[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S995-S997]
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. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Byrd 
will not speak during the time that he had reserved, but Senator 
Kempthorne would like to speak. How much time does the Senator from 
Idaho need?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. About 4 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. I rise with regard to the issue of the 
military construction veto override. I rise in support of overriding 
the President's veto of the military construction budget.
  Mr. President, I am one of those who supported the concept of the 
line-item veto. I still do. But when I voted for that, I certainly did 
not abdicate my rights and authority, if I disagreed with a 
Presidential line-item veto, to come back and speak against that veto 
and cast my vote. If, in fact, two-thirds of the Members of this body, 
along with two-thirds of the Members of the House, vote to override, it 
would be successful.
  Here is an example of two projects that were in the military 
construction budget which the President vetoed. Both projects were 
intended to support the combat requirements of the 366th Composite Wing 
based at Mountain Home Air Force Base.
  A recent letter to me from Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen described 
the

[[Page S996]]

critical role played by the 366th Composite Wing: ``As one of the first 
units to deploy to a problem area, it has the responsibility to 
neutralize enemy forces. It must maintain peak readiness to respond 
rapidly and effectively to diverse situations and conflicts.''
  In an ironic twist of fate, the 366th was doing its mission on 
deployment in the Persian Gulf when the President took inaccurate 
information, provided by the Air Force, and vetoed two projects 
intended to support the combat effectiveness of this unit.
  President Clinton used his line-item veto pen to delete $9.2 million 
for an avionics facility for the B-1 bombers and $3.7 million for 
squadron operations facility for an F-15 squadron.
  In his veto statement, the President claimed the vetoed construction 
projects could not be started in fiscal year 1998 because there was no 
design work on the proposed projects. This assertion has now been 
proven false by a letter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense John 
Hamre, which now acknowledges that the Department of Defense provided 
inaccurate data about the status of design work.
  With respect to the two projects at Mountain Home Air Force Base, the 
outdated Air Force data provided to the White House listed both 
projects at zero percent design when in fact, as now verified by Air 
Force, both projects are in fact over 35 percent designed. Moreover, 
before any of these projects could be included in the FY 1998 Defense 
Authorization bill, the services were required to certify that each of 
the projects could be initiated in FY 1998 and that is what they did, 
without exception.
  As my colleagues know, the Department of Defense puts together a 
future years defense plan which projects the DOD budget six years into 
the future. Regarding the two projects at Mountain Home, I note that 
the Avionics Facility is contained in the Air Force's 1999 budget and 
the F-15 Squadron Operations Facility is contained in the service's 
2000 budget.
  As the President ponders the use of the line item veto, I think there 
needs to be a dialogue with the legislative branch. If there had been 
dialogue, we might have been able to point out the faulty data being 
used by the White House.
  Early this year Congress and the President reached an historic 
agreement to balance the budget and increase defense spending above the 
President's request. Congress went through its normal deliberative 
process and we used the additional defense dollars to move forward 
funding for projects on the service's unfunded requirements lists. 
Indeed, the B-1 Avionics Facility was one of the top ten unfunded 
military construction projects identified by the Air Force. In 
addition, the funds were within the budget caps agreed to by the 
Congress and the President.
  President Clinton has made a mistake regarding his use of the line 
item veto authority on the military construction appropriations bill. 
The Office of Management and Budget and the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
acknowledged the President used outdated and inaccurate data to make 
his decisions. The Senate should give the President another opportunity 
to do the right thing and pass the pending disapproval legislation.
  Let me thank the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Stevens, and the Ranking Member, Senator Byrd for their quick 
and decisive action to bring this important legislation to the Senate 
floor.
  Mr. President, the point is that we have a line-item veto by the 
President of the United States based upon inaccurate information 
provided by the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force has come forward and they 
have provided the documentation and the letters, and it is to help the 
military of the United States, such as the 366th Composite Wing, which 
is one of the groups that will respond upon a moment's notice. I think 
that we have seen in the last 2 weeks the critical nature of this world 
and how we may call upon the men and women in uniform to go into harm's 
way on behalf of the United States of America. And here we are somehow 
considering that we will not override a Presidential veto that was 
based upon inaccurate information.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote to override the President's line-
item veto and to support the men and women in uniform. If there is any 
time in recent history that we see how critical it is to support our 
men and women in uniform, it is now, as we still have this buildup in 
the gulf and we still don't know what the resolution there will be to 
this international thug named Saddam Hussein, who still doesn't know 
and doesn't get the message. So, again, let's support our troops and 
override the Presidential line-item veto.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 1997.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dirk: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1997. 
     I want to assure you nothing has changed regarding my 
     enthusiasm for the Enhanced Training in Idaho (ETI) 
     initiative.
       The 366th Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base (AFB) is an 
     important component of our military capability. As one of the 
     first units to deploy to a problem area, it has the 
     responsibility to neutralize enemy forces. It must maintain 
     peak readiness to respond rapidly and effectively to diverse 
     situations and conflicts.
       ETI balances realistic local training with careful 
     consideration of environmental, cultural, and economic 
     concerns. The elements of the ETI proposal, though designed 
     to minimize environmental impacts, will simulate real world 
     scenarios and allow the aircrews to plan and practice complex 
     missions. In addition to providing realistic training, ETI's 
     close proximity to Mountain Home AFB also will enable the Air 
     Force to convert time currently spent in transit into actual 
     training time. Thus, the ETI proposal allows Air Force crews 
     to use limited flight training hours more efficiently.
       I continue to give the ETI process my full support. It will 
     provide our commanders with realistic training opportunities 
     locally, while ensuring potential impacts to natural, 
     cultural, social, and economic resources are identified, and 
     where possible, cooperatively resolved. Your strong support 
     for the ETI initiative is very important to us, and you may 
     rely upon my continued interest and commitment.
       I trust this information is useful.
           Sincerely,
     Bill.
                                                                    ____



                              The Deputy Secretary of Defense,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 1997.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the Administration used 
     three criteria to decide whether to use the line-item veto on 
     individual projects in the 1998 Military Construction bill: 
     the project was not requested in the President's 1998 budget; 
     it would not substantially improve the quality of life of 
     military service members and their families; and it would not 
     likely begin construction in 1998 because the Defense 
     Department reported to the Office of Management and Budget 
     (OMB) that no design work has been done on it.
       With regard to the last criteria--the question of design 
     work--questions have arisen about the Defense Department data 
     underlying the project selections. Each of the military 
     services was asked to evaluate the design status of projects 
     in the Military Construction bill. The Defense Department 
     forwarded that information, without change, to OMB. I have 
     enclosed copies of the analysis in question.
       It now appears some of the Defense Department data sent to 
     OMB may have been outdated. The Defense Department will work 
     with Congress as quickly as possible to correct any errors 
     that may have occurred as a result of the outdated data.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John J. Hamre.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senate is going to vote soon on the 
override of the President's veto to H.R. 2631, the bill disapproving 
the line-item vetoes of projects contained in the fiscal year 1998 
military construction bill. I am here as chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee to urge all Members to vote in favor of the override of the 
President's veto in this matter.
  Let me begin by congratulating Senators Burns and Murray for their 
leadership in handling the military construction bill and the line-item 
veto process over the past few months.
  At no time has the discussion on this military construction bill and 
the line-item veto been marked by partisan rancor. These two members of 
our subcommittee, Senators Burns and Murray, and our full committee 
have proceeded in a completely bipartisan fashion to deal with this 
bill and the line-item process. As Senator Burns noted in his comments 
earlier today, this debate and vote provide the first test of the line-
item veto process enacted by the Congress.

[[Page S997]]

  As chairman of the conference that presented the final version of the 
line-item veto bill to the Senate, I am pleased that the procedures 
established in that bill have worked.
  I regret that we must act to override the President's veto of this 
disapproval bill. In a hearing before our committee and in numerous 
public statements, administration officials conceded that errors were 
made in handling the military construction bill. During a time of 
intense pressure on our defense budget, there could be no consideration 
of foregoing these critical projects that are necessary to support our 
military efforts.
  Override of the President's veto restores 38 projects, totaling $287 
million, for this fiscal year 1998. All of these projects have been 
defined as necessary by the Armed Forces and are executable during this 
fiscal year.
  Subsequent to the President's action on the military construction 
bill, the administration took a very different approach to the 
remaining 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 1998. I do believe 
that the confrontation that has occurred over this bill has refined the 
process for dealing with the line-item veto. While I do not support the 
President's decision with regard to many of the specific line-item 
vetoes he presented to Congress with regard to the 1998 bills, our 
committee did not hold any hearings or report disapproval bills on any 
of the other line-item veto messages. We did not challenge the 
President's decision on any line-item veto on any bill other than this 
military construction bill, although, again, I will say, as chairman, I 
disagreed with many. For 1998, the President transmitted 81 line-item 
vetoes of specific appropriations totaling $483.4 million.
  In my judgment, the line-item veto has proven to be a useful and 
appropriate tool for any President to reconsider spending matters 
passed by the Congress.
  Consideration of this bill, however, and this override will 
demonstrate the effectiveness of the process created by the bill that 
created the line-item veto. We definitely prepared a process to 
overturn a Presidential veto of a disapproval bill, and that is what we 
are dealing with now. We passed the original bill, the President line-
item vetoed it, we passed a disapproval bill, and he vetoed that. This 
is a process to overturn that veto of our bill whereby the Congress 
decided to literally overturn his veto.
  I again regret that the President chose to veto this measure. I think 
he did so on the basis of misunderstanding or upon misinformation 
presented to him. As I said in the beginning, the criteria used by the 
White House, as applied to these projects, just did not fit. This was 
not a proper veto of the items in this military construction bill.
  I am here to urge all Members to vote to override the veto on this 
bill, restore the funding for these projects that are urgently needed 
for military construction, and validate the process that the line-item 
veto bill presented to the Congress and make it work. Thank you, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

                          ____________________