Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

THE WHITE HOUSE, December 30, 1995.

By unanimous consent, the message, together with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on International Relations.

look at the rules of the House and the questions of privilege that shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.

"I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the integrity of the proceedings of the 104th Congress, 1st session just adjourned, and the beginning of the 2d session, the integrity of the proceedings of the House of Representatives is being called into question by the procedure in which we are being asked to follow without allowing a vote of the will of the majority as to whether or not the issue in question shall be put to the body of the House of Representatives.

(1.11 PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. GEPHARDT, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, called up the following resolution (H. Res. 328) as a question of the privileges of the House:

Whereas clause 1 of rule IX of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that “Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings”;

Whereas over 280,000 Federal employees have been barred from performing the jobs for which they will eventually be paid;

Whereas more than 480,000 Federal employees are required to report for work without being paid their full salaries at regular intervals;

Whereas the public is not receiving the benefits of their tax dollars; and

Whereas the inability of the House of Representatives to act on legislation keeping the Government in operation impairs the dignity and the integrity of the House and the esteem the public holds for the House; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 1643, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concurred in the Senate amendment, and that a motion to reconsider that action shall be considered as laid on the table.

Mr. ARMEY was recognized and said:

"Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the question of privilege.

“Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this is a question of privilege, and I take umbrage at the minority leader's use of the time allotted to him to speak on the question of privilege of the House to give what can only be characterized as a political speech.

"Mr. Speaker, it includes the kind of accuracy that one encounters in political speeches, and I feel compelled to make the point. We do have a partial shutdown of the Federal Government.”.

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

“The gentleman from Texas will confine his remarks to the question before the House, which is whether or not the resolution constitutes a question of privilege.".

Mr. ARMEY, further addressed the question of privilege, and said:

“Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the gentleman from Missouri does not have a resolution that constitutes a question of privilege of the House, and I urge the Chair to so rule.

"Let me just say in so doing that I share the consternation of the gentleman from Missouri over the President shutting down the Government.”.

Mr. OBEY was recognized and said:

“Mr. Speaker, let me simply say, it is my understanding that rule IX of the House allows for privileged resolutions to be considered by the House when actions have been taken which affect the rights of the House collectively, its

safety, its dignity, and its integrity. It seems to me that that is certainly the situation at this moment, because we have a fundamental misuse of taxpayers' money appropriated by this House.

"It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is a fundamental misuse of taxpayers' dollars, which are appropriated by this House, when we have a situation in which workers are being paid

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

"The gentleman has now wandered beyond discussing a question of privilege. The Chair will remind the gentleman that he has the same obligation as all Members to discuss the matter before the House, which is whether or not the resolution, as presented by the minority leader, constitutes a question of privilege under rule IX.”. Mr. OBEY, further addressed the

, question of privilege, and said:

"Mr. Speaker, that is what I am trying to do. What I was simply attempting to say is that I think that certainly the dignity of the House and the integrity of the House are brought into question when a situation is allowed to continue which, in effect, has taxpayers' money provided for work that Government employees have not done and when you have workers required to perform work for which they are not paid-that is certainly not meeting the standard of dignity and decency and honor which we have a right to expect in this House.

“I think, on those grounds alone, rule IX would dictate that we ought to be able to proceed with this resolution.”.

Mr. LINDER was recognized and said:

“Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a great debate over the direction of the country. It is messy. It has always been thus. No one, however, is questioning the integrity of the people on either side of this House on this debate. We do not question those on the left and they should not question us on the right. We are intending to reshape the Government, and that requires a great debate.

"I think the speeches and the positions of individuals on both sides are dignified. There is no less dignity or more dignity by just stating opinions as to the question of the safety of the Members of the House. I see no one here unsafe. I think the Chair should rule against this question of privilege.".

Mr. STENHOLM was recognized and said:

"Mr. Speaker, I would address my comments to the words “dignity' and 'integrity of the proceedings of the House of Representatives, as stated in rule IX of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the second statement that says, 'those affecting the rights and the reputation and conduct of Members individually in their representative capacity only.'

“When we had this resolution before you last week, Mr. Speaker, you ruled against this as a question of privilege, but I am asking you to take another

1245 “It seems to me that we have been guilty, in the conduct of our proceedings, of mixing apples and oranges, of mixing an appropriation process with a budget process, of which a further reading of the Rules of the House of Representatives will clearly show that they are two separate issues and should not be commingled. But it is my argument in behalf of the minority leader's motion of privilege that a careful examination of the Rules of the House, the integrity of our proceedings will be called into question unless you find it to rule in favor of those who wish to have a simple, up and down vote as to whether or not the work of the Congress, the work of our Government shall proceed as we follow the regular order.

“No Member of this body is more in favor of balancing the budget. I would rather do it in the regular order, and it seems to me that having the continued impasse is not in the best interests of the integrity of this body. Certainly as an individual Member, I am receiving the calls from people whose service is being denied because of these actions.

“Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you find in favor of this motion of privilege. Basically it is to do one thing, to preserve the dignity and integrity of the House of Representatives in one simple aspect, allowing a vote. Let us now express ourselves as to the merits of the issue before us. That is all that we are asking for".

Mr. MORAN was recognized and said:

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of this motion relating to the integrity of this House.

"To do so, I would like to quote initially today's CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, specifically the majority leader of the Senate, Senator DOLE.

Senator DOLE, I quote, says, Let me just say I read a wire story, there's a split between the House and the Senate on what ought to happen. I do not get that feeling at all in talking with the Speaker. In fact, we just had a 30-minute meeting.

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

"The gentleman is not discussing the matter before the House which is the question of privilege. The gentleman

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

“The Chair will remind the gentleman of the proceedings of the House. He is not to quote matters that have taken place in the other body unless they relate specifically to the matter before the House, which is the question of privilege. So the gentleman will have to confine his remarks to those matters that relate to the question of privilege before the House.".

Mr. MORAN, further addressed the question of privilege, and said:

I will accept the Speaker's interpretation of what I was saying. Rather than quote the majority leader of the Senate, I will simply say that his comments, I felt, were relevant, and this is the very same legislation that is being offered here.

"Let me make the second point that I wanted to make with regard to the integrity of this House.

“When this House voted to go on vacation and leave the Government shut down, I think that went directly to the integrity of this House. Now we have an opportunity, with legislation immediately before us, to pass that legislation to get the Government up and running. The other body has seen fit to do that.

"I think it goes directly to the integrity of this House.".

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

“The chair is attempting to proceed along the regular order, but it is difficult if Members engage in discussion that goes beyond the question of privilege before the House. The gentleman will confine his remarks to the question of whether or not the resolution before the House constitutes a question of privilege.”.

Mr. MORAN, further addressed the question of privilege, and said:

“Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine anything that goes more directly to the integrity of this House and the issues for which we are responsible than to act in a constructive way when we understand that the American

American public is shout out of its Government and Federal employees are shut out of their jobs.

“We took action to go on vacation when that was the case. We have an opportunity to rectify it. I think it is consistent with the integrity of this House to rectify it now.".

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

"The Chair will inform the Member that he has an obligation to discuss those matters that are before the House."

Mr. THORNTON was recognized and said:

“Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the question of privileges of the House, of this motion.

“Mr. Speaker, this motion calls upon the House to exercise its duty under the Constitution of the United States, which provides in relevant part that the Congress shall make appropriation for the functioning of Government. It says specifically no money shall be withdrawn from the Treasury except upon appropriation of the Congress.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is the President authorized to make an appropriation—I am not trying to assess blame for where we are. We are talking about how to get out the question is, how do we resolve the impasse? The impasse must be resolved by the Congress performing its duty under the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. LINDER. If performance of our duties under the Constitution is not a question of privilege, I would like to ask whether the Contract With America overrides the Constitution?

“Mr. Speaker, this is very important, because having placed the responsibility for appropriations for the operation of government upon the Congress and upon no other element of government, a failure to act becomes an abuse of power, and a failure to act by refusing to allow a vote upon a measure which has passed the other body is an abuse of power. This is clearly a question of privilege under the Constitution of the United States.".

Mr. VOLKMER was recognized and said:

"Mr. Speaker, yes, I would like to speak in favor of the resolution by the minority leader, and I would like to point out that the gentleman from Arkansas came very close to the words that I am about to speak but did not quite get there.

"That is, under our Constitution, as he correctly points out, only this House can originate appropriations bills. It is only through those appropriation bills that this Government and all its agencies and employees operate. Without those appropriation bills, there is no Government that can function at all.

“If that comes about, I say that does affect the dignity and integrity of this House, the integrity of this House by nonaction altogether.

“Now, if by nonacting, and if this Congress, this body, this year would fail to even originate one appropriation bill, the President cannot spend a penny, the other body cannot spend a penny. Only this House can originate those bills.

“And the failure to originate the bills is not a violation of rule IX and the dignity of this House and the integ

rity of this House, Mr. Speaker, I wish you to think very carefully about this, that surely would affect the dignity and integrity of this House by failure to follow the Constitution of the United States.

"No. 2, if that is a violation of rule IX, then the failure to do a part thereof would also be a failure, and therefore would affect the dignity and integrity of this body and a violation of the rules.

“Therefore, there is no question in my mind that if this House fails to act on all appropriation bills or fails to act on one or two, it still affects the dignity. You say, well, we have a procedure we

we can follow through a discharge. If you do not have a majority, Mr. Speaker, you cannot discharge anything

"Therefore, through the actions of the majority, the Government could be shut down altogether, all avenues of Government. There has to be a methodology for the rest of the House to be able to follow to keep the Government functioning.”.

Mr. CARDIN was recognized and said:

“Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of privilege, I think it is important to point out that rule IX refers to questions of privilege that affect the dignity and integrity of the House.

“We are a Government of the people. We have been back in our districts. Does anyone here think that the procedures that we have been using, that the people of our district do not believe that the dignity and integrity of this House is in question?

“I urge the Speaker to rule in favor of this matter being a matter of privilege so that we can uphold the great dignity of this House.". Mr. WYNN was recognized and said:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and specifically address the issue of the integrity of the House.

"Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution is appropriate because by our inaction, we have compelled the services of certain Federal employees, specifically those being the essential Federal employees performing such services as prison guards, security, and the like, compelled their services without compensation. It is unclear to me what definition of integrity the Chair is utilizing, but I would say that under most generally accepted definitions of integrity, compelling services from employees without compensation when it is within our power to provide them with compensation is in fact a question of the integrity of the House.

"On that basis, I believe that this resolution, which addresses the integrity of the House by requiring us to take action to provide compensation to those employees and others, but specifically to those who are in fact working but are not being paid, does in fact raise a legitimate question of the integrity of the House, and ask the Chair to rule favorably on the resolution.".

Mr. DINGELL was recognized and said:

“The resolution says questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.

“That quotes from the rules.

"Mr. Speaker, as you stand there, I would call to your attention that one of the most important functions of this institution is to manage to expend, under the power of the purse. We have the duty of collect taxes, we have the duty to expend moneys by authorization and by appropriations. None of that has until this time been properly carried out.

“Certainly the questions of the integrity of this body and the integrity of the proceedings, the dignity of this body, are severely impaired by our failure to provide for the proper running of the Government of the United States. That is a failure of this institution. That is a failure because we have not been able to address the questions of the budget in a proper fashion.

"I would call to the attention of the Chair our failure to carry out our duty, our failure to carry out our responsibilities of appropriating funds, of authorizing expenditures, or of implementing the budget as required by the Budget Act, clearly affect the privileges, the prerogatives, the dignity, and the integrity of this institution. Certainly the respect in which the public holds this body has fallen to something approaching one of the lowest points that I have ever seen in my career.

“Clearly, without taking the action here of bringing this matter to a vote and, clearly, without having taken the steps necessary to permit this body to commence addressing the single largest problem that confronts this country today, and that is the orderly running of its Government, the funding of its public affairs, and retaining the respect of its people, we are not carrying out our duties.

“It is very plain to me, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the privileges of the House is entwined with this so intimately that the questions of the privileges of the House and the functioning of this body cannot be separated one from another.

"I urge a proper ruling on this matter."

Mrs. KENNELLY was recognized and said:

“Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the point of personal privilege of the leader on our side. What is happening here is this is the body of the people. Everyone on this side of the aisle and I would imagine many on the other side of the aisle have been told by the people they went home and spoke to, it is time now to get on with the business of the Government. I join the gentleman's request.”.

Mr. ORTON was recognized and said:

"Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the question of privilege.

"Rule IX is designed to allow us to bring to the floor motions which in fact do affect the integrity of the body, of Members of the body. At this very moment, there are Members of this body holding a press conference regard

ing whether we as Members of Congress should continue to receive our pay.”.

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

"The gentleman will confine his remarks to the matter before the House which is, does the resolution before the House and the wording of that resolution constitute a question of privilege.”.

Mr. ORTON, further addressed the question of privilege, and said:

"Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I am addressing that, because I have just in the last few minutes had my integrity questioned as an individual Member of this body by members of the press with regard to whether I would continue to accept pay while other workers are not.".

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

"The Chair would remind the gentleman, he has an obligation to discuss the resolution which is before the House and not a question of privilege that might exist in another forum. This is not now a forum for a question of personal privilege.”.

Mr. ORTON, further addressed the question of privilege, and said:

"Mr. Speaker, rule IX has to do with the integrity of the body collectively and individually. And the integrity of this body is in fact".

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

"The Chair would remind the gentleman that he has an obligation not to discuss all of rule IX but to discuss the matter before the House, whether or not it constitutes a question of privilege of the House under rule IX.”.

Mr. ORTON, further addressed the question of privilege, and said:

“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am attempting to do. If my integrity individually has been questioned with regard to funding of the Government, then that is a matter of privilege individually and collectively.”. The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr.

, WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

"The Chair would remind the gentleman that he might in fact draft a question of personal privilege that he could bring to the House, but the matter before the House at the present time is the specific wording offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT).".

Mr. MILLER of California was recognized and said:

“Mr. Speaker, to address the issue of privilege, I do believe that under rule IX this does rise to the occasion of privilege, the resolution offered by the minority leader. It does so because clearly the collective integrity of this House and the dignity of this House is being called into question, is being called into question in every

in every commentary throughout the country about the closedown of the Government.

"The dignity and the integrity of this House is being called into question

by our individual constituents, by the interviews on every nightly news program in every one of our districts. That goes to the collective integrity and to the collective dignity.”.

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

"The gentleman should confine his remarks to those matters that are before the House and the question of privilege that was offered by the gentleman from Missouri.".

Mr. MILLER of California, further addressed the question of privilege, and said:

“Mr. Speaker, the reason this goes to that privilege is because in fact when the will of the people is thwarted, the integrity of the House, the dignity of this House is called into question. The only way that that can currently be remedied is through this motion that rises to privilege. That dignity and that integrity is called into question when the popular will is thwarted, and we see it very often, when Members know that the votes exist to do something and yet the matter cannot be brought to the floor.

"That is why a motion of privilege is laid before the Chair because there is no other way. That goes exactly to the heart of the privilege. The privilege in this case that the minority leader is asserting is the privilege to bring a matter to the floor by which now there is no other way to get that matter to the floor. That is because the power of the Chair, the power of the Chair and the rules

“I am giving the Chair a reason to rule for privilege, because the power of the Chair is the power of recognition, and the Chair is now willing to recognize any Member for this purpose. Therefore, the minority leader must bring a matter before the House under the rules of privilege. We know that there are 198 votes to open up the Government on this side. So if we can find 20 votes on that side, the people's will can be carried out.".

The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, during the gentleman's remarks, said:

"The Chair is attempting to maintain order and would remind the majority side that it is the duty of the Chair to maintain order and would ask the cooperation of the Members in SO doing. He would also ask the cooperation of the minority in discussing this matter to constrain their remarks to those matters that are before the House.

“The gentleman from California has wandered away from that particular admonition, and the Chair would ask him to please constrain his remarks that address the question of privilege."

Mr. MILLER of California, further addressed the question of privilege, and said:

"Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, in closing, that the reason the integrity is called into question and the dignity of the House is called into question and

LER

[blocks in formation]

"The resolution does not constitute a question of privilege.”.

Mr. MORAN appealed the ruling of the Chair.

The question being put, viva voce,

Will the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

Mr. ARMEY moved to lay the appeal on the table.

The question being put, viva voce,

Will the House lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair? The SPEAKER pro

pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, announced that the nays

, had it.

Mr. ARMEY demanded that the vote be taken by the yeas and nays, which demand was supported by one-fifth of the Members present, so the yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device.

Yeas .... 206 It was decided in the Nays ...... 167 affirmative ...

Answered present 1

11.12

the reason this motion should be granted privilege is that the popular will of the people and the belief of the people is that this body is not carrying out that will, and yet they believe the votes exist. The only way we can find that out is for the Chair to rule this is a matter of privilege and let the votes commence and we can open up the Government this afternoon.". The

SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, ruled that the resolution submitted did not present a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX, and said:

"The Chair is constrained, first, to determine whether the resolution qualifies under rule IX.

“Questions of the privileges of the House must meet the standards of rule IX even when they invoke provisions of the Constitution. Those standards address privileges of the House, as a House, not those of the Congress, as a legislative branch. The question whether a Member may broach the privileges of the House simply by invoking one of the legislative powers enumerated in section 8 of article I of the Constitution-or the general legislative "power of the purse” in the seventh original clause of section 9 of that article-has consistently been answered in the negative. The ordinary rights and functions of the House under the Constitution are exercised in accordance with the rules of the House, without necessarily being accorded precedence as questions of the privileges of the House.

“The Chair will follow the ruling of Speaker Gillett on May 6, 1921, as recorded in volume 6 of Cannon's precedents, section 48:

It seems to the Chair that where the Constitution ordered the House to do a thing, the Constitution still gives the House the right to make its own rules and do it at such time and in such manner as it may choose. And it is a strained construction, it seems to the Chair, to say that because the Constitution gives a mandate that a thing shall be done, it therefore follows that any Member can insist that it shall be brought up at some particular time and in the particular way which he chooses. If there is a constitutional mandate, the House ought by its rules to provide for the proper enforcement of that mandate, but it is still a question for the House how and when and under what procedure it shall be done. ...

“Applying that precedent of May 6, 1921, which is recorded in Cannon's Precedents at volume 6, section 48, and the similar precedents of February 7 and December 22, 1995, the Chair holds that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Missouri does not affect 'the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, [or] the integrity of its proceedings' within the meaning of clause 1 of rule IX. Although it may address an aspect of legislative power under the Constitution, it does not involve a constitutional privilege of the House. Rather, the resolution constitutes an attempt to impose a special order of business on the House by providing that the Senate amendment to H.R. 1643 be deemed adopted.

Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Cardin
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez

NAYS-167
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee

(TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha

Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

[Roll No. 2]

YEAS-206 Fawell Flanagan Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Ganske Gekas Gilchrest Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht Hancock Hansen Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayworth Hefley Heineman Herger Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hyde Inglis Istook Jacobs Johnson, Sam Jones Kasich Kelly Kim King Kingston Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaHood Largent Latham Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Livingston LoBiondo Longley Lucas

Allard Archer Armey Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Castle Chambliss Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clinger Coble Coburn Collins (GA) Combest Cooley Cox Crane Crapo Cremeans Cunningham Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson English Ensign Everett Ewing

ANSWERED “PRESENT’_1

Wolf

Manzullo
Martini
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt

[blocks in formation]

(1.13 MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Sundry messages in writing from the President of the United States were communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin Thomas, one of his secretaries.

(1.14 COMMUNICATION FROM THE

CLERK—MESSAGE FROM THE

PRESIDENT The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, laid before the House a communication, which was read as follows: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

OFFICE OF THE CLERK,

Washington, DC, December 28, 1995. Hon. NEWT GINGRICH, The Speaker, House of Representatives, Wash

ington, DC. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the permission granted in clause 5. of rule III of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I have the honor to transmit a sealed envelope received from the White House on Thursday, December 28, 1995 at 5:30 p.m. and said to contain a message from the President whereby he returns without his approval H.R. 1530, "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996." With warm regards,

ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

fense) 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

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-today 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, Mr. WALKER, ordered that the veto message, together with the accompanying bill, be printed (H. Doc. 104–155) and spread upon the pages of the Journal of the House.

The question being on passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.

After debate,

By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the bill.

The question being put,

Will the House, upon reconsideration, agree to pass the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?

It was decided in the ( Yeas .... 240 negative ...

Nays ... 156

(1.15 MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

VETO OF H.R. 1530 The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, laid before the House a message from the President, which was read as follows: 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 longrange 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 De

(1.16

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

[Roll No. 3]

YEAS-240 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

« ZurückWeiter »