Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 813 and that the bill be referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the following bills, en bloc: S. 587, S. 588, S. 589, and S. 591. I ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments be agreed to; that the bills be read a third time and passed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bills appear at the appropriate place in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read for a third time and passed as amended, further, I ask consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and any statements appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 985 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration

Mr. STEVENS. I now ask unanimous consent the amendment No. 1322, at desk, submitted by Senator Thompson to S. 985, be considered as read and agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that committees have until 7 p.m. this evening to file reported legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator McCain has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at a later date I will enjoy entering into the discussion that has just been commenced. I assure the Senate it is not finished. I have great fondness for all participants, but I have two worries. One worry is the worry that the head of the Federal Reserve just announced we are coming into a period of inflation, and the second worry is whether the impact of the amendment as supported by the Senator from Texas would require a reduction in discretionary spending for other accounts in the years covered by the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia. That still has to be examined, in my opinion. (The remarks of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Byrd pertaining to the introduction of S. 1292 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, first, I see the Democratic leader here. I will be very pleased to yield to my friend. We have a series of items and we have not yet introduced our bill, but we would be pleased to listen to the leader who has this time reserved.

Mr. STEVENS. I shall wait.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have a bill at the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. I wish to have it read.

Mr. STEVENS. That is cosponsored by the Senator from West Virginia and a series of other Senators, Mr. President. I do wish to have it referred. I had it read because I think the Senate and those who are watching this proceeding should know how sanitized this process is. Those projects listed by the simple numbers in the President's message were denied the use of $287 million for the men and women of the armed services. As was pointed out by Senator Faircloth of North Carolina, that is approximately the amount of money we are spending per month in Bosnia. Yet, each one of these projects was very much sought after by the Department of Defense, was reviewed by eight committees of the Congress, was reviewed on the floor of the House and here on the floor of the Senate and in conference, and once again brought back to each House. I say again, the Senator from West Virginia makes a compelling case for his position, if this is to be the policy of this administration, if there is to be an indiscriminate use of the line-item veto without regard to waste, without regard to the necessity of the money that Congress says must be spent. So, I look forward to this bill being referred to our committee. When we return from the coming recess we shall proceed expeditiously. Senator Byrd and I have agreed these matters will be kept in full committee so we will not have to go through the subcommittee process. And we will return this bill to the Senate as quickly as possible.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I now would like to perform a series of missions for the leadership. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate receives a message from the House accompanying S. 830, the Senate would disagree with amendment or amendments of the House, and the Senate would insist upon its amendment, agree to the request for a conference with the House, and finally the Chair would be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following bills and the Senate proceed to their immediate consideration on en bloc: S. 595, S. 916, S. 973. These bills are various post office naming bills. I ask unanimous consent that the bills then be considered read for a third time and passed as amended, if amended; further, I ask consent that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table and any statements related to any of these bills appear at this point in the Record with the preceding occurring en bloc to the bills.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following bills and, further, that they be placed on the calendar: H.R. 1057 and H.R. 1058.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 186, House Concurrent Resolution 8.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment to the concurrent resolution be agreed to; that the concurrent resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that the amendment to the preamble be agreed to; and that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to. I further ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 135, submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have sought the floor now to introduce a disapproval bill to reverse the President's use of the line-item veto in the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill. I believe at least 37 of my colleagues will join as cosponsors of this bill. The Line-Item Veto Act, public law 104-130, provides very specific fast-track procedures for consideration of a disapproval bill. I want to discuss those in detail later in these comments. Congress received the President's special message listing the 38 cancellations in the military construction bill on Monday, October 6. The bill we introduce today is within the 5 calendar days of session timeframe provided for fast-track process. Let me take a minute on the merits of this bill, Mr. President. In June, the President reached a budget agreement with the bipartisan leadership of the Congress. That agreement provided an increase of $2.6 billion for national defense over the amount that the President had requested in the budget for fiscal year 1998. The President's action on the military construction bill, in my judgment, reneges on the budget agreement he reached with the Congress. We were given our spending caps under the agreement and the Appropriations Committee presented the Senate with 13 appropriations bills consistent with the spirit, terms and limits of the revised budget. We upheld our end of the agreement with the President. The President has not. This afternoon the Appropriations Committee met to evaluate the President's use of the line-item veto authority. I called this hearing after consultation with Senator Byrd because of the manner in which the President had used this new prerogative on this military construction bill. I asked the committee to consider whether that tool was used as intended by Congress, and that intention was that the line-item veto would be used to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary spending. The committee heard testimony from the Air Force, Navy and Army regarding the merits of the 38 military construction projects. Today's hearings afforded our committee the chance to review the status of these projects in the military's future budget plans and whether or not they could be executed in 1998. Our military witnesses testified that in fact these projects were mission-essential and that they could be commenced in 1998. These military witnesses stated that the military services were not consulted in deciding which projects should be vetoed on this bill. These witnesses also informed us that 33 of the 38 projects in the President's message on the line-item veto are in the Department's future year defense plan. Let me repeat that. Thirty-three of the 38 projects the President indicated he wished to line-item veto were in a plan he had approved himself. They told us that the President's January budget constraints had prohibited them from including many of these projects in this year's budget. If the military services at the beginning of the year had had the extra $2.6 billion that the President agreed to in July, it is my judgment that all of the projects listed in the disapproval bill could and probably would have been included in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request, if he listened to the military departments. It's my belief that we will be successful in what we are starting today, which is an effort to overturn these line-item vetoes because the projects that the President has attempted to eliminate are meritorious, are sought by the Department, are within the budget agreement, and they are not wasteful or excessive spending. These projects reflect a combination of quality of life, safety, readiness and infrastructure enhancement initiatives, Mr. President. A substantial number of them would significantly improve the day-to-day working conditions for men and women in uniform. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are the ones that are being shortchanged by the President's veto, not officials in the Pentagon or in the White House. I will urge my colleagues to support us in this important endeavor. We must stand together to require that the President live up to the bargain he made with the Congress this summer. The Line-Item Veto Act provides a process to resolve the issue quickly, so I want to take the time of the Senate to outline that process so that we all know this is a new process for all of us. Under this act, the President sent to Congress one special message for each law in which the President exercises his cancellation authority under the Line-Item Veto Act. That special message must contain a numbered list of each item the President seeks to cancel. The Line-Item Veto Act includes a fast track--a process for the speedy consideration of one disapproval bill for each message. Our action today only pertains to the military construction bill. In order to overturn one or more of the cancellations in a special message, the Congress must send a bill to the President disapproving the cancellations. That bill may be vetoed by the President using his constitutional veto authority. As with any other bill, the President's veto then may be overturned only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of each House. In order to qualify for this expedited process, the provisions of the Line-Item Veto Act require that a disapproval bill must be introduced within five calendar days of session after the Congress receives a special message from the President. With respect to the Senate, a calendar day of session is a day in which both Houses of Congress are in session. This fast-track procedure applies only in the House for 30 calendar days of session. There is no time limit on the Senate's consideration of the bill, other than the time for introduction of the bill and the discharge from the committee. A disapproval bill in the House must contain a list of all the items canceled in the special message. A disapproval bill in the Senate may contain any or all of the items canceled. I might say, Mr. President, that the bill I will introduce with my cosponsors will not include all of the measures, because some Senators have indicated they do not want to move forward with their items. The format for the disapproval bill is spelled out in the Line-Item Veto Act, and the fast track process is available only if that exact format is followed. The addition of anything other than the numbers from the list of the items canceled in the special message, whether on the floor or in conference, results in the loss of the fast track process in both the House and the Senate. In other words, no amendments to this bill, other than dealing with the specific items by number as listed in the President's message, are in order. Once introduced, the disapproval bill is referred to the committees with jurisdiction over the items that have been canceled, and it must be reported within 7 calendar days of session. After 7 calendar days of session, it is in order in either the House or the Senate to have the committees discharged. Special rules then apply in the House and the Senate with respect to debate and amendments on a disapproval bill. In the Senate, there are no more than 10 hours of debate with one extension of time for up to 5 additional hours. That is possible at the request of the leadership. Debate on any amendment is limited to one hour with up to a limit of 10 hours, at which time all amendments then pending are voted on. Special rules are also provided in the act for the conference committee. The conferees are directed to accept any item in a disapproval bill that was included in both the House and the Senate and are limited to accepting or rejecting any item in disagreement. In other words, there can be nothing added in conference that is not in one bill or the other. Debate in the Senate on a conference report is limited to four hours. This will be an expedited process, Mr. President. We intend to start it as soon as we return. Let me say again that there is a learning curve for us on the line-item veto process, and I am also constrained to say to the Senate what I just said at the conclusion of the hearing on the subject of the President's special message before the Appropriations Committee. It is obvious to me that the use of the line-item veto by the White House in this instance was very excessive. It is also obvious to me that the information process in getting the details to the President concerning the items in the bill that he used the line-item veto on were very, very badly handled. We are now awaiting the President's action on the Defense Appropriations bill. As chairman, I have been notified that the Department of Defense wishes to discuss that bill with our staff and with Members, and there was an indication that we might be asked to ``negotiate'' to see what items would be subject to a veto under the Line-Item Veto Act and what items the President would yield to that Congress desires to not have vetoed. I have notified the Department of Defense and the White House that we are not prepared--Senator Byrd and I have agreed--to negotiate with regard to any of those items. We will--and our door is open--explain to the White House or the Department why we put in any of the items, or why we left them out, but we will not negotiate. Our constitutional duty is to pass legislation. As a matter of fact, the Congress is given the specific authority for the legislative process. The President may recommend to the Congress, but he cannot dictate to the Congress, and he is not going to dictate to the Congress during the watch of this Senator. I think I am joined in that regard by the Senator from West Virginia. We do not intend to negotiate with regard to items that have already been passed by the Congress. We do discuss it before we pass a bill with the administration and we listen to them at times about threats of vetoes. But we are not going to listen to those threats after a bill is passed. I urge the Senate to understand this process that we are going through now because it is obvious that the process will be followed again and again. I announced at the conclusion of the hearings on this message on the Military Construction bill that if the same process is followed on the Department of Defense bill, an arrogant abuse of power, I intend to introduce a bill to repeal the Line-Item Veto Act. I was a supporter of the Line-Item Veto Act; as a matter of fact, I was chairman of the conference on the Senate side of that act. But I believed it should be used for a stated purpose, only to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary spending. We make mistakes at times and we make compromises at times, which perhaps could lead to what a President could class as being wasteful or unnecessary spending. But a wholesale condemnation of an act passed by Congress by use of the line-item veto pen, to me, is arrogance. From my point of view, I will persist in trying to repeal that statute and take it away from this administration--it will only be extended to the executive branch for a short period of time anyway--if it is abused again. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have sought the floor now to introduce a disapproval bill to reverse the President's use of the line-item veto in the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill. I believe at least 37 of my colleagues will join as cosponsors of this bill. The Line-Item Veto Act, public law 104-130, provides very specific fast-track procedures for consideration of a disapproval bill. I want to discuss those in detail later in these comments. Congress received the President's special message listing the 38 cancellations in the military construction bill on Monday, October 6. The bill we introduce today is within the 5 calendar days of session timeframe provided for fast-track process. Let me take a minute on the merits of this bill, Mr. President. In June, the President reached a budget agreement with the bipartisan leadership of the Congress. That agreement provided an increase of $2.6 billion for national defense over the amount that the President had requested in the budget for fiscal year 1998. The President's action on the military construction bill, in my judgment, reneges on the budget agreement he reached with the Congress. We were given our spending caps under the agreement and the Appropriations Committee presented the Senate with 13 appropriations bills consistent with the spirit, terms and limits of the revised budget. We upheld our end of the agreement with the President. The President has not. This afternoon the Appropriations Committee met to evaluate the President's use of the line-item veto authority. I called this hearing after consultation with Senator Byrd because of the manner in which the President had used this new prerogative on this military construction bill. I asked the committee to consider whether that tool was used as intended by Congress, and that intention was that the line-item veto would be used to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary spending. The committee heard testimony from the Air Force, Navy and Army regarding the merits of the 38 military construction projects. Today's hearings afforded our committee the chance to review the status of these projects in the military's future budget plans and whether or not they could be executed in 1998. Our military witnesses testified that in fact these projects were mission-essential and that they could be commenced in 1998. These military witnesses stated that the military services were not consulted in deciding which projects should be vetoed on this bill. These witnesses also informed us that 33 of the 38 projects in the President's message on the line-item veto are in the Department's future year defense plan. Let me repeat that. Thirty-three of the 38 projects the President indicated he wished to line-item veto were in a plan he had approved himself. They told us that the President's January budget constraints had prohibited them from including many of these projects in this year's budget. If the military services at the beginning of the year had had the extra $2.6 billion that the President agreed to in July, it is my judgment that all of the projects listed in the disapproval bill could and probably would have been included in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request, if he listened to the military departments. It's my belief that we will be successful in what we are starting today, which is an effort to overturn these line-item vetoes because the projects that the President has attempted to eliminate are meritorious, are sought by the Department, are within the budget agreement, and they are not wasteful or excessive spending. These projects reflect a combination of quality of life, safety, readiness and infrastructure enhancement initiatives, Mr. President. A substantial number of them would significantly improve the day-to-day working conditions for men and women in uniform. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are the ones that are being shortchanged by the President's veto, not officials in the Pentagon or in the White House. I will urge my colleagues to support us in this important endeavor. We must stand together to require that the President live up to the bargain he made with the Congress this summer. The Line-Item Veto Act provides a process to resolve the issue quickly, so I want to take the time of the Senate to outline that process so that we all know this is a new process for all of us. Under this act, the President sent to Congress one special message for each law in which the President exercises his cancellation authority under the Line-Item Veto Act. That special message must contain a numbered list of each item the President seeks to cancel. The Line-Item Veto Act includes a fast track--a process for the speedy consideration of one disapproval bill for each message. Our action today only pertains to the military construction bill. In order to overturn one or more of the cancellations in a special message, the Congress must send a bill to the President disapproving the cancellations. That bill may be vetoed by the President using his constitutional veto authority. As with any other bill, the President's veto then may be overturned only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of each House. In order to qualify for this expedited process, the provisions of the Line-Item Veto Act require that a disapproval bill must be introduced within five calendar days of session after the Congress receives a special message from the President. With respect to the Senate, a calendar day of session is a day in which both Houses of Congress are in session. This fast-track procedure applies only in the House for 30 calendar days of session. There is no time limit on the Senate's consideration of the bill, other than the time for introduction of the bill and the discharge from the committee. A disapproval bill in the House must contain a list of all the items canceled in the special message. A disapproval bill in the Senate may contain any or all of the items canceled. I might say, Mr. President, that the bill I will introduce with my cosponsors will not include all of the measures, because some Senators have indicated they do not want to move forward with their items. The format for the disapproval bill is spelled out in the Line-Item Veto Act, and the fast track process is available only if that exact format is followed. The addition of anything other than the numbers from the list of the items canceled in the special message, whether on the floor or in conference, results in the loss of the fast track process in both the House and the Senate. In other words, no amendments to this bill, other than dealing with the specific items by number as listed in the President's message, are in order. Once introduced, the disapproval bill is referred to the committees with jurisdiction over the items that have been canceled, and it must be reported within 7 calendar days of session. After 7 calendar days of session, it is in order in either the House or the Senate to have the committees discharged. Special rules then apply in the House and the Senate with respect to debate and amendments on a disapproval bill. In the Senate, there are no more than 10 hours of debate with one extension of time for up to 5 additional hours. That is possible at the request of the leadership. Debate on any amendment is limited to one hour with up to a limit of 10 hours, at which time all amendments then pending are voted on. Special rules are also provided in the act for the conference committee. The conferees are directed to accept any item in a disapproval bill that was included in both the House and the Senate and are limited to accepting or rejecting any item in disagreement. In other words, there can be nothing added in conference that is not in one bill or the other. Debate in the Senate on a conference report is limited to four hours. This will be an expedited process, Mr. President. We intend to start it as soon as we return. Let me say again that there is a learning curve for us on the line-item veto process, and I am also constrained to say to the Senate what I just said at the conclusion of the hearing on the subject of the President's special message before the Appropriations Committee. It is obvious to me that the use of the line-item veto by the White House in this instance was very excessive. It is also obvious to me that the information process in getting the details to the President concerning the items in the bill that he used the line-item veto on were very, very badly handled. We are now awaiting the President's action on the Defense Appropriations bill. As chairman, I have been notified that the Department of Defense wishes to discuss that bill with our staff and with Members, and there was an indication that we might be asked to ``negotiate'' to see what items would be subject to a veto under the Line-Item Veto Act and what items the President would yield to that Congress desires to not have vetoed. I have notified the Department of Defense and the White House that we are not prepared--Senator Byrd and I have agreed--to negotiate with regard to any of those items. We will--and our door is open--explain to the White House or the Department why we put in any of the items, or why we left them out, but we will not negotiate. Our constitutional duty is to pass legislation. As a matter of fact, the Congress is given the specific authority for the legislative process. The President may recommend to the Congress, but he cannot dictate to the Congress, and he is not going to dictate to the Congress during the watch of this Senator. I think I am joined in that regard by the Senator from West Virginia. We do not intend to negotiate with regard to items that have already been passed by the Congress. We do discuss it before we pass a bill with the administration and we listen to them at times about threats of vetoes. But we are not going to listen to those threats after a bill is passed. I urge the Senate to understand this process that we are going through now because it is obvious that the process will be followed again and again. I announced at the conclusion of the hearings on this message on the Military Construction bill that if the same process is followed on the Department of Defense bill, an arrogant abuse of power, I intend to introduce a bill to repeal the Line-Item Veto Act. I was a supporter of the Line-Item Veto Act; as a matter of fact, I was chairman of the conference on the Senate side of that act. But I believed it should be used for a stated purpose, only to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary spending. We make mistakes at times and we make compromises at times, which perhaps could lead to what a President could class as being wasteful or unnecessary spending. But a wholesale condemnation of an act passed by Congress by use of the line-item veto pen, to me, is arrogance. From my point of view, I will persist in trying to repeal that statute and take it away from this administration--it will only be extended to the executive branch for a short period of time anyway--if it is abused again. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.