releases: http://reichert.house.gov/press-release/congressman-reicherts-statement-presidents-veto-ndaa
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| http://reichert.house.gov/press-release/congressman-reicherts-statement-presidents-veto-ndaa | Congressman Reichert's Statement on President's Veto of the NDAA | 2015-10-23 | 2015 | 2015-10 | Republican | House | WA | Dave Reichert | R000578 | reichert.house.gov | legacy | Washington, DC Today, Congressman Reichert (R-WA) made the following statement regarding President Obamas veto of this years National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In an a show of bipartisanship, this week Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle worked together to put a bill on the Presidents desk that would fulfill the promises we made to our servicemembers and keep America safe, said Rep. Reichert. However, with the stroke of a pen, President Obama prioritized his own political agenda over our troops and our national security. Since it was first passed over 50 years ago, the NDAA has only been vetoed four times, and this is the first time its being struck down for something purely political. Rep. Reichert continued, At a time when America faces serious threats both on the homeland and abroad, we must ensure that our troops are provided with the resources they need to fulfill their critical mission and are fairly compensated for the incredible sacrifices they make each day. We must never forget that the Commander-in-Chiefs first and foremost job is to protect this nation, and yesterday, President Obama failed to do that. At the moment, the House is scheduled to hold a vote to override the Presidents veto of the NDAA on November 5th. In order to nullify the veto, a two-thirds majority of the House must vote against it the Senate needs a majority of 67. | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |