[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.
____________________