DATE: Sunday, November 9, 1997              TAG: 9711090038

SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A1   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: BY DALE EISMAN, STAFF WRITER 

DATELINE: WASHINGTON                        LENGTH:   80 lines

LAWMAKERS OVERRIDE VETO ON MILITARY PROJECTS THE LOCAL IMPACT: THE HOUSE'S ACTION SATURDAY COULD REVIVE REFURBISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION PLANS IN HAMPTON ROADS.

Congress delivered a stinging, bipartisan rebuke to President Clinton on Saturday, as the House overwhelmingly voted to override his veto of three military construction projects in Hampton Roads and 35 others nationwide.

The 352-64 vote marked the first time lawmakers have overruled the president on a ``line-item'' veto. The Senate had taken similar action, 69-30, last week.

The votes may revive a $19.9 million pier refurbishment project at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. They may also permit construction of a $4 million air operations building at the Norfolk Naval Air Station and a $3.3 million storage magazine for Tomahawk missiles at the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station.

Clinton could prolong the dispute with another veto, though the strong vote in both houses seemed to make that less likely. A two-thirds majority in each house is required to override his veto.

The president trimmed the 38 projects, worth a total of $287 million, out of a $9 billion military construction budget approved by Congress in September. Clinton said he made the cuts to send a message that ``the old rules (governing such projects) have, in fact, changed.''

Congress traditionally has added millions of dollars in military projects to the president's annual budget request, with the lion's share of the money going to bases in the districts of lawmakers who are members of committees overseeing the military.

All three of the Hampton Roads lawmakers who had projects on the veto list - Herbert H. Bateman, R-1st District, Owen B. Pickett, D-2nd District, and Norman Sisisky, D-4th District - are members of the House National Security Committee.

But those members, and more than a dozen others who spoke up for various projects Saturday, insisted that all the veto targets are needed and that most were part of the Pentagon's long-term construction program.

``My committee did not pork up this bill,'' asserted Rep. Ron Packard, R-Calif., chairman of a subcommittee that reviewed the projects. ``There is no wasteful or excessive spending here,'' agreed Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., head of another panel that worked on the legislation. ``These are things that we demanded the military prove the need for before we put them in.''

Even without Clinton's vetoes, the military construction program Congress approved for 1998 is 7 percent smaller than the current construction budget, Packard asserted.

Sisisky repeated Saturday that the pier project at the local shipyard would pay for itself in just over two years, citing a Navy cost analysis that also concluded that the project would produce $169 million in savings to the military over 25 years.

Without the improvements, including demolition of two dilapidated buildings near Pier 3, demolition and filling of two former shipbuilding ways - unused since 1953 - and construction of a berthing space large enough to accommodate two destroyers, the Navy must pay for berthing areas elsewhere and transport workers to those sites.

The air operations building was not a cost saver, but Pickett cast it as vital to safety at the Naval Air Station. The current operations building and the base radar are frequently out of service, putting military people in the air and civilians on the ground nearby at risk.

Clinton initially argued that the vetoed projects should be canceled because they were not part of his original 1998 budget, would not make a substantial improvement to the quality of military life and were not far enough along in the design process to permit work to proceed in 1998.

But when Congress protested, the White House quickly admitted that some of the vetoes were issued in error and that many of the projects could proceed immediately if money was available.

All three of the Hampton Roads projects fell into that category.

Clinton is the first president to have power to excise individual spending programs from larger appropriation bills passed by the Congress. His veto of the 38 military projects was only the second time he has used the authority approved by Congress last year.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., generally an outspoken opponent of increased military spending, said Clinton's actions were ``an affront to responsible government.''

Other lawmakers who on Saturday urged an override of the vetoes said Congress should follow that action by repealing the line-item veto authority altogether.

``We did this to ourselves,'' said Rep. David Skaggs, D-Colo. ``We can't blame the president for taking advantage.''

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu