would not begin construction in 1998 because the Defense Department 
reports that no design work has been done on it.
  All of these projects were scrutinized by the Appropriations 
Committee in detail. The committee found that in many cases the 
President's criteria were not correctly applied. The Appropriations 
Committee found that in many cases--
  The project was included in the Department of Defense's future year 
defense plan;
  The project was mission essential;
  The project would enhance readiness, safety or working conditions for 
service personnel;
  A site had been identified for the project;
  Money had been spent on the design of the project; and
  The Department could begin to execute the project during fiscal year 
1998.
  Based on this information, the Senate passed S. 1292 on October 30 by 
a vote of 69 to 30. The President vetoed this legislation on November 
11. The House voted to override his veto on February 5, by a vote of 
347 to 69. While the Supreme Court has not ruled on the 
constitutionality of this legislation, lower Federal court has ruled it 
unconstitutional. If that ruling stands, the 38 projects will be 
restored. We should go ahead now to permit that to happen. Also, the 
criteria that the Senate Appropriations Committee applied to these 
projects are still valid. For that reason alone, the projects should be 
approved.
  Mr. President, this is the first test of the line-item veto on an 
appropriations bill. I support overriding the President's veto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.

[[Page S971]]

  The Presiding Officer will advise the Senator from Montana that under 
a previous agreement we are scheduled to return at 2 p.m., which is 
just about 30 seconds away, to the Snowe amendment No. 1647 to S. 1663.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to advise the Chair that on 
this issue of the override vote on this bill, we are prepared to yield 
back the remainder of our time. After I make a couple of unanimous 
consent requests, I think we are prepared to yield back our time and 
then we can go on to campaign finance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, also, we had a hearing on this bill after 
it was vetoed the first time. I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the proceedings of that hearing.

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

  [Excerpts from a hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, United States Senate entitled ``Evaluate the 
     President's Use of the Line Item Veto Authority for Military 
            Construction Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations'']

       They went in to say because the Department reported to the 
     office that no design work had been done on it. Are any 1 of 
     those 33 that are Air Force projects subject to those 
     restrictions?
       General Lupia. Thirteen of those were line item vetoed. 
     Sir, all of those 13 projects were in our 5-year defense 
     plan. None of the 13 were in the President's budget. But they 
     were all in our 5-year defense plan.
       The program years varied. Some were in the year 2000 out to 
     the year 2003. Of the 13 items, quite frankly, sir, there is 
     1, a dining hall at Malmstrom Air Force Base, that I am 
     having a little bit of trouble with determining why the 
     project did not qualify as a quality of life project, and I 
     was not in on the decisionmaking, so I do not know what 
     criteria was used.
       The Chairman. It is all three criteria, General. Was it 
     capable of being executed in 1998?
       General Lupia. Yes, sir, executed, it was, sir.
       The Chairman. But you had trouble finding whether any 
     design work had been started?
       General Lupia. No, sir; I have the information on design 
     work. What I was saying was I have trouble understanding why 
     the Malmstrom dining hall did not qualify as a quality of 
     life project, and again I do not know who made the decision 
     or how, but it is, in fact, a project that supports 700 of 
     our airmen who eat in the dining hall at Malmstrom.
       The Chairman. Well, it was my understanding if it satisfied 
     any one of those three criteria it was not supposed to be on 
     the list. That was what I was informed. Quality of life 
     projects were taken out. Those in the President's budget were 
     taken out. And those that already had design work and could 
     be executed in 1998 were taken out, and the balance were 
     supposed to be those that were vetoed.
       Were there any of those that did not have one of those 
     three criteria, as far as the Department of Air Force is 
     concerned?
       General Lupia. No, sir.
       The Chairman. General Gill, how about your service, the 
     Army?
       General Gill. Mr. Chairman, we had 44 projects that were 
     accelerated by Congress. I believe 14 were line item vetoed. 
     Of those 14 projects, 12 were in the 5-year, the future years 
     defense program; 2 were not.
       Earlier we had been asked by Congress last spring whether 
     or not these projects were in the FYDP and could they be 
     executed in fiscal year 1998. You can debate what execution 
     means. We reproted in all cases that they could be executed. 
     To me as a budget person or as an engineer, that means award 
     of a contract.
       The Chairman. But two of them have some question as to 
     whether that design work has actually been done. The design 
     work I think was added in at an earlier time. Were either of 
     those two quality of life projects?
       General Gill. No, sir, they were operational projects. One 
     was a National Guard aviation support facility in Rapid City, 
     SD, and in this case the design work is done by the State, 
     and the action officer in the National Guard Bureau and the 
     State Guard representative miscommunicated and we provided 
     the wrong information to OSD. The State had actually, begun 
     some design work, but had been reported as zero percent 
     design.
       The other case was at Fort Campbell, KY, a vehicle 
     maintenance shop. This was the result of a project that was 
     phased and, in fact, the design had been done completely in 
     the earlier phase 1. The data base did not carry the 
     design as being completed for phase 2. Phase 2 was 
     accelerated. It was reported as not designed when, in 
     fact, it is at 100 percent.
       Admiral Amerault. Yes, sir; sir, all but 3 of the 12 
     projects that were line item vetoed in the Navy were in the 
     FYDP, in the years 2000 to 2003, some in the out-years of the 
     FYDP.
       We reported that all could be executed. That is under the 
     definition that executable means to us a construction 
     contract could be let in the fiscal year. We reported that 
     they could all be executed in fiscal year 1998. And none of 
     them were quality of life.
       The Chairman. I want your judgment, General, whether each 
     of the projects that were vetoed, in every case, the Air 
     Force projects, is the project an essential Air Force project 
     to meet your mission?
       General Lupia. Sir, the projects are essential to the Air 
     Force and they are in our 5-year defense plan. In terms of 
     budget constraints, some of them are in later years than we 
     would like to have them, but they are of military value. Each 
     of the projects vetoed would enhance operations at the 
     respective installations, but their deferral to a future year 
     does not undercut national security.
       General Gill. I think categorically I can say that those 
     that are in the FYDP were essential. It is my judgment--and 
     you asked my judgment--that those which fell within the FTDP, 
     appear to be essential facilities for the accomplishment of 
     the Army's mission. They would have been moved forward had 
     there been enough room in our budget. Some of them would have 
     come forward; others would have been gotten to later. It was 
     simply a matter of how many dollars we had and our internal 
     prioritization.
       The Chairman. Thank you. The same question to you, Admiral.
       Admiral Amerault. Yes, sir; we reported that, whether or 
     not these projects were militarily essential in our response 
     to questions from OSD, we reported in all cases that they 
     were, with the exception of those three that were not in the 
     FYDP. We were not asked that question for those three.
       Their placement within the FYDP was simply a matter of 
     budget priorities, affordability, and so forth.
       The Chairman. The timeframe of affordability within the 5-
     year plan. Thank you much.
       Senator Domenici. I will go very quickly. I think the 
     project at Kirtland Air Force Base, that is yours, General 
     Lupia. I understand that this project was included within the 
     defense future year defense plan. Is that true?
       General Lupia. Yes, sir; it was in 2002.
       Senator Domenici. Is this project mission-essential within 
     the context of the plan?
       General Lupia. Yes, sir, it is.
       Senator Domenici. Has a site been identified for this 
     project?
       General Lupia. Yes, sir, it has.
       Senator Domenici. Has money been spent on the design of 
     this project?
       General Lupia. Yes, sir; we have already invested $350,000 
     in beginning the planning and design of the project.
       Senator Domenici. Can you begin to execute this project 
     during fiscal year 1998?
       General Lupia. Sir, we can execute it, the definition being 
     contract award in 1998, yes, sir.
       Senator Inouye. Admiral, if I may ask, my staff indicated 
     the Navy had every intention of executing construction of the 
     Asian Pacific Center.
       Admiral Amerault. Yes, sir; sir, that project is in the 
     FYDP in the year 2003. We had spent no military construction 
     planning and design funds on that project. That is what we 
     reported on September 26. Since that time, the A&E 
     contract for preparation of an RFP was awarded on 
     September 30, 9 days ago. Since then $145,000 has been 
     obligated.
       Our anticipation was the earliest construction contract 
     award would be in the third quarter of fiscal year 1998.
       Senator Inouye. So your files would indicate that we have 
     already expended $145,000 for design?
       Admiral Amerault. Within the last 9 days, sir.
       Senator Inouye. And you are ready to move in the third 
     quarter of the next fiscal year.
       Admiral Amerault. We anticipate that we could award that 
     contract in the third quarter of 1998.
       Senator Craig. Thank you much, Mr. Chairman.
       Let me do a similar action, General Lupia, on the two items 
     vetoed--Mountain Home Air Force Base, the B-1 avionics 
     building. What is its current status?
       General Lupia. Sir, we reported in April 1997 that the 
     project was zero percent designed. We are today reporting 10 
     percent work that has been accomplished since then.
       Senator Craig. So design activity is fully underway?
       General Lupia. Yes, sir, that is correct.
       Senator Craig. Location?
       General Lupia. The site has been identified, no problem 
     with the site, no environmental problems. The project is in 
     the Air Force's 5-year defense plan in the year 2000. So we 
     had already planned to spend 1998 design money to get it 
     going. We spend 2.5 percent 2 years out, and then 6.5 percent 
     on design 1 year out. We have already invested in the 
     project.
       Senator Craig. How essential is this to the overall beddown 
     of the B-1's at Mountain Home?
       General Lupia. Sir, this project is essential to the 
     beddown. We have been using workabounds and will continue to 
     do that, but it is essential to the beddown.
       Senator Craig. The F-15 squadron operations facility, what 
     is the status of that, to your knowledge?
       General Lupia. Sir, that project is in the Air Force's 5-
     year defense plan in the year 2002. So we reported that we 
     have not begun design. But this is again back in April 1997.
       Senator Craig. So both of these are clearly within the 5-
     year plan, design work has begun, locations have been 
     determined.

[[Page S972]]

       General Lupia. No environmental problems, sir.
       Senator Craig. No environmental problems, viewed to be 
     essential for mission?

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have checked with Senator McCain and his 
office. He requires no more time. The vote on this will occur at 6 p.m. 
this evening, I am told. We are prepared to yield back the remainder of 
our time, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________