Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 155 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 155 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7129-H7135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PRESIDENTIAL VETO OF NDAA

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emmer of Minnesota). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Hartzler) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader.

General Leave

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Fifty-three years ago is a long time. In 1962, John F.
Kennedy was President. Gas was 28 cents a gallon. The first Walmart
opened. The U.S. Navy SEALs were created, and the Cuban Missile Crisis
was on everyone's minds.
Now, we have gone through a lot as a nation since then, but one thing
has remained constant: the U.S. Congress and the President of the
United States have fulfilled one of our primary obligations according
to the Constitution of providing for the common defense by passing a
National Defense Authorization Act. You may say that Congress hasn't
always passed legislation that is needed, but on the National Defense
Authorization Act, we have gotten it right. For 53 years in a row now,
our Nation's national security needs have been taken care of.
Sadly, that might not be the case this year. The reason? Not because
the Representatives of the people did not do their work. It is because
the Commander in Chief has chosen to use the military as political
pawns to advance his domestic agenda by choosing to veto the NDAA.
Never before in our Nation's history has a President vetoed the
National Defense Authorization Act in order to leverage concessions on
other areas of government spending. Let me say that again. President
Obama's veto stems not from defense policy but, rather, from his desire
for more domestic spending unrelated to national defense. This is
unprecedented.
Four times during the past 53 years, Presidents have vetoed the NDAA,
but it was over specific defense-related provisions in the NDAA itself.
Differences were able to be worked out with Congress and concerns
quickly addressed so the bill could move forward and our men and women
in uniform would have the tools, equipment, and resources they need to
keep us safe. Not this year.
Just minutes ago, our President vetoed our Nation's most important
bill, which provides for full funding for our military.
Let me share with you what provisions are in this bill and why it is
so important. It provides: a 1.3 percent pay raise for our troops;
retirement benefits for the 83 percent of our troops who currently see
none; the authority for commanders to allow soldiers to

[[Page H7130]]

carry guns on base to defend themselves, their colleagues in arms, and
their families; vital resources and new tools to combat cyber attacks
on our critical infrastructure; restrictions on Guantanamo detainee
transfers to address the potential illegality of the President's
previous unilateral transfers; 12 new F-18 Super Hornets to be built in
my home State of Missouri; $300 million of assistance in lethal aid so
the people of Ukraine can defend themselves; $330 million in funding
for the iron dome missile defense system for Israel; and it directs the
deployment of a new advanced ballistic missile defense system to defend
against the threat of an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile.
In short, at home and abroad, the NDAA ensures our military has
funding for national defense and overseas operations. These are the
selfless individuals who we rely upon for our safety and freedom that
we are talking about. And in a strongly bipartisan fashion, Congress
has authorized that funding at the exact level that the President
requested.
In this unprecedented move, the Commander in Chief is using the very
troops he commands as pawns in a very dangerous political game. It is
wrong to add to the uncertainty our men and women in uniform face as
they stand on the front lines of an increasingly uncertain world.
Let us remember, the President recently made a decision to keep
almost 10,000 of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in
Afghanistan. On the heels of such a serious decision, asking them to
leave their families and lives on hold for another year or more, how
could he justify not signing the bill that provides the pay and
benefits for our troops?
I am thankful for my colleagues who stand with me here today to tell
you why this is such a critical piece of legislation and why this veto
cannot stand. We are here to make sure the men and women who put
themselves in harm's way for our freedom are a priority to our Nation
and not held hostage to political games.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine),
a Navy veteran and currently lieutenant commander in the United States
Navy Reserve.
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Hartzler) for all her hard work on these issues.
Just as a point of maybe disagreement, I am no longer in the Navy
Reserve. I joined the Oklahoma National Guard, and I will be flying
with the Oklahoma Air National Guard.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for hosting this Special Order,
and I would like folks to understand really what my friend from
Missouri just said.
The President of the United States vetoed the Defense Authorization
because he wants more spending for other domestic programs. This is
unprecedented and, quite frankly, it is scary for this country. I am
still dumbfounded by it, that you are going to hold defense hostage for
a domestic agenda. We don't do that in the United States of America.
This President somehow doesn't understand that you don't take the
defense of this country hostage for a domestic agenda, and yet that is
what he has just done.
I want to share with my colleagues why we do an authorization every
year, because the world changes. Things get more dangerous year after
year after year.
As a Navy pilot and now as a National Guard pilot, we utilize space.
I am on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services
Committee. We hear all kinds of things about space.
I can tell you, as somebody who has used it, we use space for over-
the-horizon communications with our space-based communication
architecture. We use it for weather so that we can make sure we can get
to the target on time. We use it for intelligence. We use it for
missile warning. We use it for a whole host of things: the position,
navigation, timing, our GPS satellites, for actually hitting our
targets.
Space is critical, yet something has changed drastically in the last
few years. The Russians have been launching various things that were
not registered with the International Telecommunication Union, the ITU.

{time} 1730

What are we discovering that these objects are doing? Well, they are
doing very sophisticated co-orbital maneuvers, demonstrating that they
can do proximity and rendezvous operations, which means--guess what--
ultimately that could be an antisatellite capability.
Friends, if we lose our satellites, we could have even more risk.
Imagine your ATM not working. Imagine the food in the grocery store not
being there when you go shopping. National security in this country is
critically important, and the President is holding it hostage for a
different domestic agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with
national security. This is absolute craziness.
So what did we do in the NDAA? We plussed up spending on space
protection, which is critically important; and we not only plussed up
spending on space protection, but we provided authorities, critically
necessary authorities so the Department of Defense can actually protect
this country in ways that it hasn't had the opportunity to do so
before.
For our communications architecture, we are doing Pathfinder
programs, and we are purchasing communications in space in ways that we
have never done it before. Why? Because we need to distribute the
architecture so it complicates the targeting solution for our enemies.
We are not doing this because it is fun or because we like it. We are
doing it because it is critical for national security.
When the President of the United States vetoes it, it puts all of us
in jeopardy. I want to be clear. This is about the troops, there is no
doubt about that, but when we are talking about somebody's ATM working,
this is about the security of the United States of America, and the
President is holding it hostage for a domestic agenda.
When it comes to the troops, just a few items. We talk about the
authorities in the NDAA. Well, those of us who have served understand
that there are special pays that we receive: combat pay, hazardous duty
pay, bonuses for reenlistments, flight pay for those of us who fly.
There are pays that are going to be in jeopardy now that otherwise
wouldn't be in jeopardy.
By the way, a lot of these pays are for people who are right now
serving this country overseas. Do we not understand that, Mr.
President? I should say, Mr. Speaker, the President should understand
that.
This is a momentous day in American history and not for good
reasons--for tragic reasons.
I would like to thank my colleague from Missouri for hosting this
Special Order and giving somebody like me and all these colleagues
behind me the opportunity to make sure that America understands what is
at stake here. The gentlewoman's leadership on these issues is
critical, and America is in jeopardy.
We need to understand what happened today is not the norm. It must
not be the norm, and future Presidents must never hold hostage American
national security for a domestic agenda.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Bridenstine for
his service to our Nation and his firsthand perspective on how vital
this is and what a tragic day it is for our Nation that our Commander
in Chief would do this.
Now I would like to turn to another friend and hero to our Nation in
many ways, who served both in the Army and the Marine Corps, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri,
Vicky Hartzler, for her leadership on the Armed Services Committee and
on this critical issue.
I rise today in strong support of the National Defense Authorization
Act, and I urge my colleagues to override President Obama's veto. This
bipartisan bill provides essential pay and benefits to the men and
women serving in our military today. Expanded retirement options for
our troops, greater protections against sexual assault in the military,
and increased cybersecurity defense funding are among some of the most
important authorizations included in the NDAA.
For the Sixth Congressional District of Colorado, the NDAA also
contains provisions and language that help

[[Page H7131]]

Buckley Air Force Base. Buckley not only plays a critical role in our
Nation's defense, but it is the largest employer in my district.
Finally, the NDAA also includes language to prevent the transfer of
GTMO detainees to U.S. soil. Last week, a delegation from the
administration surveyed potential locations for GTMO detainees in
Colorado. Along with most Coloradans, I remain adamantly opposed to
this move and strongly support the language in the NDAA. There is
absolutely no reason to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp only to
finance the incarceration of enemy combatants in the United States.
This legislation is too important to our Nation and to Colorado to
become the subject of political games by the White House. Once again,
this bill must become law, and I urge my colleagues in the House to
override the President's veto.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Coffman made several excellent
points, not only about the importance to Colorado, but certainly to our
Nation. He raised a very important point that hasn't been brought up
yet: how it prevents the transfer of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
from coming to our soil; and that is what the administration wants to
do is to put them in our backyards and our prisons, and we do not
support that, and this NDAA prevents that.
Now I would like to turn to another friend and colleague from the
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Wilson. He is quite a hero to this Nation
in many ways, but certainly having four sons who have served in the
military is one of his major contributions. We are so proud of him and
his family and his service.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I thank Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler
for her leadership for military families, and I thank her for
referencing my four sons. Of course, I want to give all credit to my
wife, Roxanne. She did a great job raising four sons who truly know how
important it is to serve our country.
Sadly, President Obama has vetoed this year's National Defense
Authorization Act, even though it allocates the same amount of funding
as the Department of Defense request that he made himself. The
President does not support the bipartisan NDAA because it utilizes
wartime funds. Despite utilizing these funds himself, the President
accepted this fabrication to veto the NDAA and put servicemembers,
military families, and veterans at risk.
On October 3, The Washington Post editorialized: ``Refusing to sign
this bill would make history, but not in a good way. Mr. Obama should
let it become law.''
I believe the veto underscores the President's legacy of weakness.
This is leading to instability. It is leading to aggression, mass
murders, and it is leading to citizens fleeing the violence causing
children to drown at sea.
This year's NDAA provides for servicemembers and equips our troops to
fight serious threats to American families, like the murderous Islamic
State. It supports our allies, like Ukraine and Israel, to defend
themselves from aggression. The NDAA establishes meaningful reforms to
the Department of Defense acquisition process and creates commonsense
improvements to the military retirement system. It fully staffs and
resources Cyber Command, which I appreciate as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, to protect American
families.

American families deserve peace through strength. The National
Defense Authorization Act gives our military critical resources to
defend us as we constantly face new threats. It is sad for the
President to weaken these reforms and funds and put American families
at risk.
Fellow Members, I strongly urge you to override the President's veto.
As the appreciative son of a World War II Flying Tigers veteran, as a
31-year veteran of the Army myself, and as the grateful father of four
sons serving in the military, I know firsthand that your bipartisan
vote will help protect and better serve our troops, military families,
veterans, and all American families by promoting and ensuring peace
through strength.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I really appreciate the gentleman's service to this
Nation as a 31-year veteran; but also serving as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, he has a unique
perspective on the inherent dangers facing our Nation now that our
President has vetoed this important bill. I thank him for sharing his
insights.
Now I will yield to another member of the Armed Services Committee,
but more than that, he is a decorated Navy SEAL, and I look forward to
hearing his thoughts on this very important moment in our Nation's
history. I turn to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the President's
veto and ask my colleagues to override it. I come before this body not
only as a Representative of the great State of Montana, but also a
former commander of SEAL Team Six and a former deputy- and acting
commander of Naval Special Warfare's efforts in the Persian Gulf.
The job of the Commander in Chief is bound by the Constitution to
support the troops, to be the leader, and yet this President vetoes a
bipartisan bill to defend our country.
I talk not only as a former commander, but also a father. My daughter
is a Navy diver, and my son-in-law is an Active-Duty Navy SEAL. My wife
watched her daughter, her husband, and her son-in-law all deploy.
I have seen the consequences of war. I am probably the last
individual that would advocate for war. I have seen the consequences
and the pain. But when we go to war, the Commander in Chief is
obligated to make sure we go to war to win. He has to make sure that
our troops have the right training, the right equipment, the right
leadership to win decisively on the field of battle. Before this
Commander in Chief sends them into harm's way, it is his obligation and
duty to make sure that we know the conditions to bring them home.
His actions today are a dereliction of his duty. It affects every
soldier, sailor, airman, and marine in harm's way. A veto and the
subsequent continuing resolution causes harm to our troops. I call it
garrisoning, where our troops don't train, our fleet can't go in and
receive the maintenance necessary. Above all, it gives a message to the
troops that are in harm's way that their Commander in Chief does not
have their back.
This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. This is an American
issue, because it is America's sons and daughters that we put in harm's
way. It is the obligation of a great nation to make sure when we do
that we give them everything they need to come home safely.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I don't know of a more articulate way to
say how important and imperative it is that we override this veto. I
thank Mr. Zinke for sharing his very real and heartfelt and expert
thoughts on this issue.
Now I have a friend who is going to share who is passionate about
lots of things and competent on many issues, but I tell you, serving on
Armed Services Committee with the gentlewoman from Indiana, Jackie
Walorski, I can tell you her main passion is for the men and women in
uniform, for our national defense.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman and
my friend from Missouri, Vicky Hartzler.
The NDAA, as we have heard tonight, is the largest single
authorization bill that Congress considers and one of this body's most
significant pieces of legislation and accomplishments this year. This
legislation is critical to our national security. It continues to fund
the entire national defense of this country.
For 54 years, Republicans and Democrats in both Houses in this body
have come together to pass this defense bill. This year was no
different. This Congress sent a bipartisan bill to President Obama.
Today, though, the President vetoed this defense budget in order to
gain leverage for additional increased spending, his demands of
spending, a process of a budgetary procedure that is completely
unrelated to this bill.
This defense bill helps our men and women in uniform by adjusting pay
and retirement benefits. It removes barriers that prevent access to
urgent

[[Page H7132]]

medical care for members of the armed services while also expanding
employment opportunities for those exiting the service. It helps us
retain our most experienced servicemembers. It makes those individuals
safer by enhancing and improving military training and modernizing our
resources and programs.
Lastly, this bill provides very real authorities, such as the ability
to protect Americans by keeping terrorists secured in the detention
facility known as GTMO, or Guantanamo Bay. For 54 years, this defense
bill has transited party lines and Washington dysfunction. As a
candidate, President Obama promised to do the same. But with this veto,
he has threatened to end this staple of bipartisanship in this Chamber.
Our servicemen and -women put their lives on the line every day. The
least we can do is offer them the security of knowing that they can
provide for their families and plan for their own futures.

{time} 1745

Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank the gentlewoman. I appreciate that.
Next we have another member of the Armed Services Committee, who is a
decorated Army commander, who led soldiers in Iraq, and whose unit was
responsible for finding Saddam Hussein, to share his thoughts on this
day when the President has vetoed the NDAA and why it is so important
that we override this veto.
I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for all of her
hard work on the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I served my country 21 years in the Infantry in the
United States Army and have deployed operationally to Kosovo, Kuwait,
Afghanistan and Iraq.
As a combat Infantry veteran, I know firsthand the hardships and
dangers that our warriors face. The question that we have to ask is:
Why has the President increased the hardship and danger to our troops?
Has he forgotten that we have troops in the field that are still
fighting?
Has he forgotten that he has committed to contingency operations that
created new hardships, new deployments, unscheduled training,
unscheduled maintenance? And now, after asking them to turn everything
on their heads, he is not even going to support it.
A Presidential veto blocks needed funds for our ongoing combat
operations and for our emergency operations and contingencies.
The President claims that we need to do this right; yet, he has
created the foreign policy mess that has required our troops to deploy
on contingencies and then has asked this body to get additional
Congressional authorization for those efforts. And now he adds to their
burden.
The veto eliminates crucial planning time just for normal peacetime
operations in training from 3 to 6 months, forcing the military to
waste millions of dollars as they play a catch-up game, usually in the
spring, by having to deal with such efforts to try to make up for lost
time.
The veto reduces certainty in our overall national security posture.
The veto also blocks a revised retirement program benefiting 83 percent
of our warriors that are not currently covered, and it denies expanded
access to health care and blocks access to needed drugs.
It continues to leave our warriors defenseless at recruiting
stations, camps, posts, and bases by denying their ability to carry
firearms in their defense against terror threats.
The veto also blocks a mediocre pay raise that the President himself
already reduced by 1 percent, and now they will not even get that
pathetic 1 percent pay raise, 1.3 percent.
Mr. Speaker, a Presidential veto makes one thing crystal clear:
Nothing is too good for our troops and nothing is what he is going to
give them. That is why we will fight to overturn this veto, so that he
can hear the people of the United States and our constitutional
requirement to defend this republic.
We will overturn this veto, and we ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Nation
join us in this fight.
I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I couldn't agree more with the gentleman. Thank you
for your leadership, service to our country, and your call for the
American people to join us and come alongside us as we fight for the
defense of our Nation and for the men and women in uniform.
The thing that I feel is so important tonight is that the American
people and everyone here in the House has had an opportunity to hear
from people who not only care about their Nation, who are today's
patriots, but many of them who have either served themselves on the
front line and who have experienced danger and put themselves in harm's
way because of it or they have family members that they are supporting
in that line of duty.
Our next speaker I want to turn to is certainly one of those, not
only a colleague on the Armed Services Committee, but a father who has
three sons who are serving in the military, and he knows firsthand the
dangers, the sacrifice, and how important this NDAA is to our Nation.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
Mr. NUGENT. Congresswoman Hartzler, I really appreciate you taking
the time to do this today on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage that the President would veto, as the
Commander in Chief of our military in general.
Think about this. I have three sons that have served in the military,
that currently serve in United States Army, that have served in Iraq
and Afghanistan, that have done trips to Haiti to help during
reconstruction as it related to an earthquake.
The President of the United States has made them political pawns.
One of the things that my wife and I felt when they were deployed to
Iraq or Afghanistan was that they were the best equipped, best led,
best trained troops on the face of the earth. By vetoing the National
Defense Authorization Act, we are putting a dagger in the heart of what
we are supposed to be holding up.
The Constitution of the United States says that this Congress has the
obligation to stand up an Army, to stand up a Navy, to support the
President of the United States and the actions that we must take to
protect this Nation.
The actions today are strictly a political action when you do a press
conference to hold up the fact that he vetoed the National Defense
Authorization Act.
You have heard so many members here today talk about the things that
this act did or does. And so I call upon all of our friends across the
aisle. Democrats, unite with us to overturn this veto because we live
in the most dangerous of times.
Go back in time. I can't think of a time--I don't know if you can--
where it has been more dangerous in regards to a resurgent Russia, to
China, to Iran, to North Korea, to all of the non-state actors out
there that are threatening this Nation and our friends and allies
around the world.
This is not the time to play political brinksmanship with our
military. This is a time to hold them up, lift them up, and let them do
their job and know that their Commander in Chief has their back.
I truly do appreciate, Mrs. Hartzler, your doing this.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Nugent. I just thought it was so
important that you shared, as a parent. I have heard you say this
before in committee, that, as a parent, it is vital for you and your
wife to know that you are sending the best equipped, best trained force
possible over into harm's way so, when you send your sons, you know
that they are going to be able to come back safe.
Mr. NUGENT. People forget that there is actually flesh and blood,
parents and children, of those young men and women that are serving
this country. They forget there are real people in those uniforms. And
so that is why this is so important.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Absolutely. And what message is that sending to them
right now? Thank you.
Now I would like to turn to Representative Doug Lamborn, my friend
from Colorado, who has the privilege and does such a great job
representing

[[Page H7133]]

one of the most military-intense districts in the country. I had the
opportunity to visit the Air Force Academy around Memorial Day. I
appreciate your leadership on this issue.
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) for whatever he
would like to share.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for her
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, today's veto from the President breaks dangerous new
ground for callous disregard for the needs of our men and women in
uniform.
While he worked so hard to make sure that the Iranian military had
the funding they needed via his disastrous nuclear deal, today he chose
to willfully disregard the needs of our own military to make a
political point with his veto.
The Presidency has sunk to a new low today. For the first time in
history, an American President has vetoed a defense bill because of
issues that the bill itself cannot possibly address.
Most of us here in Congress agree that defending our Nation is the
first and most important priority, a sacred constitutional duty we have
to protect the American people and to keep us safe in an increasingly
dangerous world.
Tragically, President Obama is willing to hold defense hostage to try
to get more money for agencies like the IRS and the EPA, all of this
while we remain at war with extremist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS
that want to attack America, all of this while we still are having
troops killed overseas, including some from Colorado.
This is pretty simple, really. This administration wants to cut our
military and increase spending almost everywhere else. Our troops have
already endured massive cuts similar in size to the Clinton drawdown in
the nineties, although this time global threats are rising, not
falling.
On top of all this, the President wants to send Guantanamo detainees
to U.S. soil, including to my own district in Colorado, and is also
issuing his veto for this reason.
Look, terrorists will find a reason to hate us no matter what happens
in Guantanamo.
I ask my colleagues: Are we willing to let this happen on our watch?
To my fellow Republicans who are rightly concerned about out-of-
control Federal spending and an out-of-control Federal debt, please
hear me when I say we are working on real reform and real
accountability for the large defense budget.
But please also hear me when I say that defense is simply not the
driver of our debt, especially over the long term. Defense spending
ensures and protects our way of life.
I strongly urge my colleagues to do the right thing for our military
and the right thing for America: override President Obama's reckless
and truly dangerous veto.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank the gentleman so much because he raises a very
good point as far as spending goes in that this bill, the NDAA,
provides the exact amount of funding for our defense that the President
requested.
Mr. LAMBORN. Down to the penny.
Mrs. HARTZLER. We worked hard to come up with that, but we made sure
that our troops had the funding they need. And, yet, as the Commander
in Chief, he requested $612 billion. We gave him $612 billion in this
bill, and then he vetoes it.
Mr. LAMBORN. It makes no sense. It is dangerous, and he is doing it
for political reasons that can't be solved in this bill.
Mrs. HARTZLER. You are exactly right. Thank you for your comments.
Now I have a gentleman from Georgia that I have been privileged to be
elected with in 2010 and serve alongside in both Agriculture Committee
and Armed Services. I believe he is one of the most hardworking members
on Armed Services.
If you are his constituent, I want you to know he is at every
hearing. He does his homework. And I appreciate him coming out tonight
to share his thoughts on the NDAA.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I want to thank you, Mrs. Hartzler, for
what you have done here.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss what
has happened here today. As we talked earlier today, I honestly thought
there was a chance that we wouldn't be here speaking about this. I
thought that maybe this one time our Commander in Chief would do what
was right.
I hope you will take an opportunity to look at the news. I am looking
at it right now.
Obama to hold photo op to veto defense bill. Obama plans to hold a
photo op in the Oval Office when he uses his veto pen on the National
Defense Authorization Act, according to his public schedule.
Ladies and gentlemen, when I am around the District, I hear a lot of
complaints: Why can't Congress just work together? Why can't you get
along?
The National Defense Authorization Act came out of the Armed Services
Committee 60-2, 60-2. There was one Democrat and one Republican that
voted against the bill; 60-2.
It came through the House. A significant majority voted for the
National Defense Authorization bill on the floor. It passed out of the
Senate with over 70 votes.
When I am talking to Americans, I have used this as an example of how
not everything you see in the press is true, that there are issues like
national security that the Democrats and the Republicans in Washington,
D.C., absolutely take very seriously, and when it comes to the well-
being of our men and women that serve the country and their families
and making sure that they have the training and the equipment that they
need, that this is an example of how we are able to put partisanship
aside and work in the best interest of everybody in the country, most
especially those that serve so honorably.
And the President held a photo op to veto the bill.
I want to thank my fellow colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans,
for their work on this bill. Certainly I supported it. I continue to
support it.
I think one of the things that continues to be mentioned and needs to
be mentioned over and over and over again is the President got the
total of what he asked for with regard to the authorization of the
funds for carrying out the fight against ISIL, for the operations of
the military.
There were a couple of things in it that he didn't like. One the them
was the transfer of terrorists out of Guantanamo Bay.

{time} 1800

Now, I would just ask that you think about the fact that, since the
first NDAA 50 years ago, it has only been vetoed four times. In each
instance, there was an agreement effectively prior to the veto on how
to resolve it.
But not this guy, not this guy. He holds a photo op. He holds a photo
op so that he can show off while he vetoes the National Defense
Authorization Act.
I just hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
join us as we work to override the President's veto in the House. I
honestly believe that we will get the votes in the House to do that.
I hope that the Members of the Senate who voted for the National
Defense Authorization Act will vote for it again when they have the
opportunity to do so after we send the bill over there, after we have
overridden the President's veto with this piece of legislation in the
House.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to apologize. If the President
won't do it, I want to do it. What happened today I think will long be
looked upon as one of the worst moments of American leadership.
With that, Mrs. Hartzler, I thank you again for what you have done
for the men and women who serve and your service in this House.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank the gentleman.
I think it is so important to remember that national defense is not a
partisan issue. It is a constitutional duty. It is a constitutional
privilege that we have, as elected officials in this country, to
provide for the common defense.
The bill did pass overwhelmingly with bipartisan support in the
House, in the committee, and over in the Senate. I am hopeful as well
that we will

[[Page H7134]]

be able to continue to join together to override this veto.
My friend from Georgia also made the comment and the sad news about
the photo op that the President did today as he vetoed this piece of
legislation.
I wonder, where is the photo op with the soldiers right now fighting
in Afghanistan and some of them, sadly, who have died lately? Where is
the recognition for them? Where is the photo op with the sorties that
are being flown and our pilots that are going into harm's way to take
on ISIS right now? Where is the photo op with all the military families
that are sacrificing?
It is truly shameful, I think, that this occurred. I stand alongside
with those who are fighting for the people of this country to keep them
safe.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson),
another friend who is a champion of this, who is a decorated Army
commander, proudly serves on the Armed Services Committee and does a
wonderful job.
Mr. GIBSON. Thank you. I really want to express my gratitude to the
gentlewoman. I thank her for leading tonight, putting this together.
I also want to thank my colleagues that came out tonight to share
their views and share their experiences.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very critical topic we are talking about here
today. The first function of government is to protect its people.
Mr. Speaker, every single one of our service chiefs are on record,
under oath in sworn testimony, saying that, if they do not get the
additional resources that are provided in parts of this bill, that they
will not be able to execute the national security strategy, that it
will break our military.
Mr. Speaker, this is at a time that we have Russian tanks in Syria.
We have got a significant challenge from the Islamic State. We have got
major issues with Iran. We are dealing with a very aggressive Putin in
Eastern Europe. We have got a quixotic leader in North Korea and an
ambiguous situation in China.
Now is not the time to be taking a knee on our national security
strategy. Now is not the time to be breaking our military.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure it is clear just how partisan the
President's actions are. The American people need to know just how
partisan this action is.
This process, our national security policy bill, is collaborative.
In our committee, in the House Armed Services Committee, we hold
hearings. It is fully collaborative. Both sides--Republicans and
Democrats--get to come together, work on the issues, bring forward the
questions, collaborate in that whole process of the hearing.
Then we have a markup. We have a markup at the committee level. This
markup lasts for, in some cases, over 12 hours. Every single person in
that committee, regardless of party, is able to bring forward their
ideas, to speak for their people, to offer their amendments, to have
debate, and to have a vote on those amendments.
As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) mentioned, at the
culmination of that process in the House Armed Services Committee, the
vote in our committee was 60-2, a strong vote, a bipartisan vote. The
representatives of the people of the United States voted to support our
servicemen and -women and their families.
The vote that was taken here on the floor of the House was a strong,
bipartisan vote. Our colleagues over in the Senate, as was mentioned--
the vote on the conference was 70-27. Three individuals who are running
for President of the United States who were not present expressed
support for it. Seventy-three votes, almost three-quarters of the
United States Senate, represented the will of those respective States
that they were here to represent. It was a strong, bipartisan vote.
We have a supermajority supporting this bill for our servicemen and -
women and their families.
The President of the United States, despite all that, vetoed this
bill when it is so clear that every single one of our service chiefs
have said that they need these additional resources or we will not be
able to execute the national security strategy.
Mr. Speaker, this is also very personal for me. I enlisted at the age
of 17 as a private in the Infantry back in 1981. In my early years in
the military, I was part of an effort to try to increase the readiness
of our Armed Forces, and I saw those efforts working. I saw us
continuing to build capability throughout the eighties and standing on
the principle of peace through strength.
We won the cold war without a major conflict. We put ourselves in the
position, when we had conflict in 1990 in the Persian Gulf war, that we
had a military with overmatch so that we were able to prevail in that
conflict with as few casualties as was possible.
Mr. Speaker, over time, in the 29 years that I served in the
military, the other important facet of peace through strength is it
forged trust with those who were willing to come forward and defend
this Nation, trust that their leaders here in Washington, D.C.--
regardless of party--would always have their back, would ensure the
resources necessary so that they could be fully equipped and trained,
would be there for them, that their pay and benefits would always be
there for them, and that, when they deployed forward, that the programs
would be there to support their families.
Mr. Speaker, that trust was really called into question today by our
President, who, in a very partisan manner, vetoed an overwhelmingly
bipartisan piece of legislation. I can't even begin to tell you how
disappointed I am.
Mr. Speaker, we will fight this. We are working now with our
colleagues. We feel like we are in a strong position in the Senate to
override this. We have more work to do here in the United States House.
That work is ongoing. We need to enact this bill.
Let me just end where I began and thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership. I thank her for coming forward today to organize this, to
really inspire us to come together to express so that the American
people can know what happened today and how their representatives, in a
bipartisan way, will rise to this challenge and make sure that we get
this important national security policy bill into law.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank the gentleman for his service and for sharing
how important it is, how vital it is, that we override this veto and do
what is right for our troops and for America.
The last speaker is the newly elected gentleman from California who I
have really enjoyed getting to know and is a privilege to serve with on
the Armed Services Committee.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight).
Mr. KNIGHT. I thank Congresswoman Hartzler for her leadership in this
role. This is of vital importance.
I want to start this discussion with just a little bit of reference.
When I got elected 9 months ago, everyone said: You have to go to
Congress. You have to get some things done. You have to work across the
aisle. You have to build some friendships. You have to do these things.
I think in the one committee that I sit on, Armed Services, we do
that. We talk about the military. We talk about what is best for it,
what is best for America, what is best for the readiness, and what are
the programs and the projects and the arms and the things that we are
going to do to make sure that our men and women are the best prepared
to go into battle, if called upon.
But today I think we saw a little bit of politics, and maybe we have
seen that for the last week or more. But political football shouldn't
happen around the military. We should be able to hammer these things
out.
As you heard from some of the speakers before, this has been vetoed
four times, and every time it has been basically an issue that has then
been worked out. We have come back, we have taken care of that issue,
and it has gone forward.
So for 53 years, the NDAA has worked like it is supposed to: put the
military first, put America first, and move forward through the
disagreements.
But as you have heard--and we heard this in the discussion with part
of the NDAA--that this was going to be vetoed. The President was
forecasting maybe he would veto this.
Well, this wasn't a secret operation we were doing. The NDAA was out
in the open. I don't know of a chairman

[[Page H7135]]

that is better than the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services at
working across the aisle, working with the issues, and trying to get
everything done before we get to a problem like this, including working
with the White House. That is exactly what happened.
But I would disagree with some of the speakers that came before me
when they said that the President came out and he brought his pen and
he did a photo op. This was forecasted that it was going to be done
today, today.
Is there something that is happening today that is going to take up
all the news, that is going to be in all of the papers tomorrow, that
is going to be on Twitter? That is right. The Benghazi hearing is
happening right now, and it has been happening for hours.
During this veto, the Benghazi hearing was happening. I just went on
Twitter. There are 200 times more Twitter feeds on Benghazi than the
NDAA veto.
In politics, we would call that cover. We would call that: You know
what? I have to do something bad; so, I had better do it when they are
not looking at me. That is exactly what happened today.
Let's talk about the NDAA a little bit. Yes, we have had some
disagreements, and we have figured them out: 60-2 in the House. How do
you get something done when you get such a bipartisan vote? Well, you
sit there for 20 hours and you work through a chairman and you get the
issues worked out.
$612 billion was asked for. $612 billion was given. A 1.3 percent pay
raise from the President's budget, a 1.3 percent pay raise to our
military, that was done.
In July, we lost four Marines to a tragic incident in Tennessee. When
I went home, many people said: What are you going to do about this? Can
you change something? Shouldn't they be armed? Shouldn't something
happen?
That is in the NDAA. Now we give post commanders the appropriate
ability to arm our recruiting and our reserve centers.
But let's go a little further. This allows our friends and enemies to
know what is happening in America. Now, today they say: Is something
happening in America that is weak? Because for 53 years, it has been
the military first, America first. We are going to be strong. And today
I have got to believe that our friends and enemies might be scratching
their head and saying: What is happening in America?
That is not something we ever want. We want our friends to know that
we are going to be shoulder to shoulder with them, and we want our
enemies to know that we are as strong as we possibly can be.
I am going to finish thanking the gentlewoman from Missouri. We have
a kindredship. In my district, we tested and built every B-2. In her
district, she houses the B-2 Spirit that sends them off to do difficult
deals, difficult sorties. I am very proud of what the B-2 does, just as
I am proud of every man and woman in the military and every mission
that they complete.

{time} 1815

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to stand with the military, then let's
stand with the military. If we are going to turn our back and say that
this is not what we believe, then that is not what I want to be part
of. I think we should work as hard as we possibly can to override this
veto. That is the mission. That is the vision.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, gentleman. I share that vision and look
forward to working alongside you to do the right thing for the American
people.
I think you brought up many good points, but certainly the situation
now under this Commander in Chief is that we have a situation where our
allies don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. This action today
can't help but contribute further to that thinking. We have got to
reverse this. America is strong when it is safe, and it is safe because
it is strong.
We have heard this evening, Mr. Speaker, from many people who are
experts on this issue. Not only do they care about it passionately, but
they themselves have put on the uniform and made the sacrifices. They
have left families to serve their country, and they know what it is
like, what our troops are facing and what potential dangers we can be
in by jeopardizing their security by not providing for them and passing
a National Defense Authorization Act. We have heard from other
colleagues here who are parents and who have children who have answered
the call and signed up to serve their country and gone into harm's way,
some of them who are there right now.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard how distressing it is for our troops to
hear today--no matter where they are, whether they are in Afghanistan,
Iraq, whether they are in the Pacific or they are in the jungles of
Africa, or whether they are advising as we look and see what is going
on with Ukraine and the President, and whether they are monitoring
intelligence around the world, cyber threats and cyber attacks--when
they turn on their TV tonight, to find out that their Commander in
Chief has vetoed the bill that would provide for the resources that
they need to carry out their mission, to find out that it is not done
because of some specific provisions in the bill, unlike a few times in
the past 53 years where we have passed this, but because the President
wants to advance a domestic agenda that has nothing to do with
providing for our common defense. It is wrong and it is disheartening.
Just a reminder of the things in this bill, the reasons it is so
important. It provides: $612 billion for our national defense, the
exact amount of money that the President requested; a pay raise for our
hardworking troops; retirement benefits for those that don't have it
now; the authority of commanders, like Representative Knight shared, to
be able to make a policy to allow the soldiers on their installation to
be able to defend themselves and carry guns so hopefully we won't see
the senseless tragedy again; to restrict allowing Guantanamo Bay
detainees--terrorists, basically--to be brought here to America and put
into our jails in our backyard; and to support our allies, whether it
be the Iron Dome for Israel that has been so helpful in saving
countless thousands of lives in Israel in the last few years, but also
to provide funding for those fighting for freedom in Ukraine, allowing
them to protect themselves.
Other speakers talked about space protections, protections against
sexual assault in the military, preventing the transfers, supports our
allies, some of the things I have said, acquisition reform. We did
everything we could in this bill to help make the Pentagon more
efficient and more effective to save money, and we will continue to do
that.
We also heard about the dangers and how, with the President's veto,
it is going to eliminate critical training time, and parents are going
to be able to question whether their child is going to be safe when
they send them to war.
Mr. Speaker, we can't allow this veto to stand. If the Commander in
Chief is going to forsake his most fundamental duties, then the people
of the House, the representatives of the people of America, will and
are going to do everything possible to override this veto and to make
sure that those in harm's way have what they need, that we don't
jeopardize our national defense, and that we continue to have our
priorities right as a nation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to come on the House floor
tonight and to share about this very, very important issue and this
very historic day, and to also lay the groundwork for November 5, when
we will vote for an override of this veto. I ask all my colleagues to
support that, and I look forward to a positive vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to engage in
personalities toward the President.

____________________