During the 104th Congress, Republicans happily gave President Clinton the line item veto. But Monday, they were not so happy after he used it for the first time on an appropriations bill, to ax $287 million from the Military Construction funding measure.
"I regret this choice made by the president," Senate Appropriations Chairman Stevens told reporters. "These cuts now undermine the amounts needed to support our military." He later added, "These are not pork projects. These were projects that were needed and that the military wanted."
Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Conrad Burns, R-Mont., also was upset. "I'm disappointed in the bill being chopped up like this," he said. Both senators had supported giving the president the line item veto.
In applying the nearly untested power Monday, Clinton used three standards for choosing the projects he vetoed: whether they were in his FY98 budget; whether the project would substantially improve the quality of life of military personnel; and whether construction would begin in 1998. But the president went too far in the vetoes, said House Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis.
"The line item veto is supposed to be used for keeping egregious projects from becoming law," he said, noting that the administration is questioning whether the projects can be built this year. "This is hardly an issue of principle. It's an issue of timing." He added, "I personally think they make a mistake when they overreach." But Obey said the vetoes only represent a temporary setback for the projects.
"Most of these projects that were line item vetoed will be built within five years," he said.
Obey and Stevens said administration officials had implied they would not use the line item veto to a large degree if they received funding for high priority items in the Defense funding bill.
"This is not about money," Obey said. "It's about power."
Veteran House Appropriations member John Murtha, D-Pa., who had a project vetoed, said the list was a "bad mistake," adding that "they didn't check with the Defense Department to find out if they were viable and important."
Murtha said the vetoes could have an impact on upcoming negotiations on other appropriations measures. "We'll have to wait and see," he said.
Stevens disputed whether 32 of the 38 vetoed projects could not have been started this year, saying they were contained in the Pentagon's five-year plan and that appropriators merely moved them up the priority list when more money became available.
Stevens also charged the line item veto list violated the spending levels set in the budget agreement.
"I think the president walked back from the budget agreement," he said.
House members whose districts contained vetoed projects said they were shocked by the president's decision.
"This was not done in the middle of the night," said Rep. Norman Sisisky, D-Va., discussing the $19.9 million set aside for a new wharf and the demolition of two buildings at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
The project was the largest vetoed by the president, and the administration initially identified it as being in the district of Rep. Owen Pickett, D-Va. "Everyone said it's needed but the president," Sisisky said.
The second largest vetoed project was a plan for $17.9 million for an increase in the berths for ships at Mayport Naval Station in Florida.
"This project meets all the criteria historically used to justify military construction projects," said Rep. Tillie Fowler, R-Fla., whose district includes Mayport.
"The president's decision is an abuse of the line item veto," she charged. "In addition, it is another demonstration of his deplorable lack of concern about national defense."
Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, said he reacted with "disbelief" when he was informed the president was vetoing a $10 million project to consolidate a B-1B squadron operations facility at the Dyess Air Force Base in his district. "This proposal wasn't slipped in by anyone," Stenholm asserted.
However, Stevens said the vetoes will not harm sensitive negotiations over other spending bills.
"The only thing that complicates our lives is something that is unexpected," he said. "This was not unexpected."
House Appropriations Chairman Livingston also said he was not too worried about the vetoes.
"I'm not terribly concerned," he said. "We're concentrating on getting our bills out and doing the right thing."
Livingston said the administration originally had indicated the president would use the line item veto "sparingly."
Referring to the 38 vetoed projects, Livingston added, "I would not call that sparing."
Stevens said he would develop legislation to overturn the vetoes, but said it was unclear whether he could move such a bill.
Obey said Congress has better things to do. "There are a helluva lot more important issues than whether some of these projects are in," he said.
Meanwhile, OMB Director Raines emphasized Monday that the provisions vetoed by Clinton did not necessarily lack merit and refused to characterize the deleted measures as "pork."
The items instead generally were chosen because they ranked lowest on an administration list of priorities, "and the priorities have to be determined because we have a limited amount of funds," Raines said.
"The great majority, if not the overwhelming majority of these projects can make a contribution to our national defense," he added.
Administration officials made their choices and then "let the chips fall where they may," White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling said, denying the White House had played any favorites with its choices.
Raines said, "There was no consideration of geography in the determination of these projects."
Future spending bills, Raines said, will be subject to the same level of administration scrutiny that resulted in the 38 vetoes to the military construction bill.
While White House Press Secretary Michael McCurry noted earlier Monday that several parties had vowed to challenge Clinton's veto of tax provisions contained in the Budget Act, Raines said "there may be no legal challenge" to the president's action on the appropriations measure.
Raines said that "the Supreme Court made it pretty clear that it's difficult to have standing" to lodge an objection "in this area."
However, Raines acknowledged that the situation was uncertain, adding, "I don't want to speculate on who might be able to get into the courthouse to challenge this."
NEXT STORY: This Week on the Hill