[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H12-H22]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996--VETO MESSAGE 
     FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104-155)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1530, the ``National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.''
  H.R. 1530 would unacceptably restrict my ability to carry out this 
country's national security objectives and substantially interfere with 
the implementation of key national defense programs. It would also 
restrict the President's authority in the conduct of foreign affairs 
and as Commander in Chief, raising serious constitutional concerns.
  First, the bill requires deployment by 2003 of a costly missile 
defense system able to defend all 50 States from a long-range missile 
threat that our Intelligence Community does not foresee in the coming 
decade. By forcing such an unwarranted deployment decision now, the 
bill would waste tens of billions of dollars and force us to commit 
prematurely to a specific technological option. It would also likely 
require a multiple-site architecture that cannot be accommodated within 
the term of the existing ABM Treaty. By setting U.S. policy on a 
collision course with the ABM Treaty, the bill would jeopardize 
continued Russian implementation of the START I Treaty as well as 
Russian ratification of START II--two treaties that will significantly 
lower the threat to U.S. national security, reducing the number of U.S. 
and Russian strategic nuclear warheads by two-thirds from Cold War 
levels. The missile defense provisions would also jeopardize our 
current efforts to agree on an ABM/TMD (Theater Missile Defense) 
demarcation with the Russian Federation.
  Second, the bill imposes restrictions on the President's ability to 
conduct contingency operations essential to national security. Its 
restrictions on funding of contingency operations and the requirement 
to submit a supplemental appropriations request within a time certain 
in order to continue a contingency operation are unwarranted 
restrictions on a President's national security and foreign policy 
prerogatives. Moreover, by requiring a Presidential certification to 
assign U.S. Armed Forces under United Nations operational or tactical 
control, the bill infringes on the President's constitutional authority 
as Commander in Chief.
  Third, H.R. 1530 contains other objectionable provisions that would 
adversely affect the ability of the Defense Department to carry out 
national defense programs or impede the Department's ability to manage 
its day-to-day operations. For example, the bill includes 
counterproductive certification requirements for the use of Nunn-Lugar 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) funds and restricts use of funds for 
individual CTR programs.
  Other objectionable provisions eliminate funding for the Defense 
Enterprise Fund; restrict the retirement of U.S. strategic delivery 
systems; slow the pace of the Defense Department's environmental 
cleanup efforts; and restrict Defense's ability to execute disaster 
relief, demining, and military-to-military contact programs. The bill 
also directs the procurement of specific submarines at specific 
shipyards although that is not necessary for our military mission to 
maintain the Nation's industrial base.
  H.R. 1530 also contains two provisions that would unfairly affect 
certain service members. One requires medically unwarranted discharge 
procedures for HIV-positive service members. In addition, I remain very 
concerned about provisions that would restrict service women and female 
dependents of military personnel from obtaining privately funded 
abortions in military facilities overseas, except in cases of rape, 
incest, or danger to the life of the mother. In many countries, these 
U.S. facilities provide the only accessible, safe source for these 
medical services. Accordingly, I urge the Congress to repeal a similar 
provision that became law in the ``Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act, 1996.''
  In returning H.R. 1530 to the Congress, I recognize that it contains 
a number of important authorities for the Department of Defense, 
including authority for Defense's military construction program and the 
improvement of housing facilities for our military personnel and their 
families. It also contains provisions that would contribute to the 
effective and efficient management of the Department, including 
important changes in Federal acquisition law.
  Finally, H.R. 1530 includes the authorization for an annual military 
pay raise of 2.4 percent, which I strongly support. The Congress should 
enact this authorization as soon as possible, in separate legislation 
that I will be sending up immediately. In the meantime, I will today 
sign an Executive order raising military pay for the full 2.0 percent 
currently authorized by the Congress and will sign an additional order 
raising pay by a further 0.4 percent as soon as the Congress authorizes 
that increase.
  I urge the Congress to address the Administration's objections and 
pass an acceptable National Defense Authorization Act promptly. The 
Department of Defense must have the full range of authorities that it 
needs to perform its critical worldwide missions.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, December 28, 1995.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be 
spread at large upon the Journal and, without objection, the message 
and bill will be printed as a House document.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] 
for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the President made a monumental mistake last 
week 

[[Page H13]]
when he vetoed the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill. On a 
purely political level, the veto has even more clearly defined the 
stark differences between the Clinton administration and this Congress 
on key national security issues such as ballistic missile defense and 
United Nations' control of U.S. military forces--central elements in 
both the Contract With America and the President's veto.
  Unfortunately, against the real-world backdrop of hazardous 
peacekeeping deployment to Bosnia over a cold and wet holiday season, 
the President's veto of a bill containing a number of important pay and 
benefit provisions represents a slap in the face of our military 
personnel and their families.
  First and foremost, this bill is about improving the quality of life 
of the All Volunteer Force. Contrasted against the President's vehement 
opposition to the deployment of a national missile defense system by 
the year 2003 or the bill's limitations on the President's ability to 
place U.S. military forces under the control of the United Nations--
provisions the American people overwhelmingly support--vetoing the bill 
and risking these quality of life provisions is incomprehensible.
  There are really two issues underlying the President's veto. First, 
the President opposes the ballistic missile defense provisions in the 
bill that call for the deployment of a national missile defense system 
by the year 2003. A bipartisan majority of the Members of both the 
House and Senate support this provision, but apparently not this 
administration. The missile defense system called for would be 
consistent with the ABM Treaty and, contrary to the wild assertions of 
it costing tens of billions of dollars, could be operational for a 
fraction of the costs based on the Pentagon's own estimates.
  The second veto issue is even more of a red herring. The bill 
contains a provision simply requiring the President to certify in 
advance that any future deployment of U.S. military troops under the 
operational control of the United Nations is in the U.S. national 
security interest. It does not preclude the President from putting U.S. 
troops under U.N. control, it simply requires the President to certify 
to the Congress that such an arrangement is in the U.S. national 
security interests. The President has vetoed the entire Defense 
authorization bill in large part based on a requirement for a 
certification.

  This veto indicates to me that despite the fact that the conferees 
went out of their way to accommodate the administration's concerns on 
numerous provisions, including provisions on ballistic missile defense 
and U.N. command and control, the White House is truly not interested 
in having a Defense authorization bill this year. Yesterday's Wall 
Street Journal carried an op-ed stating that, ``with his veto of the 
1996 Defense bill last week, President Clinton just made the world a 
more dangerous place.'' It is difficult to disagree.
  If, as a result of the veto, we are reduced to political jockeying 
instead of advancing the numerous quality of life and reform provisions 
contained in this bill, so be it. This is the President's decision. At 
a minimum, therefore, today's override vote will provide each of us an 
opportunity to choose where our national security priorities truly lie.
  Finally, to those who might have voted against this legislation in 
other form, or for whatever reason it is a bipartisan product of the 
Congress, both parties, both Houses--its our bill that the President 
vetoed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we all are aware, we are here addressing the issue of 
the President's veto of the Defense authorization bill.
  The main focus of the President's veto message had to do with the 
issue of ballistic missile defense and the ABM Treaty. Before I go into 
the specifics of that, I would like to set the record straight.
  In my capacity, Mr. Speaker, as ranking minority member, I sat with 
the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], who is 
the present chair of the Committee on National Security. When the 
Secretary of Defense briefed us in extensive detail on what would 
invite a veto from this administration, there were a number of issues 
on that list, Mr. Speaker. The one issue that was very clearly 
communicated to us was that the ABM Treaty potential violation, the 
provisions of the ballistic missile defense contained in the bill could 
indeed invite a veto.
  Over the course of the conference process, there were a few meetings 
addressing this issue attended by my distinguished colleague from 
California [Mr. Hunter], the distinguished gentleman from South 
Carolina, this gentleman, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] with members of the other body. At that time, on the issue of 
ballistic missile defense/ABM Treaty, the comment was made very 
clearly: ``You have two options. Either you want this as a political 
issue, or you want to address the problem and we get a conference 
report.''
  I would suggest, without fear of contradiction, Mr. Speaker, that it 
was the former decision as opposed to the latter; they wanted the 
issue, not the conference report.
  In the other body, a provision was passed that was the result of a 
bipartisan effort of a group of Members of the other body selected by 
the majority leader of the other body. This gentleman and other Members 
on the Democratic side of the aisle indicated that we were prepared, 
though not totally pleased with all of the provisions, but in the 
spirit of collegiality, in the spirit of compromise, we were prepared 
to live with that language. Easy way to solve the problem. No one was 
totally happy, but to get the job done, we could come together around 
the bipartisan language contained in the Defense authorization bill 
established by Members of the other body. It was not done.
  So here we are, Mr. Speaker, with a veto message from the President, 
and he vetoed for several reasons. I would like to reiterate the main 
reason: Ballistic missile defense/ABM Treaty. Because the provisions of 
the conference report that passed required the deployment of a national 
missile defense system by the year 2003 of a costly missile defense 
system able to defend all 50 States from a long-range missile threat 
that our intelligence community, for which we authorize and appropriate 
billions of dollars, has stated without equivocation that they do not 
foresee such a threat coming in the next decade, though this bill, this 
conference report, commits us to deployment by the year 2003.
  Mr. Speaker, that has enormous implications. Implication No. 1: It 
forces an unwarranted deployment decision now that does not have to be 
made. The threat assessment does not warrant deployment at this time.
  Second, it wastes tens of billions of dollars, tens of billions of 
dollars, at a time when we are handwringing about balanced budgets.
  One or two of my colleagues will rise today and say, ``But I was in a 
briefing that said that X contractor or X service said `we could do it 
for this amount of money.' ''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a legislative body. We have a responsibility to 
the legislative process. Not one hearing has been held to sustain or to 
reject the integrity of that assertion. What is on the record at this 
point sustains this gentleman's assertion that to go forward will cost 
us tens of billions of dollars, at a time when we are talking about 
guaranteeing the future for our children, balancing the budget on the 
backs of people in this country least able to handle the pain and the 
shock of withdrawing the Government's ability to address their human 
misery, tens of billions of dollars to address a threat that is not out 
there.
  It also then, Mr. Speaker, prematurely commits us to a specific 
technological approach to the deployment that may or may not be 
obsolete next year or the year after or by the year 2003. This would 
likely require a multiple-site architecture, a multiple-site 
architecture that cannot be accommodated within the framework of the 
ABM Treaty as it is presently designed. Thus, it requires us to 
abrogate the ABM Treaty.
  Responsibility, integrity, fiduciary responsibility to our American 
citizens would, at a minimum, Mr. Speaker, require that any time you 
start to tread on the waters of abrogating a treaty, it would dictate 
that we walk lightly, we tread gently, and we move with responsibility. 
To take bold steps to abrogate a treaty at this point in this 
gentleman's opinion makes no sense.

[[Page H14]]

  Mr. Speaker, this would jeopardize continued Russian implementation 
of START I, as well as ratification of START II Treaties. Now, START I 
and START II significantly reduce the nuclear inventory on this planet. 
We talk about the future for our children. What could be more important 
to the future of our children than to remove thousands of heinous 
nuclear weapons that have only one function, and that is to destroy 
life on this planet? We place that in jeopardy by making moves that 
unilaterally communicate to the Russians our desire to abrogate a 
treaty.
  It jeopardizes our current efforts to agree on an ABM/theater missile 
defense demarcation with the Russian federation. Mr. Speaker, at this 
time we are engaged, this country and the Russians, engaged in a 
process to address the problem of the distinction between strategic 
weapons and theater missiles.
  I am sure, and I would attempt to jog your memory, Mr. Speaker, but 
when we negotiated the ABM Treaty, there was no such thing as theater 
ballistic missiles, so the question of the speed and the range, at what 
point does a weapon cease to be strategic, or at what point does a 
weapon cease to be theater, is very significant. We are involved in 
that process at this point. Why engage in any activity that would 
jeopardize those efforts to reach an agreement? Again, it flies in the 
face of reality, and it makes no sense to this gentleman.
  There are a few other reasons why the President vetoed this. I would 
only hit upon four additional areas.
  First, it imposes restrictions on the President's ability to conduct 
contingency operations essential to national security by requiring 
submission of supplemental appropriations within a time certain.
  Second, it infringes upon the President's constitutional authority 
from his perspective as Commander in Chief by requiring certain 
Presidential certifications. Therefore, these two areas are areas of 
constitutional prerogatives that have been bandied back and forth 
between the Congress and the executive branch of Government over the 
years, and the President, looking at this bill, said, ``This infringes 
upon my constitutional rights in this area,'' and has vetoed it. This 
gentleman's belief is that in many of these areas, we are in gray 
areas, but I tend to believe the President is correct in this area.
  I would just highlight two additional areas where the President calls 
to our attention reasons for veto.
  One of them, it slows the pace of the Defense Department's 
environmental cleanup program. We have all, many of us in these 
Chambers, our communities have been affected by base closures. How, 
then, can we transfer that land on those bases back to the community 
for higher and better use, allowing them to convert these closed 
military bases so they do not sit there as pink elephants or white 
elephants in the middle of the community, how can we transfer that land 
back to the community for higher and better use, allowing them to 
convert their economy from a reliance on military presence to peacetime 
presence if we cut moneys out designed to clean the base?

                              {time}  1430

  So how can you on the one hand say to people in your community, we 
want to help you overcome the adverse impact of removing the military's 
presence from your community, and then say, but we are not going to put 
sufficient moneys in the environmental restoration and cleanup fund to 
allow that to happen expeditiously? That makes not sense to this 
gentleman.
  Any community out there that is adversely affected by base closure, 
we ought to be leaning over backward to try to help those communities 
move forward as rapidly as they can into the 21st century, but shaving 
off dollars for environmental cleanup in order to build ships that we 
can build in the year 2000 and bring them into 1995; and other weapons 
systems that we have brought into this to cut environmental 
restoration, it just does not make any sense, but it tells us where our 
priorities are.
  Our priorities in this bill certainly are not related to community, 
and I think that is where we ought to be.
  The final point that I would like to highlight is that this bill 
requires medically unwarranted discharge procedures for HIV-positive 
service members. I would just make one final point on this. Military 
service people said they do not need this provision. If there is a 
reason for discharge, present law handles it. But to have that across-
the-board, blanket requirement that you must now discharge people who 
are HIV-positive is oppressive, it is prejudicial, and it ought to be 
beneath us as American people in terms of how we address and how we 
treat people, particularly those who have decided to serve their 
country in this particular capacity.

  Mr. Speaker, with those remarks explaining why I believe my 
colleagues ought to support the President's veto and sustain the 
President's veto, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us passed the House, it passed the 
Senate, went to the President, and he vetoed it. To me, it is 
absolutely astounding that he would veto the Defense authorization bill 
immediately on the heels of his deploying 20,000 United States troops 
in harm's way in Bosnia.
  But he vetoed it. So a vote to sustain his veto, or a ``no'' vote on 
this motion to override, in effect says, we are willing to send you 
into harm's way, but, by the way, we are not going to pay you.
  A vote to override the President is a vote to pay the troops in 
Bosnia.
  Moreover, a vote to sustain the veto, as my friends on the other side 
would have you do, says to military families, despite the fact that 
your housing is substandard and 70 percent of their housing is 
inadequate, we will not fix your housing, we do not want to repair your 
facilities, we do not care about your quality of life. Those repairs 
are authorized in this bill, and unless this veto is overridden, they 
will not be made.
  It also says, we will not clean up environmental problems caused by 
the base closures. It also says to the military retirees, we will not 
pay your COLA's; and it also says to the men and women of this country 
and to the men and women of the armed services of this Nation that 
defending this Nation and defending you from a potential missile attack 
from any rouge element in the world is too expensive. That is what the 
President said when he vetoed this bill.
  I do not know why he wants to stick to the tenets of the ABM Treaty, 
which was conceived in 1972 before all of these horrendous weapons 
systems were created, but in fact, he does; and when President Clinton 
called for more money last year, as we did, for the military and this 
year vetoes this bill, he is speaking in tongues.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material.

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 2, 1966]

                        The ABM Treaty's Threat

       With his veto of the 1996 defense bill last week, President 
     Clinton just made the world a more dangerous place. If 
     there's a silver lining, it is that it sets down an important 
     political marker for this year's presidential campaign. GOP 
     upstart Steve Forbes also put down a marker last week, 
     castigating Bob Dole and the Senate for their apparent 
     willingness to ratify the Start II treaty--a ``further 
     pretext,'' Mr. Forbes said, for the ``policy of leaving the 
     American people vulnerable to missile attack.''
       Given the current Senate, the President's veto is almost 
     certain to be sustained, hamstringing the effort to build 
     critically needed defenses against ballistic missile attack. 
     Millions of Americans may pay for his decision with their 
     lives, when some future commander-in-chief lacks the means to 
     shoot down a ballistic missile heading on a lethal trajectory 
     for an American city. By vetoing the bill, Mr. Clinton also 
     shows that he has no viable strategy for dealing with the 
     changed nuclear realities of the post-Cold War world--
     realities that are discussed nearby by former Reagan Defense 
     official Fred C. Ikle.
       The Administration, to the extent it's thinking at all 
     instead of repeating Democratic party rote, remains mired in 
     an obsolete mindset that sees Moscow as our main foe and 
     regards arms control and ``mutual assured destruction'' as 
     the centerpiece of policy. Mr. Clinton's principal objection 
     to the GOP defense bill is that by requiring deployment of a 
     missile-defense system by 2003 it would violate the 1972 
     Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty under which the U.S. and the 
     Soviet Union agreed not to defend themselves against missile 
     attack.
     
[[Page H15]]

       The Republican bill is ``on a collision course with the ABM 
     treaty,'' Mr. Clinton said in his veto message. That, as we 
     see it, is precisely the point. The ABM Treaty is a grave 
     danger to national security and the United States ought to 
     exercise its prerogative to withdraw. If any progress toward 
     defense is to be made, every Republican Presidential 
     candidate ought to pledge to give the required notice on his 
     first day in office.
       We thought back in 1972 that agreeing not to defend against 
     missile attack was a reckless promise, but today any vestige 
     of a rationale has vanished. More than two-dozen nations 
     already possess ballistic missiles and a number will soon 
     have missiles capable of reaching across the Atlantic or the 
     Pacific. It's not hard to imagine that Washington or San 
     Francisco would make tempting targets for a lunatic leader in 
     one of the Iraqs or North Koreas of the world. When that 
     happens, it will be too late to start building a missile 
     defense.
       The ABM Treaty is just one relic of the Cold War that Mr. 
     Clinton is intent on preserving. He further objects that it 
     would derail his arms-control efforts, keeping the Russian 
     Duma from ratifying Start II, under which Russia would reduce 
     its nuclear arsenal to 3,500 warheads from about 8,000. 
     Whatever the Duma does, it looks likely that the U.S. Senate 
     will ratify Salt II three years after it was signed by 
     Presidents Bush and Yeltsin. Perfunctory debate ended last 
     week and a vote is expected soon. Mr. Forbes, free of the 
     impact of past habit, is one of the few Republican voices 
     urging against ratification.
       Yet with few exceptions, Republicans do believe that 
     defending America against missile attack ought to be a 
     national priority. Their Congress has put forward a workable 
     and affordable plan toward that goal. On the other hand, we 
     have a President who's decided that it is more important to 
     the security of the United States to reduce the number of 
     Russian nuclear warheads than to have the capability to 
     defend ourselves against missile attack from the madmen of 
     the world.
       As for Start II, somehow we don't find it very comforting 
     to contemplate a world in which the Russians have 4,500 fewer 
     scary things tucked away in their arsenal but a Saddam 
     Hussein has one that he intends to use on us. Clearly it's 
     time for a new security strategy. It will require more, but 
     missile defense will be a cornerstone. Mr. Ikle argues that 
     to wake the world to this obvious need may well take a 
     nuclear explosion, either accidental or deliberate.
                                                                    ____


                   [From the USA Today, Dec. 1, 1994]

                  Clinton Seeks $25B More for Military

                           (By Bill Nichols)

       President Clinton said Thursday he wants $25 billion more 
     in military spending over the next six years to improve 
     quality of life for military personnel, increase their pay 
     and boost troop readiness.
       In an announcement some saw as an attempt to preempt 
     Republican plans to boost military spending next year, 
     Clinton said unexpected military deployments in the Persian 
     Gulf, Haiti and elsewhere contributed to the budget 
     shortfall.
       ``I have pledged that . . . our military will remain the 
     best-trained, best-equipped, the best fighting force on 
     Earth,'' Clinton said. ``We ask much of our military and we 
     owe much to them.''
       Some Republicans weren't impressed.
       ``This is a small step in the right direction but it does 
     not go far enough,'' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
       But the White House said the increase request wasn't 
     prompted by politics or by earlier cuts in the military 
     budget.
       Even in an era when the public wants a leaner government, 
     ``the people of this country expect us to do right by our men 
     and women in uniform,'' Clinton said.
       Said Republican strategist William Kristol: ``See, the 
     Republican Congress is already having an effect.''
       Details:
       The $25 billion would cover a projected $49 billion 
     shortfall over six years, created in part by a 
     congressionally mandated pay hike for military personnel.
       Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., outgoing chairman of the House 
     Armed Services Subcommittee on military forces and personnel, 
     said the Pentagon would still face a $15 billion shortfall.
       Deputy Defense Secretary John Deutch said the gap would be 
     closed with the additional $25 billion plus more favorable 
     economic assumptions from the Congressional Budget Office and 
     ``modernization reductions'' at the Pentagon.
       The White House did not specify where the $25 billion would 
     come from.
       In addition, Clinton asked for at least $2 billion to pay 
     for unexpected operations in Kuwait, Haiti, Bosnia-
     Herzegovina and to deter Cuban refugees.
       Among the quality-of-life improvements the money would pay 
     for: more military family housing, increased child care and 
     improved barracks for single men and women.

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds in order to 
address an issue raised by the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston], the previous speaker in the well.
  I might call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, something that I am sure 
you are aware of, and that is that there is a bill that has been passed 
in the other body, it is Senate bill 1514, to be enacted by the Senate 
and House of Representatives, a separate piece of legislation 
addressing the issue of the pay of military troops. Therefore, if my 
colleagues are interested in addressing the issue of the pay of 
military troops, there is a bill at the desk that can be brought up to 
maintain the integrity of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that he made that point. I would make one 
further point, and that is that the President did sign the defense 
appropriations bill. I am sure the appropriations chairman knew that. 
So the appropriation for the Defense Department is up and running, and 
people are indeed getting paid. So I do not think we need to run those 
kind of scare tactics out here.
  This is not an appropriations bill. This is not an agency that needs 
a continuing resolution. This is an authorization bill, and it is 
really embarrassing that we are dealing with this bill after the 
appropriation bill has already passed anyway. This is really passe. But 
some of the reasons that have been given for sustaining the President's 
veto I think are terribly important.
  Obviously, Senator Nunn in the Senate is, I think, a very esteemed 
Member that people look to, and as he pointed out over and over and 
over again, if you want to see all sorts of earmarking, you ought to 
see this bill. This bill is earmarked 101.
  He points out that every single line of the National Guard and 
Reserve procurement funds have been earmarked. There are no general 
categories left. The Department of Defense, all sorts of unrequested 
projects at undesignated sites have been earmarked. I could go on and 
on and on. For anybody who would like, there is a three-page letter 
over here with all of the things that he is upset about.
  The gentleman from California has made a very eloquent statement in 
behalf of the President that all I can say is ditto, ditto, ditto, 
because he is absolutely right on, about the very seriousness of saying 
to the State Department and the executive branch, oh, you do not know 
what you are doing; we can go ahead and do this. This will not really 
violate the treaty. We do not need hearings on this. We know better 
than you.
  I do not think so. This is a great display of arrogance, I think, if 
we proceed and do this, and I think the President is absolutely 
correct. It we are so sure we are right, why are we not having 
hearings, and why have we not really made our case in public?
  But to run it out this way and run over some very serious treaties 
with parts of the world that are not the most stable is, I think, very, 
very dangerous, and I think the President is right on that too.

  It also authorizes way more than this administration asks for. For 
heaven's sake, we have the Government partially closed down; we are 
spending all sorts of money and angst over that. Never, never, even 
during the cold war, did we authorize more money than the 
administration asked for, and yet we did in this budget. This was like 
a feeding frenzy.
  I must say as an American citizen, one of the things that bothers me 
the most in here too is the message we are sending to service women and 
to dependents of servicemen and saying to them, nice that you gave up 
your rights to go protect our rights, and we are not going to give you 
the same rights that any other American would have. The fact that we 
would deny them the right to privately finance abortions when the 
health of the mother could be jeopardized is absolutely unconscionable 
in 1996 when they are out there defending freedom and liberty for the 
rest of us.
  Why are we throwing political firecrackers into the military 
personnel system? That is what we are doing. We are taking political 
firecrackers and throwing them into the personnel system?.
  The other political firecracker we throw in there that the military 
says we do not need, this is divisive, it is not a problem, we can 
handle this, are the regulations on HIV-positive. Why 

[[Page H16]]
are we doing these things? I think this is a political embarrassment.
  I certainly hope that people vote to sustain the veto.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Procument.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee for yielding time to me.
  Let me tell my colleagues, this is a basic difference between the 
President of the United States and the Republican majority in the 
House, the full House, and the American people whom they represent, 
because we do want to have a defense against incoming ballistic 
missiles.
  The President does not want to have a defense against incoming 
ballistic missiles. In 1991 in the wake of Desert Storm, after we saw 
those Scud missiles come in and do damage against our troops, we rose 
as a body in both bodies, the House and the Senate, and we passed a 
mandate that we should build a defense, a national defense, against 
incoming ballistic missiles, and that we should have that defense 
completed by, guess when? 1996.
  Well, folks, it is 1996, the Berlin Wall was down at that time when 
we made that mandate, so this was not in consideration of the cold war, 
and we have not done a thing toward that goal that both Houses set in 
motion. In fact, some of the leaders on the Democratic side who have 
urged the President to veto this bill on the basis that it defends 
America were authors of that initial legislation that says, we should 
defend America.
  Now, on a couple of specifics. We had three basic elements in our 
plan to defend this country against ballistic missiles. One was that we 
shall deploy a system, we shall deploy a system; No. 2, it shall be at 
multiple sites, not just one site; and No. 3, that it shall be by the 
year 2003.
  To pacify the President on this issue, we took out the second 
element, the multiple sites. We took that out. I objected to taking 
that out, and a number of other Members did, but we took it out to get 
a bill. Now the President says that it implies that we shall likely 
require multiple sites, so it is still not quite good enough.
  We want to defend America; the President does not. Let us override 
his veto.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
   Mr. Speaker, I voted for this bill when it passed the House. I 
thought the parts of it I objected to would be cured in conference. 
Some were, some were not. So I decided reluctantly to vote against the 
conference report, and today I vote reluctantly to sustain the veto.
  I want to address the very provisions that the gentleman just in the 
well took up, namely, the parts of the bill to which the President 
objected and singled out that deal with ballistic missile defense and 
the ABM Treaty.
  This year, Mr. Speaker, each House adopted in the authorization bill 
what amounts to a special chapter devoted solely to ballistic missile 
defense and the ABM Treaty. In the Senate, this chapter was 
painstakingly worked out, and in the end it represented a compromise 
that almost everyone agreed to, the Clinton administration included. 
The Senate vote in favor of it was overwhelming: 85 to 13. So in 
conference, on the Democratic side, we offered a straightforward, 
simple, efficient solution. We said we would take the Senate provisions 
in toto, completely.
  Now in 12 years of going to defense conferences, this is the first 
that I can recall where the House conferees or some of us said to the 
Senate, we will buy your language lock, stock, and barrel, only to have 
the Senate conferees say to us, sorry, it is not for sale anymore.
  That is exactly what happened in this conference. Having cut a deal 
on ballistic missile defense, having voted for the deal and the bill 
that contained it, Senator Dole and others in the Senate decided that 
they had to have more. Senator Nunn told us in conference, look, you 
can have it one way or the other. You can have a defense bill or you 
can make a political statement, but not both, and the Republican 
conferees in the House and Senate chose to do the latter and refused to 
compromise further; and so here we are in January without an 
authorization act.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If we did not 
compromise, why did we take out the multiple-site language to 
accommodate the President?
  Mr. SPRATT. I was getting ready to take that up right now. I thank 
the gentleman for bringing that up.
  I will admit that this draft that we have before us does smooth the 
sharpest edges off the original earlier drafts that dealt with 
ballistic missile defense and the ABM Treaty. But this bill would 
require the President to renegotiate the treaty with the Russians now, 
when START II has yet to be ratified, and the politics in Russia are 
hardly propitious for ratification.
  Second, it would imply that the United States should break out of the 
treaty if the Russians do not agree to the amendments we want, 
permitting multiple sites, unlimited interceptors, and space-based 
sensors, and it would require the testing of a chemical laser in orbit 
in 1999, which would be a violation of the treaty.
  I believe that we should develop and deploy a ground-based missile 
defense system. The gentleman referred to some of us who had voted for 
that before. I voted for it. Frankly, before that system is finished, I 
think we will want to deploy interceptors at more than one site. We 
will need to. I think we will also want to deploy space-based sensors, 
and I think that both of these features, plus more, will probably 
require changes and revisions in the ABM Treaty, but nothing requires 
us to negotiate those changes just now, right now.

  If we force the administration to renegotiate the ABM Treaty now, 
with START II not yet ratified, we will risk the ratification of START 
II. And if START II is not ratified and our warheads are not reduced 
from 8,000 to around 3,500, and we have to maintain the deployment of 
nuclear weapons at START I levels, additional costs in operations and 
maintenance by the year 2000 are going to be $5 to $8 billion.
  If we have to find these additional billions of dollars each year for 
offensive missile deployment and maintenance, where are we going to 
find the additional billions for defensive missile systems? Where will 
we find the billions needed to deploy missile interceptors and ground-
based radars at multiple sites, to fast-track the space-based sensors, 
to field four theater ballistic missile systems at the same time?
  One particular point. Dig deep into title II of this bill, research, 
deployment, and testing for the Air Force, and you will see where this 
bill simply does not ask the hard questions about where is the money 
going.
  Here we say in this particular section that the Air Force should step 
up the deployment of so-called Brilliant Eyes or the Space and Missile 
Tracking System. We now plan on deploying one first operational shot in 
the year 2003. The cost estimated for that is $5.5 billion, to do one 
operational shot in 2003. Of that cost, only $800 million is now 
programmed in the Air Force's budget.
  If we want to fast-track these space-based sensors so that all 18 
satellites can be deployed in 2003, which is what title II calls for, 
that will mean billions of additional dollars in R&D over the next 7 
years plus billions of additional dollars more to produce and launch 18 
satellites, and the bill does not breathe a word about where this money 
is coming from.
  That is why these provisions in this bill make for more of a 
political statement than a ballistic missile defense plan that can be 
paid for and carried out over the next 6 to 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, we need an authorization bill. We need it to provide 
additional pay for our troops. We need it to authorize military 
construction. We need it to authorize end-strength, we 

[[Page H17]]
need it for lots of reasons. But we can sustain this veto and still 
have a bill because I am convinced that in 1 week, 1 week of earnest 
work and reasonable compromise, we can bring forth a bill that the 
President will sign and almost all of us will vote for.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman of the Subcommittee on National 
Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I only rise to respond briefly to 
the comments of the gentlewoman from Colorado, who I know always wants 
to be exactly correct in her comments. She made the comment that the 
President was really a strong supporter of national defense because he 
signed the defense appropriations bill.
  In fact, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, the President 
himself said that he signed the defense appropriations bill. But a 
message from the White House on November 30 indicates that the 
President did not sign the defense appropriations bill, that it became 
law without his signature, and I think that is one indication of just 
how strong the President does support national defense.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Readiness.
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the military readiness Subcommittee 
and on behalf of U.S. forces and their families, I rise to strongly 
urge my colleagues to override the veto of the fiscal year 1996 Defense 
authorization bill.
  The conference report on H.R. 1530 achieves the goals that the 
Committee on National Security set to ensure that the readiness 
problems experienced late in 1994 would not be repeated. It provides 
the necessary resources to meet requirements. It establishes a 
mechanism to fund contingency operations so that funds are not diverted 
from critical readiness accounts. It institutes reforms in Defense 
support services to free resources for critical readiness and 
modernization programs.
  With the deployment of United States forces to Bosnia as only the 
latest reminder of the commitment and sacrifice these men and women 
willingly make on a daily basis, it is critical that we keep faith with 
these men and women and demonstrate our commitment to ensure their 
welfare and that of their families. The conference report on H.R. 1530 
does this. It ensures military readiness, improves quality of life for 
our military personnel and their families, and furthers the efficient 
use of Defense resources.
  This bill takes concrete action in support of our forces. It deserves 
to be enacted into law. Support our troops, override the veto.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the defense 
authorization bill and urge all Members to vote in favor of this veto 
override.
  There are three simple reasons for my support. First, this bill 
provides tangible support for our troops deployed to Bosnia. This bill 
includes a 2.4-percent pay raise, important increases in housing 
allowances, and other support for our troops and their families.
  Second, this bill makes an important commitment to defending this 
country and the American people against the growing threat of attack 
from ballistic missiles. The missile defense sections of this bill have 
been carefully coordinated with the administration and do not violate 
the ABM Treaty. Whatever my personal feelings about the ABM Treaty, any 
attempt to characterize this bill as a ``dangerous violation'' is 
simply to mislead the public and keep this Nation completely vulnerable 
to a growing and real threat.
  Third, this bill keeps our promise to revitalize our national 
security within a balanced budget. We freeze the level of defense 
spending, slightly below 1995 levels. We will not allow the President 
to underfund even his own bottom-up review while continuing to use U.S. 
troops as the world's policemen.
  For these reasons, I urge all Members to support our troops by 
supporting this bill and this override.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Research and Development.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to, in the strongest possible terms, express that 
if Members want to vote to sustain the President's veto, do not buy the 
rhetoric that somehow we are doing this because it will in any way 
violate any treaty. This bill in no way violates any treaty to which 
this country is a party, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
know that.
  What offends me most about this debate, listening from home, one 
would think that perhaps those on the other side do not support this 
bill, when in fact on the House floor 86 Democrats supported this bill, 
and when the President threatened to veto, 58 Democrats voted with us 
on this bill, because this is a good bill.
  This does not violate the ABM Treaty in any way, shape, or form, and 
I will debate anyone at any time for any length of time on the detailed 
specifics that are debated here in 1-minute and 2-minute sound bites, 
and my colleagues know that.
  And the talk about costly expenses to implement an ABM Treaty? The 
Air Force has said they could do a system for $2.5 billion in 4 years. 
The Army has said they could do one for $4 billion in 5 years, and 
these figures were not contrived by some contractor. These were done in 
a special task force requested by Secretary Perry himself. Why do our 
colleagues not admit the facts as they are?
  Then our colleagues get up and say that it is going to violate the 
START treaty. If our colleagues would read the Russian media on a daily 
basis, their concern is not about this bill and its impact on the ABM 
Treaty. Their concern is about this administration's plans with NATO. 
That is what is going to jeopardize START II in the minds of the 
Russians, not the ABM provisions in this bill.
  But what really upsets me about my liberal colleagues and the 
President on this issue, Mr. Speaker, is they want to fund the world's 
first ABM system with United States tax dollars to protect the people 
of Israel. Because this country will do that with the Arrow system, 
and, by the way, I support that. My liberal friends will pay to protect 
the people of Israel but will not spend the money to protect the people 
of the United States. That is what is so outrageous.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in strong support of H.R. 1530, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. However, I 
am troubled to have to rise today for this purpose, not because of the 
numerous merits of the bill but because the President has chosen to 
veto legislation that supports military personnel and their families 
even while he has chosen to deploy those troops thousands of miles from 
home in a place called Bosnia.
  It is rare for a President, any President, Mr. Speaker, to veto a 
defense bill. This President has already signed into law two 
appropriation bills for general defense and military construction. Yet 
here we are today debating whether to override a veto on the bill which 
specifies how these funds will be spent, and I have to ask why.
  Let us look at the little part of the bill that I had the most 
responsibility for. On a bipartisan basis, the Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities, which I chair, has worked with the 
Department of Defense and with the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction 
of the Committee on Appropriations to develop a military construction 
program which makes significant improvements in our military 
infrastructure and enhance the quality of life for our service 
personnel and their families.
  Over 9,200 families would benefit from new construction, as well as 
improvements to existing family housing 

[[Page H18]]
units. This bill would also provide for 68 new barracks projects.
  In addition to those significant housing improvements, this bill 
would provide needed child development centers and medical facilities 
for our personnel. Hundreds of construction projects in this bill are 
designed to enhance the readiness of our forces, and the quality of 
life.
  We know there is a military housing crisis. We have worked hard to 
improve the quality of life for military personnel and their families. 
We are confronting a significant deterioration in military 
infrastructure. Without an authorization bill by law, none of these 
projects can go forward.
  This legislation also provides for an important reform that, over the 
long term, will go a long way toward resolving the military housing 
crisis. Working closely with the Secretary of Defense, we have 
developed a program to encourage the private sector to develop troop 
housing and military family housing at installations where there is a 
certified shortage of quality housing--and we know that there are tens 
of thousands of such units in our present inventory. The housing crisis 
is deplorable and we must act to change it. Yet, the President has 
vetoed an initiative strongly supported by his own Secretary of Defense 
that can fix the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has chosen to put critical improvements 
that would begin to end years of benign neglect of our military 
infrastructure at risk. Why? As best I can tell it is because this 
President objects to a reasonable outcome on the question of ballistic 
missile defense. His view appears to be that if the threat is only 
realistically a decade away we should do nothing now to prepare for 
that possibility.
  Most people I talk to are surprised--shocked--to learn that we have 
no defense against ballistic missile threats. The President should look 
to the future beyond his own term in office and help lay a foundation 
for a strong national defense in the next century. This bill does that. 
I urge a vote to override this ill-considered veto.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in strong support of H.R. 1530, the 
Department of Defense authorization conference report. I am extremely 
disappointed that the President chose to veto this bill which 
represents the dedicated efforts of Chairman Spence and all the 
conferees to revitalize U.S. national security.
  As I said on the House floor when we voted on the conference report 
last month, included in this conference report are provisions to 
significantly reform the procurement system of the Department of 
Defense and the civilian agencies of the Federal Government. These 
provisions are consistent with H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition 
Reform Act of 1995, which was a joint initiative of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee on National Security. 
H.R. 1670 passed the House by a vote of 423 to 0 in September of last 
year.
  The language in this conference agreement represents the efforts of 
many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers 
who have joined with us in rejecting the status quo, and who are 
prepared to lead the way toward reforming a system which, for years, 
has become increasingly more arcane, more convoluted, and therefore, 
more costly--both to government buyers and to businesses wanting to 
participate in the Federal marketplace.
  The President supports these changes. The Statement of Administration 
Policy specifically pointed to these provisions as ones which are 
``beneficial.'' It was disappointing that the President chose to 
overlook these provisions in making the decision to veto this 
conference report.
  I would expect that the President believes that procurement reform 
legislation can be accomplished another way--and maybe it can. But the 
likelihood that free standing procurement legislation will be taken up 
by the Senate this year is remote and thus, it seems that the President 
has run the risk that important procurement reforms will not be 
enacted. By not taking advantage of this opportunity in the Defense 
authorization bill, he has endangered reforms which would free the 
Federal procurement system from continuing wasteful and costly 
procedures in a way that promotes affordable and commonsense approaches 
to meet our budgetary goals.
  We in Congress have an opportunity today to override the President's 
veto in order to see these significant reforms enacted into law. 
Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 
1530, the Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me just 
respond to the distinguished gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of 
respect.
  First, the President did not veto this bill on the procurement issue, 
and I would suggest that the gentleman totally and fully understand the 
legislative process that if we sustain the President's veto, we can go 
back, address the issues of ballistic missile defense and ABM, the 
issues upon which the President vetoed the bill, correct those problems 
and come back to the floor with a conference report.
  Nothing in the President's message would throw out any of the 
legislation the gentleman responded to.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado 
historically fails to see the solutions to very simple problems and 
requirements for national security. We can neither accept nor tolerate 
anything less than a superlative force in our Armed Services. Someone 
with HIV positive, with the limited numbers of personnel we have, 
degrades from that readiness. We need a full up-round of that 
individual to serve, both either a man or woman, in our forces. We do 
not need the social engineering in a defense bill.
  We voted 48 to 3 in the committee. How often in a committee do you 
vote 48 Republicans and Democrats to 3 to support a bill? Because it 
serves the needs of our men and women.
  What are those needs? First of all, you have got to be able to train 
people so that they are going to survive in combat. You have got to be 
able to provide the weapons systems.
  Do you know that the service life of our F-15 Strike Eagles over in 
Bosnia and the F-18 CD's is almost gone? The replacement for F-16's 
like Scott O'Grady, was shot down, and the helos in Iraq, there was no 
replacement?
  The President's budget, the military and Pentagon reacted to the 
President's budget. That was not in there. We went and asked, ``What do 
you need?'' Not what do you want, ``What do you need to do your job?'' 
``We need replace those airplanes. We need the quality of care for our 
troops and those issues.'' And we provided that. That is why we had a 
48-to-3 vote within the committee.
  I take a look at the Bottom-Up Review, where we are $200 billion shy 
of the Bottom-Up Review, the ability to fight two conflicts at the same 
time. And, yes, we put some more money in because the Pentagon said, 
``This is what we need, a bare-bones minimum for readiness.''
  What it is going to cost us, not $2.2 billion but $3 billion or $6 
billion to support Bosnia. Where do you think the President is going to 
want to take it from? Out of this bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, over the last several months, President 
Clinton has picked up the veto pen frequently.
  As of today, the President has rejected not only an overall plan to 
balance the budget, but also a number of other bills which would have 
put our Government employees back to work, opened our National Parks, 
and provided funds to fight crime and protect the environment.
  The crowning blow, however, came last week, when he vetoed 
legislation authorizing the funds for our Nation's defense at the very 
same time that United States troops were setting up their tents and 
sleeping bags in the snow of Bosnia.
  In addition to laying out a plan to maintain our national security, 
this bill provides funds for desperately needed military housing 
improvements 

[[Page H19]]
and a very modest 2.4-percent pay raise for our military personnel. The 
President's veto sends the wrong message to our friends and allies; to 
our enemies; and--most especially--to our troops, and we should vote to 
override it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Columbia, TX [Mr. Laughlin].
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
override the President's veto of H.R. 1530, the Defense authorization 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the President's goals in vetoing 
this essential piece of legislation.
  It contains authorities that are absolutely necessary to maintain and 
train our Armed Forces.
  For example, this Congress voted to protect the American people from 
ballistic missle attack.
  What President would tell the citizens of this country that he does 
not want to protect them? This President, by his veto, said just that.
  This Congress voted to keep American troops under American 
operational control.
  What President would tell the Armed Forces of this country that he 
wanted them commanded by foreigners? This President, by his veto, said 
just that.
  This Congress voted to support American military families with a 
small but well deserved pay raise, with basic protections for housing 
allowances, and improved health care. This President, believe it or 
not, vetoed that support.
  This President vetoed the improvements in readiness that this 
Congress saw as essential. Among other things, we must have the 
mobilization insurance and dental care programs that H.R. 1530 will 
provide for our military reserve components. Through these and other 
programs, we must provide for our ``citizen-soldiers, sailors, airmen 
and marines'' to which this country has turned for over 200 years.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains too many important 
improvements for our Armed Forces than I can detail here. Suffice it to 
say that the President, by his veto, has made a grave mistake. It is no 
exaggeration to say that this President has made the world a more 
dangerous place to live by his veto.
  It is the constitutional responsibility of this body to correct that 
mistake. Vote yes to override the President's veto.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond quickly to the statements 
made about the Arrow missile defense system in the well just a few 
minutes ago by my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon].
  That system is being funded in this budget at $56.5 million in an 
account called Other Theater Ballistic Missile Systems, which is 
totally funded at $460 million. This $56 million compares to about $2 
billion we are spending on upper-tier and lower-tier for the Navy, and 
Impact Three, and it is considered a theater ballistic missile defense 
system. It compares to $770 million. None of it is for production, 
procurement and deployment. That issue is yet to be reached.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will be gentleman answer for 
the record the total cost of the Arrow system, the total percentage of 
American dollars that will fund the first total, complete nationwide 
ABM system for a country in the world? Will the gentleman provide those 
for the record, the total cost, not this year, total cost?
  Mr. SPRATT. Reclaiming my time, this is for a demonstration of the 
validity of the system. It is an R&D and development program. There is 
no money for deploying such a system. We have not reached that 
decision. We have not funded it.
  Out of a total budget of $3.8 billion, $56 million for this; we fund 
it because we think there are complementaries and commonalities that 
will teach us something about our other systems.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 1995 this House voted 
overwhelmingly in support of the conference report for the Military 
Construction Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. By a bipartisan 
vote of 326 to 93 we demonstrated our commitment to addressing the 
serious housing and quality of life problems affecting our 
servicemembers and their families. On October 3, the President signed 
the appropriations bill, yet on December 28, the President vetoed the 
necessary authorization for the construction of badly needed new 
facilities.
  Mr. Speaker, without this authorization, $1 billion for construction 
and improvements for family housing cannot go forward. Secretary 
Perry's No. 1 priority for a family housing private sector initiative 
will remain stalled. And, $626 million for desperately needed barracks; 
$207 million for environmental compliance projects; $430 million for 
Guard and Reserve operational facilities; $196 million for medical 
related facilities; and, $44 million for child development centers--
none of these mentioned will be built.
  In addition, while we have committed our troops to participate in 
IFOR, the $161 million appropriated for the United States contribution 
to the NATO Security Investment Program cannot be obligated or 
expended. While our troops are supporting the Bosnia peacekeeping 
mission, the United States contribution for NATO communications and 
facility support for the same mission is nonexistent without the 
enactment of this authorization.
  Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard and in a bipartisan manner. The 
Appropriations and Authorization Committees have worked closely 
together to meet the needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and their 
families. Don't let our efforts disintegrate now. I urge you to join me 
in voting to override the veto of this much needed authorization.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, what we have is an appropriations bill not 
signed by the President that became law without his signature in search 
of an authorization bill.
  If we care in this Chamber about adequate pay for the military, if we 
care in this Chamber for adequate housing for the military, if we care 
in this Chamber for adequate health for the military, if we care in 
this Chamber for our military retirees, if we care for adequate 
procurement reform within the Pentagon as a whole, then we will vote to 
override the President's veto.
  This is long overdue. It is the House that historically has decided 
how much you authorize and you appropriate for the armed services of 
the United States. This has become an institutional matter. We should 
send a signal that the Government is open for business in terms of the 
Department of Defense, which needs these authorizations.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the missile defense 
portion of this thing a little bit.
  Let me make it clear that when the negotiations were held with the 
chairman, the ranking member, a number of leaders from the other body, 
and the President's representative, he gave us a long laundry list of 
things he thought were wrong with the bill. When I asked him directly 
what he had to have out, what had to be taken out for the President to 
sign the bill, the answer I would characterize as evasive.
  Now, we had a series of meetings with them. At least my feeling was, 
my impressive was, that if we took out one of the three basic elements 
of missile defense, that is, the multiple site designation, that the 
President would probably sign the bill. We took that out, and the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has risen up again and has 
given us a long litany of other things he thinks the President based 
his decision on.
  Let me just say this: I think he has defined the issue fairly well. 
The President does not think it is in the interests of the United 
States of America to defend against incoming ballistic missiles. He 
feels we should not do that, because if we do that at some point we 
either have to renegotiate the ABM Treaty or we have to break it.

[[Page H20]]

  The problem is there are other countries besides the two countries 
that signed the ABM Treaty. We signed the ABM Treaty, the Russians 
signed it, and the North Koreans did not sign the ABM Treaty. They are 
building a missile which we project in a few years will have the 
ability of reaching some States in the United States of America.
  We have no defense against that missile. Now, the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has given us a good reason to continue to 
delay the building of a defense against ballistic missiles.
  In 1991 we said we will have it by 1996. Today the majority, the 
Republicans, the American people said let us have it by at least 2003. 
No, that is not acceptable.
  Maybe at some point, maybe at some point we will agree to defend the 
country by the year 2020. But the President has made it clear he does 
not want to defend America.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], to respond 
to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear to my friend, as I think 
he knows, I am for building and deploying a ground-based system that is 
treaty-compliant to start with. I candidly acknowledge that before we 
are finished with it, we will probably want to go back to that treaty, 
change it significantly, so we can allow space-based sensors and 
multiple site deployment.
  What I am saying now is if you push that issue, if you force it now, 
you are going to risk ratification of START-II. If START-II is not 
ratified, then ballistic missile defense against 8,000 warheads as 
opposed to 3,000 warheads is a much different thing.
  I do not know where we are coming up with the money to maintain 
START-level offensive systems without, and at the same time to pay for, 
the development and deployment of a ballistic missile defense system. 
That is a coherent position.
  I am for protecting ourselves against ballistic missiles that may be 
launched against this country.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman tell me when he is for completing this 
defense system?
  Mr. SPRATT. As soon as practicable, and there is plenty of time 
between now and then to go back to the ABM Treaty once we have ratified 
START-II and to deal with the issues that we have to deal with, plenty 
of time to develop a system and then work out those issues.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I recently went to Bosnia to visit the area 
where our troops will be located in Sarajevo and other places. I also 
stopped by in Germany to see the First Armor Division before they left. 
I went along with many others from this body, about 18 others who also 
visited with our troops.
  Something very disturbing occurred to me while I was there. Many who 
support the policy of Bosnia do not support this authorization bill nor 
did they support the appropriations bill. I disagree with the policy in 
Bosnia. I cannot find anybody in my district who strongly supports it. 
Most of them say we should not be in there. But for us to go ahead and 
send troops there and then not support them through the authorization 
process, through the appropriation process is somehow fundamentally 
wrong.
  With all respects to our President and his office, he did not sign 
the appropriations bill. He did not even have the courage to sign the 
appropriations bill. I think there is something fundamentally wrong 
there. He vetoed this authorization bill, which provides for our 
volunteer Army. I heard one comment over the time when we were 
contemplating sending troops in that this was the job of our military, 
that they had volunteered to do the job similar to Bosnia.
  I believe that is above and beyond the call of what they agreed to 
when they took the oath as military personnel. They defend the 
Constitution, our borders, and our vital American interests overseas, 
but this is above and beyond that. There are no vital American 
interests in Bosnia that have been named or that have convinced the 
American people.
  What is this fundamental difference? Why are we saying, yes, we will 
do this through the administration and send troops there but then not 
providing for the appropriations? Not providing for the authorization, 
there is a big fundamental difference here. I think that it may be 
possibly that someone is trying to embarrass our military. That cuts 
against everything that I believe this government stands for. It is 
evident in the Fourth District of Kansas. It is evident here on the 
floor of the House.
  I believe that we should support this and override the veto. We 
should have had an appropriations bill that was signed by the 
President.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The Chair wishes to inform the 
floor managers that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining and is entitled to close, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums] has 4\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in concluding, let me make a few observations. First, it 
is a very significant rule of the House that I believe is important, 
and it makes a great deal of sense. That is that none of us have the 
right to question each other's motives. I think that is important. I 
think that allows us to be large in this body. It allows us to rise 
above mundane, earth bounding, pedestrian statements. It forces us to 
address the issues. I think we ought not be about questioning anyone's 
motives in this body, including the President of the United States.
  I would suggest that it flies in the face of reality to suggest that 
anyone is attempting to embarrass the U.S. military. That is bizarre 
and extreme in its orientation, and it defies response except to 
suggest that it is totally disingenuous and it ought to be beyond us.
  Second, all of us know why the appropriations bill was not signed 
into law. If we recall, the President of the United States initially 
said that he would veto the appropriations bill on the grounds that 
increasing the military budget by $7 billion at a time when we were 
cutting education for our children, challenging Medicare and doing 
other kinds of things in the totality of the budget debate was 
unacceptable. But then along came the issue of Bosnia, and a number of 
my colleagues challenged the President on the issue of Bosnia and said, 
you ought to take a second look at whether you veto the appropriation 
bill.
  So the President was caught between vetoing on the integrity of the 
budget and the stress on the issue of deploying of troops in Bosnia, 
stepped back, allowed the bill to become law without signature. I do 
not think we ought to question that as, in some kind of way, 
unAmerican, unpatriotic or noncourageous or suggesting that anyone 
wanted to embarrass the military in this country. That is extreme and 
we ought to stay with reality.
  Second, let me make this observation for those who raised the 
brilliant parts of the bill regarding family housing, et cetera: No. 1, 
we all understand the legislative process. We can bring the MILCON bill 
to the floor of Congress in a separate piece of legislation. For those 
of my colleagues who raised the issue of acquisition reform, they 
understand the legislative process. They know they can 
bring acquisition to the floor of Congress in a separate piece of 
legislation. For those who raised the issue of the cost-of-living 
increases for military troops, they can bring that bill to the floor of 
Congress in a separate piece of legislation.

  I would also remind my colleagues that, just before we left to go 
home for the few days of the Christmas break, during that week we had 
four separate opportunities in the context of the debate on the issue 
of the continuing resolution of whether we would pass a continuing 
resolution that would provide for the cost of living for the troops, 
four times. So it is a little disingenuous to bring the issue in the 
context of a veto message suggesting that this is the only way that we 
can deal with the cost of living of the troops.
  This gentleman has been around here 25 years. It seems to me that the 
one 

[[Page H21]]
thing we ought to be about is dealing with each other with a degree of 
honesty and integrity that is warranted by our significant 
responsibilities here. It seems to me that all of us have a 
responsibility to be part of the educative process.
  Finally, I would make this observation, Mr. Speaker. The President 
did not veto the bill on the basis of all these good things. He vetoed 
the bill on the basis of the bad things. One of the bad things was that 
it does indeed have the potential of abrogating the ABM treaty.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania said nothing can be further from the 
truth. But the ABM treaty only allows one site on either side. If you 
move to multiple sites, if you move to a multiple site, there is 
violation. But I would grant that in this particular bill the language 
has been fuzzed up so that it speaks to protection of the continental 
image of the United States. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will, I am 
sure, agree that, at a bare minimum, it is debatable that you can do 
that without multiple sites. The gentleman understands that. There have 
been no hearings on this basis.
  So what is in the record is the potential for abrogation. That is 
what I am suggesting, potential for abrogation.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, a man who knows something about representing 
this country abroad, having served in prisoner of war camps in Vietnam.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hate this disagreement among 
us. I respect the Democrats, and I respect the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] very much. I think he knows exactly what he is 
doing. But in the last 10 years, he is aware that the defense budget 
has been cut by 71 percent. It has hit us hard.
  This particular authorization takes care of our troops. It gives them 
equipment that they need in order to fight the battle. It gives them 
the stuff of what it takes for this President to expand our military 
all over the world with new missions and lets them do the job. It gives 
them the ability to do the job. In addition it gives them that quality 
of life that gets them out of the snow and mud and makes the military 
worth being in and worth fighting for this nation.
  I urge Members to support this and override that presidential veto 
and give our troops what they need. We do not want the President trying 
to do more with less. I think the gentleman would agree with that.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania as end was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, let us call it like it is.
  This President does not want a defense bill. He only signed the 
appropriations bill and allowed it to become law to get support for the 
funding of troops in Bosnia. He never wanted this bill. Did we try?
  Mr. Speaker, I was in meetings with Senator Nunn and Bob Bell, the 
Assistant to the President for National Security, for one entire day on 
missile defense. Mr. Bell raised 12 specific points. I will put in the 
Record, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we resolved all 12 points to his 
satisfaction. Senator Nunn raised four points, Mr. Speaker, and we 
resolved all four points to Senator Nunn's satisfaction.
  Mr. Speaker, in the end this President does not want a bill because 
this President does not support our military. I urge an override of the 
President's veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

 Net Result of Changes Made To Accommodate the Minority and the White 
                                 House

       (1) Virtually all the complaints lodged against the BMD 
     provisions in the SASC-reported (prior to the compromise) and 
     House-passed bills related to the ABM Treaty and the 
     President's prerogatives in the area of arms control 
     negotiations. All of these concerns have been eliminated by 
     the conference action. Two areas, in particular, have been 
     fixed:
       In dropping the House demarcation language and adopting 
     language virtually identical to the Senate-passed language, 
     the conference report will not constrain the President's 
     right to negotiate and will not impose a unilateral 
     interpretation of the treaty.
       In eliminating the requirement to deploy a multiple-site 
     NMD system, we eliminate the argument that the bill contains 
     an ``anticipatory breach'' of the ABM Treaty. The requirement 
     to deploy an NMD system by a date certain is not a treaty 
     issue since we are permitted to deploy a single site under 
     the treaty. Therefore, concern that this will upset the 
     Russians and START II should be eliminated. After all, the 
     only operational ABM system in the world is around Moscow.
       (2) The other argument or concern that has been raised is 
     that the Senate-passed language is particularly important 
     since it was carefully negotiated, agreed to by a large 
     majority in the Senate, and is acceptable to the 
     Administration. The fact of the matter is that the conference 
     action incorporates an overwhelming majority of the Senate 
     compromise.
       The structure of the conference agreement is virtually 
     identical to the Senate-passed bill. One section (cruise 
     missile defense) was split off as a free-standing provision 
     and one non-controversial section (cooperation with allies) 
     was added.
       Although there have been changes made to the Senate-passed 
     language, there is more identical than different. With the 
     exception of the three NMD variables (deploy, multi-site, and 
     date), which have been negotiated with the Minority and the 
     White House, the underlying structure and content is 
     overwhelmingly the Senate language.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the record the 
following remarks regarding Bill Clinton's veto of this defense 
authorization conference report. I spent this past New Year's weekend 
with our troops and their families in Germany as they prepared for 
deployment into Bosnia. This defense bill including pay raises, 
increased housing allowances, vital weapons modernization, and new 
combat readiness priorities, is exactly what these soldiers and their 
families want--it is exactly what they need. Please support this 
conference report and please support an override of the Clinton veto--a 
veto against our troops deploying to Bosnia!

 Congressman Robert K. Dornan Rebukes Clinton for Veto of Defense Bill

       ``It's absolutely absurd for Bill Clinton to send our 
     troops into civil war in Bosnia and then veto a defense 
     authorization bill which provides them and their families so 
     much support,'' commented Congressman Robert K. Dornan of 
     California who, as the chairman of the House National 
     Security Subcommittee on Military Personnel, was one of the 
     prime authors of the FY 1996 defense bill which the president 
     rejected yesterday.
       ``General Omar Bradley once said that `Fairness, diligence, 
     sound preparation, professional skill and loyalty are the 
     marks of American military leadership.' Where's your 
     fairness; where's your loyalty, Mr. President?''
       Dornan firmly believes this defense bill contains exactly 
     what the troops and their families scheduled for deployment 
     to Bosnia need. Among the provisions in the bill Dornan 
     helped develop and pass include a modest 2.4 percent military 
     pay raise, a 5.2 percent increase in the basic allowance for 
     quarters/housing, and new guidelines for accountability of 
     American POWs and MIAs. Dornan, who introduced the first and 
     only free standing legislation to restore the pay raise two 
     years ago, had harsh words for the President. ``After twice 
     canceling a modest pay raise for our military, a raise that 
     was twice restored by the U.S. Congress, Clinton now is 
     attempting to gain credit for this raise by separating it 
     from the rest of the defense bill. The troops already were 
     expecting this raise! Other real benefits, such as the 
     additional housing funding and POW/MIA legislation, are being 
     held hostage to cheap liberal politics!''
       In his veto statement, Clinton described his objections to 
     three major provisions of the bill. All three provisions were 
     major initiatives by Congressman Dornan. ``Clinton objects to 
     immediately deploying an effective ballistic missile defense, 
     despite the fact that we Republicans have identified a near 
     term/low cost system known as `upper tier' which would modify 
     existing Navy ships and missiles for wide area missile 
     defense. Clinton objects to my limitations on placing U.S. 
     troops under foreign and U.N. command, even though this is 
     precisely the reason why he cost 19 Americans their lives in 
     Somalia. Finally, Clinton objects to restrictions on U.S. 
     defense funding going to Russia, including my provision to 
     restrict some aid pending an end to Russian work on offensive 
     biological weapons. It's obvious `Peacenik Clinton' is more 
     interested in supporting Third World dictators with missiles, 
     the United Nations, and communists in Russia than supporting 
     the United States military and the United States taxpayer!''


      the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization conference report

    Republicans Restore Defense Spending After Clinton Cuts Combat 
                               Readiness

       President Bill Clinton has more than doubled the defense 
     cuts promised by Candidate Clinton--$120 billion!
       Clinton's defense plan--the ``Bottom Up Review''--should be 
     called the ``Bottom Out Plan''--it's underfunded by as much 
     as $150 billion!
       Republicans, under the leadership of Floyd Spence, have 
     restored just $7 billion to defense, including programs I 
     personally helped initiate such as: additional funding for 
     Army ``scout'' helicopters--both the OH-58D ``Kiowa Warrior'' 
     and RAH-66 ``Comanche'', additional funding to build ``more'' 


[[Page H22]]
     than 20 B-2 bombers and equip the B-1B with precision guided munitions, 
     and additional funding for a near term ballistic missile 
     defense capability using existing Navy Aegis cruisers and 
     destroyers.
       My Subcommittee on Personnel, thanks to the efforts of my 
     ranking Democrat Owen Pickett and the hard work of all my 
     subcommittee members, improved military quality of life by: 
     increasing military housing allowance by 35 percent, setting 
     permanent personnel levels to stop the ``drawdown,'' and 
     increasing the number of national guard technicians.
       I also included several initiatives that reverse the trend 
     of liberal social programs within the department designed to 
     conduct combat operations.
       This bill: stops abortions at U.S. military hospitals, 
     stops pay for convicted military prisoners, establishes 
     strict new guidelines for the accountability of American 
     Prisoners of War and Missing in Action, discharges all non-
     deployable HIV+military personnel, and awards the AFEM to 
     U.S. veterans of El Salvador.
       In closing, I would remind those who oppose this bill of 
     the wise words of one of our founding fathers, Benjamin 
     Franklin, who warned:
       The expenses required to prevent a war are much lighter 
     than those that will, if not prevented, be absolutely 
     necessary to maintain it.
       Support our troops, support modernization, support this 
     conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding.
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be determined by the yeas and 
nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 156, not voting 38, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 3]

                               YEAS--240

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--156

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Abercrombie
     Berman
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Callahan
     Chapman
     Clay
     DeFazio
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Foglietta
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Hoke
     Hutchinson
     LaTourette
     Lightfoot
     McCollum
     Meek
     Mfume
     Norwood
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Quillen
     Roukema
     Sawyer
     Shuster
     Souder
     Stark
     Stockman
     Studds
     Tanner
     Visclosky
     Wilson
     Wyden

                              {time}  1545

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Hoke for, with Mr. DeFazio against.
       Mr. Quillen and Mr. Lightfoot for, with Mr. Pastor against.

  Messrs. BAESLER, ROHRABACHER, and de la GARZA changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea''.
  So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the veto of the 
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The message and bill are referred to the 
Committee on National Security.
  The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.

                          ____________________