[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3694-H3715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise and report the bill back to the whole House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have offered the motion
to strike the enacting clause to have a chance to protest against the
outrageous denial of democratic procedures.
Along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the
gentleman from Ohio, who chairs the Committee on the Budget, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), the gentleman from California
(Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), I offered
an amendment to the Committee on Rules to require that American ground
troops leave Bosnia by December 31 of this year.
We recently had a supplemental in which we were asked and voted, I
did not but the majority did, an additional $162 million per month for
the American ground troops in Bosnia. I believe, and others do, that it
is time for the Europeans to step up.
We believe, at the very least, this House ought to vote on whether or
not
[[Page H3695]]
there should be a continuation of American ground troops in Bosnia. I
have heard a number of Members complain about this. We have heard the
people on the committee complain that we do not have enough funds to
fund Defense. Some of us feel Defense is taking too much money from
other programs. What justification is there for bringing a bill and
having the Committee on Rules refuse to let this House even vote on
whether or not we ought to have the ground troops in Bosnia?
Another amendment was offered by the gentleman from California and
the gentleman from Colorado to reaffirm the role of this House in
dealing with troops in Iraq. Let us be very clear. Many of us disagree
with what the President is doing. It is the leadership of the House
that has decided that the House will not be able to speak on Bosnia or
Iraq.
And I will say this: If Members voted for the rule and are going to
vote for the bill, at least have the consistency not to complain about
American troops being in Bosnia and Iraq, because we are trying to give
those Members a chance to deal with it. As to Iraq, most of us would
probably vote to authorize that, but it ought to be voted on by the
House. As to Bosnia, a majority of the House might say it is time for
Europe to defend Europe and pull out. But, again, the House is not
being given a chance to vote on it.
This is a very grave error and we have to protest. If we were able to
defeat this bill, it could come back very soon after we came back and
those amendments could be made in order. And we just want Members to be
on record that if they vote for the bill in this form, they have waived
their right, by any reasonable standards, to complain about the troops
in Bosnia or to complain about executive branch excesses not listened
to by the Congress.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
The gentleman is quite right, the Constitution gives the Congress the
responsibility to declare war. It gives it to no other part of our
government. No other part of our government. Politically, sometimes it
is difficult to go on record on a question of war, but it is our
responsibility to do so.
When I brought a privileged motion under the War Powers Resolution
concerning Bosnia to the House floor, I was proud to be able to say
that the American Legion had endorsed my effort. The American Legion
agreed that we should not send soldiers and sailors and air personnel
overseas, potentially to die, in service of their country, without the
request of the people's representatives in Congress. Regrettably, that
particular motion failed by a few votes. That motion failed, I think at
least in part, because it was under the War Powers Resolution.
So with my colleague from Massachusetts, I attempted to get in the
rule the chance to vote on whether we should have troops in Bosnia or
troops in the Persian Gulf without having to rely on the War Powers
Resolution. But we were denied that chance.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we
ought to be very clear. If Members are going to go ahead and vote for
this bill, let us at least change the title.
We asked for a vote on troops in Bosnia. We asked for a declaration
of a congressional role in Iraq. Let us call it, if we are going to
ratify a rule which says these things cannot even come up, the
Congressional Abdication of Constitutional Responsibility Act of 1998,
because that is what we will be doing.
We will be saying we in Congress will take our shots, we will make
our political points, but tough decisions about the Middle East or
Bosnia, let somebody else do them because we find them inconvenient or
difficult.
I was told by the chairman of the Committee on Rules that he kept
them off the floor to accommodate the President. I must say that it
came as sort of a surprise to me that this bill was being constructed
to accommodate the President. And it is not the sort of accommodation
of a President we ought to engage in. We could save $2 billion a year
by telling the Europeans it is their turn to do Bosnia. And we could
serve the Constitution of the United States by the elected
representatives debating it.
The leadership of this House has apparently decided, in cooperation
with the President, not to speak out and to abdicate its constitutional
responsibilities. That is a very grave error that does not serve well
the traditions we profess to care about.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California
once again.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Just to add, Mr. Chairman, one additional point of
praise to our colleague from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), who offered an
amendment in the supplemental that we not go to war in the Persian Gulf
without the approval of this House. That was stricken in conference.
This is our last chance to do our constitutional duty.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The motion before us is a motion to strike the enacting clause. This
is a preferential motion that is debatable only by 5 minutes on each
side. If it is withdrawn before the vote, the motion may be repeated as
soon as there is any intervening business, like further debate. If the
motion is agreed to, the Committee will rise and there is a vote on the
motion before the House. If that motion is agreed to, the defense bill
is dead.
So I want everybody to completely understand what is before the
House.
Secondly, let me address the comments on Bosnia. What I said of the
President is, I would become not his critic but his constructive
critic. And what I mean by that is that I want to work with the
administration on an end state in Bosnia.
What we hope to do, and what I have been working on with the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) of the Committee on
International Relations, along with the administration, is that when
the President said he would set benchmarks of success in Bosnia on the
civil implementation of the Dayton Accords, that in fact these are
benchmarks that are realistic and achievable; ones that are pragmatic
and ones that I believe are realistic.
We are in the course of drafting that resolution so it can be brought
to this House floor so we can have the type of vote that the two
Members that just previously spoke can actually have. Hopefully, we can
do that in the next month.
I urge Members, if in fact a vote is called, to vote against the
motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The motion was rejected.
{time} 1715
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to debate the subject of the
assignment of members of the Armed Forces to assist in border patrol.
Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control
15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, after consultation with the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the
sponsor of the first amendment in order, I ask unanimous consent that
the 30 minutes of general debate time be divided three ways between
myself, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) each controlling 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the sponsor of the
amendment please proceed, and I reserve the balance of time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It does not mandate
the use of troops on our border. What it does, though, is it says that
if the Administration, through the Attorney General, the Secretary of
the Treasury, decides to use the military, which I believe they should
to stop this narcotics madness, there are certain requirements.
Number one, they must be adequately trained. Number two, they
[[Page H3696]]
could never be on patrol without the presence of a law enforcement
entity, and they could not make arrests, and the local governor and
communities shall be notified of their presence.
Now, we have a number of substitutes presented here, and the last one
attempts to almost replicate my original amendment, supposedly. But the
difference is mine would provide for patrols without question. The
substitute provides for reconnaissance missions. And under the
dictionary of ``reconnaissance,'' it is in fact to gather information
and to scout but do not engage.
Let there be no mistake, the difference is, if we decide that we are
going to do something about these broad shipments of narcotics, the
Traficant amendment would allow our troops to be adequately trained,
never to be without the presence of a law enforcement entity. But, by
God, they can engage and they can take issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to troops on the border.
As everyone knows, my background is one of having spent 26\1/2\ years
patrolling this Nation's border as a border patrol agent and as a
chief. I think it is a bad idea. I believe that we have to understand
that the only way we are going to ensure the integrity of our borders
is through trained, professional, Federal agents.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Traficant
amendment. I know this body passed the amendment in the last Congress.
I believe that the President, as the chief executive officer of the
land, has the inherent ability if in fact there is an emergency or a
threat to the borders of our Nation, I believe it is inherent to, not
only as the chief security officer but also as the Commander-in-Chief,
that if in fact our law enforcement agencies are inadequate to protect
the ports of entry or the borders of our Nation, the military in fact
should be there to do that. I believe that is inherent as the
President, and we would expect the President to do that.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, that is all my amendment says. But it
then codifies how those troops shall be used so there are no more
accidental shootings, there is adequate training, they are never
without the presence of a law enforcement entity. And it does exactly
what the Chairman now is discussing.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what makes me
uncomfortable is the fact that we are going to set forth a process that
when the Attorney General notifies the Department of Defense, then they
have to provide, and it becomes very bothersome to me.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify that today, in the
Immigration Naturalization Act that the government has already passed
that is in effect, it provides that kind of authority. There is a
section that provides the authority to the President to declare an
emergency and do exactly what the gentleman is talking about.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what we all have to
recognize is that, in 1993, as we had a larger military force than we
have today, that there were people that were looking for other jobs for
the military to do in civil military affairs and other things. This
idea also came about around that same time period.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has
expired.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, what we have to recognize right now with the United
States Army is we are left with 10 divisions and of those 10 divisions,
we have the five follow-on divisions that are being hollowed out; and
we have to be very careful if we are going to be taking our troops and
assigning them into collateral duties. Let us be very careful.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Bilbray).
(Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and I think even my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who recognizes just how much the
gentleman from Ohio has tried to moderate this issue and all he is
trying to do is send a very clear message not just to the
administration, not just to the American people, but to everyone that
America will do for itself what it does for everyone else in the world
and that it would defend its children and its neighborhoods with
whatever resources are available.
We are just talking about allowing the people who pay the bills to
have this military available, to have their neighborhoods protected
just as much as the people in Bosnia or the people in Europe or the
people in Africa. Is it too much to ask, Mr. Chairman, that we just
recognize the people paying the bills should have the same peacekeeping
capabilities that the rest of the world does?
Mr. Chairman, if we do not care about the drugs that are coming
across the border, and we all know that, and illegal immigration and
the related crime, let me remind my colleagues that this is a human
issue, too.
More people die every year trying to cross the border illegally than
were killed in the Oklahoma explosion. Let me say that again. Every
year, more people die on the border trying to cross illegally. And many
of those people that are dying are young juveniles who are being
dragged across the border by people who think that it is safe to come
across our borders.
I ask my colleagues that we send a clear message that America will do
everything possible to secure its national frontiers, that the United
States Congress expects the Federal Government to treat the boundaries
of America as sacred and as secure as the boundaries in Bosnia or
anywhere else in the world. We are asking that the common-sense
approach of enforcing and using all the resources are available.
Let me just close with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) saying we
want to secure the borders. The problem with not securing the borders,
Mr. Chairman, is that we have refused to do everything humanly possible
in the United States. Let us do as much here on our own soil as we do
on everyone else's soil.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Traficant amendment. I
think everyone here, particularly those Members from border states such
as my State of Florida, recognize the simple truth. We are losing our
war against drugs, and we are nowhere near winning our battle against
illegal immigration.
I have a great deal of respect for efforts of the border patrol, the
INS, the DEA and others who have been waging these wars for years. They
have been valiant in their attempts, and they deserve our thanks and
credit. But given the ease in which smugglers seem to be importing
illegal drugs into our country and the steady stream of illegal aliens
that keep crossing our borders, we obviously have not been able to
equip them with the resources and tools they need to really stop these
activities. And both these activities threaten our Nation by aiding and
abetting crime and by weakening the fabric of our society.
The Traficant amendment is not radical. It simply allows those who
are fighting these wars against illegal drugs and aliens to ask the
military for help. It is not mandatory. It is not required. It simply
allows the Pentagon to lend its resources where needed and when
available.
I do not know about my colleagues, but I am growing tired of the term
and hearing it ``the war on drugs.'' I want to end the war. I want to
win the war. But we cannot do that as long as the resources of our drug
lords outstrip those who we have asked to fight.
[[Page H3697]]
I would hope that all my colleagues who have talked tough about
fighting drugs and talked tough about terrorism and talked tough about
illegal immigration will put their votes where their rhetoric have been
and support the Traficant amendment as offered today.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
(Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on National
Security, I oppose the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant).
An increase of U.S. troops on the border with Mexico is a dangerous
proposal that will put the border residents in danger. Our military is
the world's best trained fighting forces, and they are not the police
officers, and they are not the border patrol agents. They are trained
to fight, and we put our own citizens in danger.
I would like to remind my colleagues, exactly 1 year ago an 18-year-
old high school student, American citizen, was shot to death by the
Marine on patrol in west Texas. This tragic incident highlights the
complexities of placing soldiers on the border and the potential harm
to many residents.
I represent the border, and I recognize the importance of fighting
drugs. And border residents also, just like everyone else, want to stop
the influx of illegal drugs, and they believe in stopping the flow of
undocumented immigrants. But the solution they support is more border
patrol and Customs Service agents. The Customs Service agents are the
ones that are directly involved in assuring when products come across
that those things are well checked out.
It is no wonder that the Department of Defense and Justice and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service all oppose this proposal. The
border patrol has nearly 8,000 agents patrolling our national borders,
and the Congress has authorized an additional 1,000 agents every year
up to the year 2001.
Last year, the San Antonio Express and News pointed out that the
incident in west Texas is an isolated incident. Yet it is one that puts
everyone in danger. We need to be concerned about the possibility of
future incidents such as those when we put people that are untrained on
the border that are U.S. citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on National Security
Subcommittee on Military Readiness. At a time when readiness concerns
are at their highest and with the troops sent for extended periods of
time to Bosnia and elsewhere, we cannot afford to pull additional men.
I would ask that my colleagues vote no on the amendment.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House National
Security Committee, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentlemen
from Ohio. An increase of U.S. troops on the border with Mexico is a
dangerous proposal that will put border residents in danger and reduce
military readiness. Our military is the world's best trained fighting
force; they are not police officers and they are not border patrol
agents. They are trained to fight, and we put our own citizens at grave
risk by deploying them on American soil.
I represent two counties along the border with Mexico. In my town
hall meetings, almost everyone I spoke with opposed putting troops on
our border. Many of them had served in our military, and I respect
their opinion. Border residents, just like everyone else, want to stop
the influx of illegal drugs, and they believe in stopping the flow of
undocumented immigrants. But the solution they support is more Border
Patrol and Customs Service agents who are well trained to deal with the
challenges of patrolling the border.
Exactly one year ago, an 18 year old American citizen was shot to
death by a Marine on patrol near Redford, Texas. This tragic incident
highlights the complexities of placing soldiers on the border and the
potential harm to border residents. It is no wonder that the
Departments of Defense and Justice and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service all oppose this proposal. The Border Patrol has
nearly 8,000 agents patrolling our nation's borders, and Congress has
authorized an additional 1,000 agents every year until 2001. Last year,
the San Antonio Express-News pointed out that the Redford incident may
be isolated but warned against deploying soldiers into an area lawfully
and peacefully used by private citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on the House National Security Readiness
Subcommittee. At a time when readiness concerns are at there highest
and with troops sent for extended periods of time to Bosnia and
elsewhere, we cannot afford to pull additional men and women away from
their posts to do the work of Border Patrol agents. It is unfair to our
fighting men and women, and it does harm to our national security. The
military can provide assistance in numerous ways without this
unwarranted diversion of troops.
All of our budgets are tight. Putting troops on our border is
extremely costly; it is a bad use of scarce resources. The drain on our
defense budget puts our readiness at risk. The Department of Defense
has warned that the troops' work along the border are of minimal value
to military readiness and detract from training with warfighting
equipment for warfighting missions. This lack of training would
directly reduce unit readiness levels; it could require troops to spend
more times overseas with less time to train between deployments. These
funds could be better used training our Armed Forces for their
warfighting missions or ensuring Border Patrol agents are properly
trained and have the resources needed to enforce our nation's laws and
to protect themselves.
The substitute offered by Congressman Reyes seeks to partially
address these concerns by requiring data from the Department of Defense
on the costs, military value, effects on readiness, training, and
preparedness of deploying military personnel to our borders.
Mr. Chairman, I, and the tens of thousands of residents I represent
along the border, urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided
proposal and for the substitute offered by Congressman Reyes.
Hopefully, in conference, this entire provision will be removed. The
placement of additional soldiers on our borders is a dangerous proposal
that could have deadly consequences for border residents. We must
remember who we are protecting.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding 2
minutes. But it might take me a little longer. Will the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) yield me 1 minute?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins) 1 minute.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, in the Third District of Georgia, illegal
immigration and drug trafficking are major concerns. I congratulate my
colleague from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for offering his amendment, which
helps to address both of these difficult challenges.
I strongly support the amendment, which will allow our military
forces to participate in the most basic national defense function there
is, that of the defense of our own borders.
General Charles Wilhelm of the U.S. Southern Command recently
referred to the international drug trade as the greatest chemical
weapons threat to our national security.
{time} 1730
Congress should act today to allow the U.S. military to pursue its
mission to protect our national security.
It is high time for Congress to set its own priorities. The
administration and some Members have shown great willingness to
sacrifice American service members around the world to protect the
borders of other nations. Today, we must act to protect our own
borders, our own hometowns, and our own children and grandchildren from
the hardships and suffering caused by illegal immigration and drug
trafficking.
Members have a clear choice to make today. We can support the
amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and represent the
interests of our constituents by addressing the flow of illegal
immigrants and drugs across our southern border, or we can choose to
represent the interests of illegal aliens and drug smugglers by
supporting and maintaining the current failed policies.
If you believe there is not an illegal immigration problem, you
should support the Reyes substitute. If you believe the drugs are not
flowing from the nations of the Andean Ridge to the streets and schools
of your hometown, you should support the Reyes substitute.
If, however, you know, as I do, that illegal immigration and drug
trade are destroying the fabric of our communities, you should oppose
the Reyes substitute and stand in strong support of the Traficant
amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from
[[Page H3698]]
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and to provide the INS and the Custom's Service
the assistance they need to defend our American borders.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, can I ask the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 8 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Everybody that is soft
on drugs supports this amendment. If you are really tough for getting
drugs, then you support the other amendment. Real simple, right? Wrong
again.
I know my friend from Ohio is a big antidrug, anticrime, antiillegal
activities; but understand this, most of the drugs come through the
port of entry, not from the points in between. So you are putting
troops out on the highways and byways, and that is not where the
problem is. What am I saying is that this will not work. Even if we did
it, it would not work. We would have another failure. What happened?
Number two, we are only asking some requirements that would at least
let us know what in the devil is going on beside this mindless running
the military and the antidrug activity and everything else.
Three, have you ever heard of Posse Comitatus at all? Anybody? Is
this strange? Think about what you are doing and think about the simple
fact that it will not work.
Let us give everybody real high points for being against drug
proliferation, but let us use our senses about this. The Committee on
National Security mostly and the Armed Services is against this, not
because they do not want more jurisdiction, because they know it will
not work; and you should, too.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman brings up a very good
point that the Members should understand about the Posse Comitatus Act.
When we have many different agencies out there, whether it is the
Customs agency on the Border or any agencies, then if it is such a
threat, then we should be beefing up those agencies, not our military
getting involved in civil affairs.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment covers ports of entries as
well, and it specifically states they can not make arrests, and it has
been determined by the Parliamentarian that it does not infringe with
Posse Comitatus laws at all.
We have got young people overdosing in cities all over this country,
and we are going through this same type of constitutional jargon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I strongly rise to support the amendment
of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). I think the gentleman is
precisely right. It is time this country did something about drugs. If
we think the border patrol is doing it, then let us ask ourselves why
do we have 20,000 young people a year dying from drug overdoses?
It is time to use our best, but any method we need to stop drugs in
this country. I cannot tell the gentleman how strongly I feel that he
is exactly right.
Put the 82nd Airborne on maneuvers down there if you want to stop
drugs. You have the safeguards in the bill to take care of the terrible
tragedy we had before, but the tragedy is you cannot stop it in my
hometown, and you cannot stop it in the State. We have got to stop it
on the borders, and our military can do the job.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Who has the right
to close this debate?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has the right to
close.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the national security of this country is
threatened. It is not city to city. It is not State to State. But it is
country to country.
We have 400 tons of cocaine, we have hundreds of hundreds of tons of
marijuana, we have multiple tens of tons of heroin coming across our
border every year. We lose 20,000 kids a year either to drugs or drug
violence. If that is not national security, I do not know what it is.
If we lost 20,000 kids today in Bosnia or the Middle East, this
country would be up in arms. We darn well better do everything we can,
including putting our troops with civil authorities along the borders
to stop the scourge of drugs.
We have to stand up. It is a matter of national will. It is a matter
of national understanding and desire to solve a problem. I salute the
gentleman from Ohio for his amendment. We need to stand behind him and
make sure it becomes law.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant). It seems to me both amendments seek the same objective, and
that is to ensure that we successfully confront the scourge of drugs in
America. I am for that. But, unlike the formulation of the gentleman
from Georgia, I do not accept the premise that I, therefore, have to be
against Reyes and for Traficant.
I am for Reyes because I think it is a more thoughtful way of
accomplishing the objective. The President of the United States has put
General McCaffrey in charge of our drug control effort. I do not think
he is a wimp. I think he understands military security needs. I think
he understands how to utilize the military. He is the former Commander
in Chief of SOUTHCOM, as so many of you on this floor know. His advice
is that we do not move in this direction at this time. I think we ought
to respect that.
I would also say, on a different front, that I am concerned, as all
of you are, about conserving the resources we have available to keep
this Nation secure. This bill does not have enough money in it for the
military. I know some of my colleagues think that is not the case. I
would be for spending more money in this bill.
I agree with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I
congratulate him for his leadership, and I agree with the chairman of
this committee who have joined together in a bipartisan way to say,
America, this is not a time to pretend that our security interests have
been secured. This is not a time to retreat from our commitment and our
responsibilities. We may not like being the sole superpower in the
world, but that which we are, we are; and we have responsibilities.
I am supportive of deployment in Bosnia. We have saved hundreds of
thousands of lives, and we have saved millions of people from being
dispossessed from their homes. That is not only a moral good, it is a
strategic good.
I say to my friends that, although I am going to support the Reyes
amendment, I, too, agree that we ought to make every effort possible to
secure our borders from the scourge of drugs.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 1\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from
[[Page H3699]]
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards), my good friend.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I live in Texas; frankly, much closer to
the Mexican border than the gentleman from Ohio. While I have great
respect for the gentleman's interest in fighting drugs, as a father of
two small sons who will be raised in Texas near the Mexican border I
will absolutely take a back seat to no one in this House in my interest
in fighting drugs.
Let us be fair in this debate. This is not about who wants to fight
drugs and who does not. This is about the best way to do it. There is a
right way and a wrong way to accomplish our Nation's goals. The wrong
way is to put thousands of U.S. soldiers on the Texas/Mexican border to
make our State look like east Berlin during the Cold War.
The Army does not want this. Those of us who represent major Army
installations, and I represent the largest populated Army installation
in the world, Fort Hood, I can speak for thousands of Army soldiers in
saying that they came into the Army to fight for our Nation's defense
and wars, not to stand on the borders of our States in the fight
against drugs, a noble cause, perhaps, but one that is inappropriate
because of the Posse Comitatus.
What is the next step? I agree that fighting drunk driving fatalities
is terribly important. Do we want to station thousands of soldiers on
American roads and highways to fight drunk driving? Certainly not. For
the same reason, we should not put thousands of Army soldiers on the
border of Texas.
The fact is that it takes three soldiers for every one deployed,
those to be trained, those deployed, and those who just recently
deployed. We simply cannot afford in our national security interest to
allow thousands of soldiers to be diverted to the Texas or any other
border in our States.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I only have one speaker remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has the right to
close.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in order to vote on the Traficant amendment, you must
defeat the Reyes amendment. Mr. Reyes admitted when he started he
opposes troops on the border. The buzzword in here is reconnaissance.
Reconnaissance means to gather information, to scout, but do not
engage. That is the difference.
I do not mandate anything. No one is doing anything. Someday maybe we
will get a President that may want to. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) does not want it. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) does
not want it. Maybe the Pentagon does not want it.
The American people not only want it, they need it. How many more
overdoses in cities across America? Well, 100 percent of all heroin and
cocaine comes from overseas. All the Traficant amendment says, and this
disguise of an amendment which parallels it, even though he does not
want it, with the reconnaissance language, no engagement is just that.
We are not engaged in a war around here. This is a joke. I do not
mandate it. But, by God, if there is an emergency and we are to do it,
here is what the Traficant language says: They can be deployed. They
must be trained. They can never be out unless it is a joint
participatory law enforcement envoy with them who would make the
arrest. But if they see a narcotic trafficker, they can tackle them.
They can engage.
How much more are we going to protect? You said we have done a good
job in Bosnia. We save lives. We have.
{time} 1745
We saved lives in Korea. This is a national security issue. This is a
national security bill. Is the border between Mexico and Canada the
same as the border between Ohio and Pennsylvania? The border is a
national security issue, and, by God, the Congress of the United States
better start securing our borders.
Now, I know the business and the politics of this place, but I have
got kids dying of overdose, and we are not doing a damn thing about it.
This is camouflaged language, and the only way you are going to have
this vote, and maybe it will not become law this time; it took 14 years
to change the burden of proof in a tax case, and it might take another
10. But you answer this question: How many more overdoses have we had?
How many more kids getting shot and ripped? If we do not protect our
borders, who is going to do it? Japan? How about China now?
I want a ``no'' vote on Reyes, and I want to send a message to
everybody, the American people want the Congress of the United States
to treat our borders as a national security checkpoint, and I want an
admission from this Congress. We have had a lot of rhetoric and talk.
We have failed. We do not even engage. The substitute does not even
engage. This is about our war on drugs.
Now, I am not the most well-liked guy around here. I do not come with
easy things. But, damn it, I am going to present the engagement of a
debate on this, because we have been wrong. And if we need more money,
appropriate it. I think we are real low in the military. And if they
decide they want to have an emergency and send troops, they should come
in here and ask for the money, and we should give them the money.
That is exactly what I stand for, very simple. This substitute, the
man says he opposes deployment of troops, and he puts the buzz word
``reconnaissance, do not engage.'' Well, if we are not going to engage,
then why do not we just throw out the ball, give the needles, and keep
jacking the arms of kids all over America.
I want the Committee on National Security not only to vote for this,
I want you to fight like a junkyard dog to keep it in the final bill.
And I hope to God we get some day a President that is going to utilize
the option that the Congress of the United States would make available
to him. I do not mandate it. I will just ensure if they do it, we do
not have another shooting we had in Redford, Texas. And that is why we
had it. The Congress was not engaged, and the Congress let a slipshod,
throw-out-the-ball program end up taking a life. We did not throw out
the FBI for Ruby Ridge, and we should not throw out the military
presence on the border because of an accidental shooting.
My major concern is not immigration, which some people are demeaning
me with; it is tons and tons of heroin and cocaine. For those who
represent cities overrun with narcotics, you are talking about the
source. Not treatment now, you are talking about the drugs coming in.
And if we do not intercept them, folks, we do not have a program.
So I am going to ask in closing here, because I cannot come back now,
to defeat the amendment of a substitute that does not engage. And if we
are going to do this, allow us to engage under restricted parameters
that meet Posse Comitatus and could also get us into all ports of
entries to get at this madness. We can do that, we should do that. This
is a national security issue.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot this afternoon about
being proactive, being engaged, being pro-law enforcement. I would like
to begin by clearing up a misconception on this issue.
Voting to send armed military personnel to the border and patrolling
our Nation's borders is not a pro-enforcement vote. It does not mean
that you are tough on crime; it does not mean that you are tough on
drug traffickers or tough on illegal aliens.
If anyone wants to be tough on crime, wants to be tough on drug
traffickers, then you need to come spend some time on the border. Come
spend some time with me working with the Border Patrol. Come spend some
time with me working with Customs, with DEA.
If you want to be tough on crime and you want to understand how tough
it is to patrol the Nation's borders, come
[[Page H3700]]
with me and see it for more than a couple of hours. Do not stand here
in this House and talk about how tough we can be and how tough we
should be and the kinds of things that we are or are not doing.
The truth is, all across the border, both on the southern and the
northern border, we have got Border Patrol officers, we have got
Customs officers, we have got Inspectors, we have got DEA, they are all
engaged in enforcing this Nation's laws against both illegal
immigration and narcotics trafficking.
The gentleman from Ohio, whom I respect, is concerned about drugs. I
have repeatedly explained to him, 90 percent of the drugs coming into
this country come through ports of entry, ports of entry that today are
utilizing National Guard to help Customs inspect the trucks.
Now, let me give you a statistic. Out of every 100 trucks coming in
from Mexico, only three get fully inspected by Customs. So I would ask
the question, if you were a drug trafficker and you had those kinds of
odds, would you send drugs through the river, or would you send them
through the ports of entry in that way?
Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members not support sending military to the
border, and I ask that you support my amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio spoke about the war
on drugs, and nobody can deny that that is happening in America today.
But the front line of the war on drugs is just as much in Youngstown,
Ohio, as it is in Nogales, Arizona; and I do not think any of us
believe that the 82nd Airborne should be patrolling the streets of
Youngstown, Ohio.
The fact is, we are already using military forces in a substantial
way along the border. We have JTF-6 located in El Paso that coordinates
all of the intelligence work that we are doing on the war on drugs. We
have the Air Force operating the aerostats that look for the planes
that would be crossing the border. We have Reserve engineering
companies that are on active duty along the border building roads and
fences every single day. We have the National Guard that is helping to
load and unload trucks so they can be inspected along the border.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on two of the appropriations subcommittees that
between them fund almost 100 percent of Federal law enforcement. We are
struggling in those subcommittees to make sure that we have adequate
resources to provide the Customs agents, the Border Patrol, the INF
inspectors, the DEA people that we need. But we need specialized people
trained to do the work. We do not need paratroopers, we do not need
Abraham tanks, we do not need B-2 bombers. We need to have the kind of
people that can do the work of interdicting drugs and protecting our
borders. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Traficant amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio for his
passion and years of work on this measure. I just want to say to the
gentleman that we have in place the DEA, Customs and Border Patrol.
This is an issue of who are the proper agencies out there and whether
they have the sufficient funds.
I respectfully disagree with the gentleman. I would urge the Members
to vote for the Reyes amendment and against the gentleman's measure,
respectfully.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendments printed
in part C of House Report 105-544, which shall be considered in the
following order:
Amendment No. 1, by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); and
Amendment No. 2, by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in part C of
House Report 105-544.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part C Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 227, after line
14), insert the following new section:
SEC. 1023. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO
ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.
(a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter
18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 374 the following new section:
``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol
and control
``(a) Assignment Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
assign members of the armed forces to assist--
``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in
preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and
illegal aliens into the United States; and
``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection
of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the
United States.
``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of members of
the armed forces under subsection (a) may only occur--
``(1) at the request of the Attorney General, in the case
of an assignment to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service; and
``(2) at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury, in
the case of an assignment to the United States Customs
Service.
``(c) Training Program.--If the assignment of members of
the armed forces is requested by the Attorney General or the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General or the
Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be), together with
the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a training program
to ensure that members to be assigned receive general
instruction regarding issues affecting law enforcement in the
border areas in which the members will perform duties under
the assignment. A member may not be deployed at a border
location pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a) until
the member has successfully completed the training program.
``(d) Conditions on Use.--(1) Whenever a member of the
armed forces who is assigned under subsection (a) to assist
the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the United
States Customs Service is performing duties at a border
location pursuant to the assignment, a civilian law
enforcement officer from the agency concerned shall accompany
the member.
``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to
conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement
activity or to make an arrest; and
``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known
as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
``(e) Notification Requirements.--The Attorney General or
the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall
notify the Governor of the State in which members of the
armed forces are to be deployed pursuant to an assignment
under subsection (a), and local governments in the deployment
area, of the deployment of the members to assist the
Immigration and Naturalization Service or the United States
Customs Service (as the case may be) and the types of tasks
to be performed by the members.
``(f) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title
shall apply in the case of members of the armed forces
assigned under subsection (a).
``(g) Termination of Authority.--No assignment may be made
or continued under subsection (a) after September 30,
2001.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 374 the following new item:
``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control.''.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one minute.
To the distinguished chairman, you are advising this Congress to
support troops on the border that cannot engage. You are telling them
to vote for a substitute that does not engage, but puts troops on the
border.
Mr. Chairman, the only difference with these two amendments is he
says you can put them on the border, but they cannot engage. The
Traficant amendment says, I do not limit them. They can tackle them,
they can detain them, but they can only be there if the administration
wants them, and they must be out there with a civilian law enforcement
entity, and they cannot make the arrests, and it specifically states
and cites the Posse Comitatus laws.
How many more overdoses will we have? Why does not the Congress just
deploy troops to the border and then tell them, ``Don't engage.''
Beam me up, really. That states it. That is the drug policy of the
United States of America.
[[Page H3701]]
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense does not support this, the
Department of Justice does not support the Traficant amendment, the
people who live along the border in Texas and parts of California do
not support this amendment. And if you do not believe that, talk to the
folks in Redford, Texas. When the military was deployed in Texas last
year for that brief time they were out there, while we all talk here,
talk about reducing drugs and the number of people who die in this
country as a result of drug overdoses, the deaths that were occurring
were not because of drug use so much as Ezequiel Hernandez, a U.S.
citizen, dying at the hands of our own military. The first time since
1970 that someone who was an American citizen on American soil has
perished at the hands of his own compatriot.
That is what happens when you put a force that is trained to kill on
a border to do work that is not necessarily to kill, but to interdict.
If I were a Border Patrol agent watching this debate, I would say,
``Thanks a lot. I go out every day and I try to stop drugs from coming
into this country, and you are telling me I do not do a good job. And
you are telling me my fellow companions that go out there every day,
they do not do a good job, and we have to have now someone else not
trained to do my job, do my job.''
We have got to stop talking and give the resources, so the folks who
do the work have the chance to do it. That is what we have to do. A lot
of talk here, a lot of action on the border. Let us support the folks
who do the action and stop the drugs from coming in, rather than just
saying we are going to stop the drugs. That is what we need to do.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to become involved in
this debate, but as ranking member of this committee, I must. I must
look out for the military that we have, knowing the various missions
that we have and, frankly, the lack of young men and young women that
we have presently on duty.
Mr. Chairman, first we should look at the specialists, those that are
involved in Border Patrol, the Customs, the National Guard. We already
have military people of all services, including the Navy, working
against the drug traffic.
This evidently involves brute force. The 82nd Airborne, my goodness,
they are the first line of our defense. We have today too few young men
and young women to cover the necessary missions that they have. We need
more. We need more resources for the right specialists, and even to
consider this, we need more resources for those in uniform.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has the right to
close.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I was born and raised on the border, and
I stand and I speak in favor of the Reyes substitute amendment and
against the Traficant proposal.
I find it incredibly ironic that exactly one year ago today a Marine
assisting the INS on our border shot and killed Ezequiel Hernandez, an
18-year-old U.S. citizen from Redford, Texas. Zeke, as he was called,
had the misfortune of living on our southern border in an area known
for drug trafficking, and he paid the price with his life.
{time} 1800
I have to ask all of my colleagues here if they believe that that is
fair. Ezequiel became a casualty of America's drug wars, the victim of
an upsurge of violence along the 2,000-mile United States and Mexican
border that has put residents and law enforcement officials on edge.
Zeke is dead and there is nothing we can do to bring him back.
It is unfair to our fighting men and women, and it does harm to our
national security. The military can provide assistance in numerous ways
without this unwarranted diversion of troops. All of our budgets are
tight. Putting troops on our borders is extremely costly, and it is a
bad use of resources.
These funds could be better used training our Armed Forces for better
war-fighting missions or ensuring Border Patrol agents are properly
trained and have the resources needed to enforce our Nation's laws and
to protect themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I urge each and every colleague to vote against the
Traficant amendment and to support the Reyes amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 4 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on National Security.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time. I am going to support with enthusiasm the
Traficant amendment.
To lose the war against drugs is tragic, but to surrender to the war
on drugs without even launching a fight is just inexcusable. I think
that while it might be different than the policies that we have used in
the past, I think that the gentleman's approach to this could certainly
be one of the major efforts in stopping the terrible influx of drugs
into the Nation and into the bodies of Americans.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I am proud to have the support of the distinguished chairman
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security.
Our military is underfunded. We have taken a meat ax to it. We have
sent our military all over the world to protect the borders all over
the world. We come down to very sophisticated, legalized types of
debates when we talk about our own border.
Today's debate is not just about a nonengagement, status quo
alternative that is not really even wanted; today's debate is not about
Ezequiel Hernandes. Zeke is dead because Congress did not put in
safeguards to the madness that exists.
Today's debate is about national security in our border. There was,
in fact, a report issued by the National Defense Panel, and I want to
share this with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), because I do
not believe I have, and I want to quote: ``The apparent ease of
infiltration of our borders by drug smugglers illustrates a potentially
significant problem. It suggests that terrorist cells armed with even
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, could also infiltrate our
borders.''
I have nothing against the Border Patrol. They need 25,000 more of
them. When I call over there, if we had 25,000 more Border Patrol, they
say we would have to hire anywhere between 6,000 and 9,500 support
personnel to accommodate another 25,000.
I think it is time to reassess the issue of national security. I am
not talking about New York and New Jersey, New Mexico and Texas, I am
talking about every port of entry and I am talking about the border of
our Nation, and if that is not a national security checkpoint, then we
do not know what we are doing here.
Now, if, in fact, we are saying we are going to lose readiness, I do
not mandate this, and we should not have to lose readiness protecting
our borders, Congress. That is an insult. If we need money and the
President would decide to do it, there is an appropriation process,
there is a Committee on Appropriations.
Let me say one last thing. What I do is codify how this would happen
if that Commander in Chief would so decide, and maybe this one may
never do it, and maybe there are people in the House that might never
want it. But how many more tragedies and deaths and tons of cocaine and
heroin do we keep reading about before we act?
[[Page H3702]]
I offer a process. It is very imperative that we defeat the Reyes
amendment. It does not engage and he does not even want troops. I am
saddened that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the authorizing
chairman, would support a nonengagement deployment that costs the same
amount of money, but would leave them handcuffed. I would ask that my
colleagues support my amendment.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Again, I rise in opposition to troops on the border, and in reference
to the comments from my colleague from Ohio, I doubt that we in this
body want troops at O'Hare, at JFK, LaGuardia, LAX, those are all ports
of entry, and when we are talking about terrorism, I have been there. I
have done it. Terrorists do not come in a specific profile, they come
dressed like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), they come dressed
like me. Most importantly, they come through the ports of entry. They
have nothing to do with the troops being out patrolling between those
ports of entry.
Drug smugglers, border bandits. The last time I was in a gun fight
was in March of 1995 with border bandits and drug smugglers. I know the
issues, I know what is important, and I can tell my colleagues,
military on the border is a bad idea.
If my colleagues doubt that, let me give an example. I was in Bosnia
in January. Of about 28 soldiers that we had a town hall meeting with,
3 of them had told me that they had been on a drug mission in Texas and
part of the problem that I see here is that when we are involving our
troops doing police work, it is completely different from combat. I
think it is a disservice to have them on the southern border of Texas
today and 6 months from now have them in Bosnia, in real danger, and
having to decide, is this combat or is this law enforcement?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. All time has expired.
It is now in order to consider the substitute amendment to the
Traficant amendment, numbered 2 in part C of House Report 105-544.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Reyes as a Substitute for Amendment No.
1 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment
is as follows:
Part C amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Reyes as a substitute for
amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 227, after line
14), insert the following new section:
SEC. 1023. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO
ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.
(a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter
18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 374 the following new section:
``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol
and control
``(a) Assignment Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
assign members of the armed forces to conduct reconnaissance
missions to assist--
``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in
preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and
illegal aliens into the United States; and
``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection
of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the
United States.
``(b) Written Request for Assignment; Elements.--(1) The
assignment of members of the armed forces under subsection
(a) may only occur at the written request of the Attorney
General, in the case of an assignment to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, and at the request of the Secretary
of the Treasury, in the case of an assignment to the United
States Customs Service.
``(2) The written request from the Attorney General or the
Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall
include--
``(A) a precise definition of which activities the members
of the armed forces are to participate in, the duration of
their mission, and the liability to be assumed by the
Department of Defense upon assignment of armed forces
personnel;
``(B) an examination of the beneficial and detrimental
effect of these assignments on the military training,
readiness levels, military preparedness, and overall combat
effectiveness of the armed forces;
``(C) the estimated cost of such assignments to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service or the United States
Customs Service (as the case may be), as required under
subsection (f); and
``(D) an examination of the possibility that members of the
armed forces may inadvertently participate in law enforcement
activities in violation of section 375 of this title and 1385
of title 18 (popularly known as the `Posse Comitatus Act'),
both of which prohibit direct participation of military
personnel in civilian law enforcement activities.
``(c) Training Program.--(1) If the assignment of members
of the armed forces is requested by the Attorney General or
the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General or the
Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be), together with
the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a training program
to ensure that the members to be assigned are properly
trained to deal with the unique and diverse situations that
the members may face in performing their assignment along the
international borders of the United States and major ports of
entry.
``(2) A member may not be deployed at a border location
pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a) until the
member has successfully completed the training program.
``(d) Conditions on Use.--(1) Whenever a member of the
armed forces who is assigned under subsection (a) to assist
the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the United
States Customs Service is performing duties at a border
location pursuant to the assignment, a civilian law
enforcement officer from the agency concerned shall accompany
the member.
``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to
conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement
activity or to make an arrest; and
``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known
as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
``(e) Notification Requirements.--The Attorney General or
the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall
notify the Governor of the State in which members of the
armed forces are to be deployed pursuant to an assignment
under subsection (a), and local governments and local law
enforcement agencies in the deployment area, of the
deployment of the members to assist the Immigration and
Naturalization Service or the United States Customs Service
(as the case may be) and the types of reconnaissance missions
to be performed by the members.
``(f) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title
shall apply in the case of members of the armed forces
assigned under subsection (a).
``(g) Reporting Requirements.--Upon the completion of each
assignment of members of the armed forces under subsection
(a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report containing--
``(1) an examination of the beneficial and detrimental
effect of such assignments on the military training,
readiness levels, military preparedness, and overall combat
effectiveness of the armed forces;
``(2) an assessment of the value of this section; and
``(3) recommendations on the continued use of the authority
provided under subsection (a).
``(h) Termination of Authority.--No assignment may be made
or continued under subsection (a) after September 30,
2001.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 374 the following new item:
``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes), and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Reyes amendment
and in opposition to the Traficant amendment, and I thank my friend
from Ohio for raising this issue.
I live in the district that has the busiest border crossing in the
world. We need the attention to this issue. We need the help of this
Congress to fight those drugs. But I tell my colleagues, this is the
wrong way to do it.
We should ask ourselves, I say to the gentleman (Mr. Traficant) and
those who spoke from Georgia and Illinois, why is it that the Members
of this body who represent the 2 cities that are the biggest on the
border, that have the busiest crossings on the border, and many other
of the border Congress people oppose the Traficant amendment? We know
something about the border. We know that this fight has to be
increased. But we have constituents who we are bound to protect.
We believe, and we have evidence, and my colleagues have heard it
today,
[[Page H3703]]
that those who are trained in the best equipped, best disciplined, most
efficient fighting machine in the world are not equipped or trained to
fight this fight.
Our constituents are at risk with American troops at the border, and
may I remind my colleagues, this is a friendly country. Nobody has said
that yet. The last invasion I recall was maybe the Alamo, but this
could do serious damage to that relationship. It could do serious
damage to our constituents.
Yes, I say to the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Traficant), let us fight
this war, but let us not limit ourselves to the old and easy ideas of
ending the scourge; let us go beyond the conventional solutions of this
greater force, move toward more innovative proposals.
We who represent the places where the gentleman is concerned about
are against the gentleman's amendment. I urge my colleagues to join us
in defeating the Traficant amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I
yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentleman opposes the deployment of troops under the Traficant
amendment, but supports the deployment of troops under the Reyes
amendment, and they cannot engage. That is what the gentleman just
said.
My constituents do not live on the border either, but 80 percent of
the heroin and cocaine going into their arms and up their nose comes
across that border.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we just heard it said that if we have our American
armed services personnel on the border that it will harm American
constituents. It is not the Army, Navy, Marines that I know of. They
are not going to turn their guns and use their weapons on American
constituents, and I probably misunderstood what I heard, but I did hear
that it was going to harm our constituents. That is not the point.
The point is to keep drugs away from our constituents who are being
harmed by drugs that are getting in.
Mr. Chairman, if one is in a burning building and one has to jump 5
stories, one does not say wait a minute to the fireman below with the
safety net, are you from the right fire jurisdiction? I do not want to
jump just to anybody.
Our school kids are being flooded with illegal drugs, and this is not
about which uniform is going to protect our border; this is about
protecting the children in the schoolyard, it is not about a turf war
between the DEA or the INS or the Marines. It is about protecting
children.
I am a member of the drug task force. We have been studying the
problem for a long time. We cannot effectively fight drugs without a
strong interdiction program, and much of that has to be done at our
border. This is not about telling the INS they are not doing a good
job, this is about saying, send in the cavalry, the war is a lot bigger
than we thought it was, and we need to have everybody on deck, helping
out to try and stop this, because it is killing our children. Forget
which government agency is going to get the credit. Let us save our
children and put kids first.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I rise in support of the Reyes amendment. Let us think about this for
a minute. We have 2 borders in this country, one with Mexico and one
with Canada. The shortest of the 2 is Mexico. We are suggesting here
that that is the border we need to put troops on in a country that has
been a great ally to the United States, and frankly, the border between
California and Mexico and Texas and Mexico is the busiest commercial
border in the world.
We are going to try to now slow down that border and put people that
are untrained on that border, and it just does not make sense.
Essentially it sends out a message that our country just wants to be
fortress America. Most of America is surrounded by water. What about
all the coastlines? Are we going to put the troops in my district in
Pebble Beach in Florida and in West Palm Beach? People would not stand
for that.
Besides that, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) comes up here
and says his amendment allows him to engage and yet we read in the
amendment, here it says, ``Nothing in this section shall be construed
to authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to conduct search,
seizure or similar law enforcement activity or to make an arrest.''
The Reyes amendment is a better one, please support it.
{time} 1815
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, the Traficant amendment
lets them engage, to tackle and detain them for the law enforcement
entity to arrest them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon).
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will take 30 seconds, since I have to go
get a BESTEA bill out on the floor so Members can go home tomorrow.
I ask Members, defeat the Reyes amendment, because it is status quo.
Support the Traficant amendment because then we will do something about
the drugs crossing these borders that are killing our children. Please
defeat the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes). He is a great guy but the amendment is wrong. The amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is right. It is a
good amendment, vote for it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask for opposition to the Reyes
amendment. Let us not be so darned politically correct when it comes to
the defense of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, the drug importers and sellers are watching us today,
and they will say, either we vote for the Reyes amendment, which
maintains the status quo, or we vote for the Traficant, which will say
we will do what we can at the border within the resources of this
country to defend this country.
Those who are saying that Mexico might get upset, and let me
challenge them, Mexico has been willing to do at the border what we
have not. Everyone who votes against Mexico's certification ought to
look at that vote. They have put the troops on the border, not because
it is anti-American, but because it is antidrug.
Let us have the guts to be pro American and antidrug, and if Members
want to vote against Mexico, they had better vote for this bill.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Traficant amendment and oppose
the Reyes amendment. The basic reason, in 1968 I was in the Marine
Corps stationed in Quantico, Virginia. We came up here when there were
D.C. riots after Martin Luther King, Junior, was assassinated.
We as the U.S. Marine Corps patrolled the streets, made sure people
were not out looting and things like that. Whenever we came across a
problem, we called the District of Columbia police. They were the ones
that made the arrest. The point is, we operated with them in a very
fluid manner. I think this is a possibility for the Southwest. Support
the Traficant amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, if Members support the Reyes amendment, they say we can
put troops on the border, but they cannot be engaged. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Reyes) admitted when he started the debate he does not
even want troops on the border. They are just trying to kill the
Traficant amendment. We know that.
The Traficant amendment says they must be trained, they must be
requested by the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and
the President; let us face it, specifically
[[Page H3704]]
trained. They can never go out on a patrol by themselves. And yes, they
cannot make the arrest. That is the protection constitutionally, the
posse comitatus law. They can tackle that guy, they can return fire.
Narco terrorists have been shooting across the border at our people
for quite a while. We have border patrol agents in hospitals being shot
by narco terrorists, Mr. Chairman.
In order to have a vote on the Traficant amendment, Members must
defeat the substitute. I am asking Members to do that, and give this
House a chance to up-or-down vote on an amendment that we can fight for
in that conference. Maybe right now there is not enough steam with it,
but we are engaging in the debate for our constituents. I am asking
Members to defeat the Reyes substitute and vote for the Traficant
amendment.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). I have spent some time today discussing this
issue with him, and I appreciate the fact that this year I believe that
the debate has been on a very high level, and about the real issues. I
respect the fact that he is concerned about the amount of narcotics in
this country. We are all concerned about that.
But where we disagree is where we think that in support for the
Traficant amendment, where we think that we can stand here or vote for
a proposal that could conceivably cost the lives of, yes, constituents.
Somebody made mention of questioning whether we are harming
constituents. Ironically enough, one year ago today a young man in
Redford, Texas, was shot and killed in a very unfortunate incident by a
United States marine deployed on one of these patrols. If that is not
harming a constituent, I do not know what is.
We talk about being members of the drug task force, we talk about
drug strategy. There is only one way to defeat drugs. That is on three
different levels. I know, because I spent 26\1/2\ years doing that, not
being a member of a drug task force, or not being a part of this or a
part of that, but doing the job, working with other Federal agencies,
local and State agencies.
There are three ways we need to approach this problem. That is
through education, that is through treatment, and yes, that is through
enforcement. But enforcement does not include deploying the military
into our communities along the border. The price is too high. The death
of one young man in Redford, Texas, is too high. Stop and think, as
parents, what Members would be feeling today one year ago, when that
young man was shot and killed. It pours salt in a wound that has not
even healed yet.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) makes mention of my
opposition to troops on the border. Yes, I am opposed to troops on the
border, but I think I am opposed to the troops on the border for the
right reasons. I do not have to sound tough on drugs, I have been
there. I have done that. I ask that Members support the Reyes
amendment, and that they ultimately understand why we are opposed to
sending troops to our borders.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to register my opposition to
the Traficant amendment, by my friend from Ohio; and in support of the
Reyes substitute which would better organize the scope of the
military's role on the border.
As a veteran and a former law enforcement officer, I understand the
unique perspectives of those who strive to keep the peace on the
border, and the views of those in this Congress who believe we should
put military resources we already have in a place they are needed.
However, putting our soldiers on the border is a very bad idea.
For 50 years, the United States spent our money and our energy
fighting a war against communism. In 1989, we saw the Berlin Wall
finally come down.
It would be a mistake of enormous proportions if we erected our own
wall, in the form of our military, along our southern border.
At a time when Mexico is our neighbor, friend and economic partner,
it would be folly to station troops WHO ARE TRAINED TO KILL on the
international border.
There is a huge difference between law enforcement officers trained
to police the civilian population and the military troops who are
trained to kill the enemy.
We are painfully aware that illegal immigrants and drugs are coming
across the border. But the answer to that problem is to increase the
Border Patrol staff along the border, not reinforce it with troops
trained to shoot to kill.
Already there have been two incidents along the border in which the
military engaged. As a result, one young U.S. citizen has died at the
hands of another in pursuit of an ambiguous mission. We cannot change
that; but what we do here today may well prevent it from happening
again.
The reason I support trade treaties like NAFTA and GATT is that they
address the economic foundations of this region by expanding economic
and job opportunities.
We are better served as a nation if we address the economic
motivation behind the movement of illegal immigrants and drugs, as
opposed to positioning U.S. troops to be our cops at a friendly
international border.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TRAFICANT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the first vote that will be taken will
be taken on the Reyes substitute, am I correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes) as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may
reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for any recorded vote that
may be ordered on the Traficant amendment, without intervening business
or debate.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 243, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 179]
AYES--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waxman
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--243
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
[[Page H3705]]
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Pascrell
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bateman
Foley
Gonzalez
Harman
Johnson, Sam
McDade
Meeks (NY)
Parker
Quinn
Torres
Wicker
{time} 1841
Mr. RIGGS, Mr. DAVIS of Virginia, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. DEUTSCH, and Mr.
EHRLICH changed their vote from ``aye" to ``no.''
Mr. JOHN, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and Mr. CANNON changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 288,
noes 132, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 180]
AYES--288
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--132
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Capps
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Green
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kolbe
Lampson
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lofgren
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Thompson
Tierney
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--13
Armey
Barrett (NE)
Bateman
Foley
Gonzalez
Harman
Johnson, Sam
McDade
Meeks (NY)
Parker
Quinn
Torres
Wicker
{time} 1850
Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed
in part D of House Report 105-544.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Gilman
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part D amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Gilman:
At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 1206. NUCLEAR EXPORT REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
[[Page H3706]]
``CHAPTER 11--NUCLEAR EXPORT REPORTING
``SEC. 111. REPORTS ON EXPORTS.
``(a) Actions Requiring Reporting.--Unless and until the
conditions set forth in subsection (b) are met--
``(1) no license may be issued for the export of--
``(A) any production facility or utilization facility,
``(B) any source material or special nuclear material, or
``(C) any component, substance, or item that has been
determined under section 109b. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 to be especially relevant from the standpoint of export
control because of its significance for nuclear explosive
purposes;
``(2) the United States shall not approve the retransfer of
any facility, material, item, technical data, component, or
substance described in paragraph (1); and
``(3) no authorization may be given under section 57b.(2)
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for any person to engage,
directly or indirectly, in the production of special nuclear
material.
``(b) Conditions.--
``(1) In general.--The conditions referred to in subsection
(a) are the following:
``(A) Before the export, retransfer, or activity is
approved, the appropriate agency shall transmit to the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate a report describing such export, retransfer, or
activity and the basis for any proposed approval thereof,
and, in the case of an authorization described in subsection
(a)(3), the appropriate agency shall transmit to the
Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives a
report describing the activity for which authorization is
sought and the basis for any proposed approval thereof. Each
report under this subparagraph report shall contain--
``(i) a detailed description of the proposed export,
retransfer, or activity, as the case may be, including a
brief description of the quantity, value, and capabilities of
the export, retransfer, or activity;
``(ii) the name of each contractor expected to provide the
proposed export, retransfer, or activity;
``(iii) an estimate of the number of officers and employees
of the United States Government and of United States civilian
contract personnel expected to be needed in the recipient
country to carry out the proposed export, retransfer, or
activity;and;
``(iv) a description, including estimated value, from each
contractor described in clause (ii) of any offset agreements
proposed to be entered into in connection with such proposed
export, retransfer, or activity (if known on the date of
transmittal of the report), and the projected delivery dates
and end user of the proposed export, retransfer, or activity;
and
``(v) the extent to which the recipient country is in
compliance with the conditions specified in paragraph (2) of
section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
The report transmitted under this subparagraph shall be
unclassified, unless the public disclosure thereof would be
clearly detrimental to the security of the United States.
``(B) Unless the President determines that an emergency
exists which requires immediate approval of the proposed
export, retransfer, or activity in the national security
interests of the United States, no such approval shall be
given until at least 30 calendar days after Congress receives
the report described in subparagraph (A), and shall not be
approved then if Congress, within that 30-day period, enacts
a joint resolution prohibiting the proposed export,
retransfer, or activity. If the President determines that an
emergency exists that requires immediate approval of the
proposed export, retransfer, or activity in the national
security interests of the United States, thus waiving the
requirements of this paragraph, he shall submit in writing to
the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate a detailed justification for his determination,
including a description of the emergency circumstances that
necessitate the immediate approval of the export, retransfer,
or activity, and a discussion of the national security
interests involved.
``(2) Consideration of joint resolutions in the senate.--
Any joint resolution under paragraph (1)(B) shall be
considered in the Senate in accordance with the provisions of
section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and
Arms Export Control Act of 1976.
``(c) Publication of Unclassified Text of Reports.--The
appropriate agency shall cause to be published in the Federal
Register, upon transmittal to the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the full unclassified
text of each report submitted pursuant to subsection
(b)(1)(A).
``(d) Exceptions.--The requirements of this section shall
not apply to--
``(1) any export, retransfer, or activity for which a
general license or general authorization is granted by the
appropriate agency; or
``(2) any export or retransfer to, or activity in, a
country that is a member of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section, the terms
`production facility', `utilization facility', `source
material', and `special nuclear material', have the meanings
given those terms in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which
enhances the oversight role of Congress in the licensing of nuclear
exports.
There is currently little to no congressional review of United States
nuclear exports. Export licenses granted by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission are subject to advanced publication and the possibility for
public comment, including a formal hearing. But there is no public
transparency involved in these licenses granted by the Department of
Energy.
More to the point, there is no role for congressional review of
licensing decisions with regard to either agency except for subsequent
arrangements for retransfers of nuclear fuel as outlined in section 131
of the Atomic Energy Act.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment establishes a process in
law which is similar to that in existing law for the export of
conventional arms. If the Congress has the right to review and
potentially disapprove the sale of a grenade, then it should have the
right to review and potentially disapprove the sale of a nuclear
reactor.
Under this amendment, Mr. Chairman, the administration must submit a
report to the Congress on proposed nuclear exports to certain
countries. Those proposed exports include nuclear reactors or
components, nuclear fuel or nuclear fuel components, or retransfer of
such items in any technology transfer.
Once the appropriate committees in the Congress receive notice of the
proposed export, they would have 30 calendar days to review the
proposed sales and, if applicable, introduce and move through the
Congress a resolution to disapprove the proposed sale.
Mr. Chairman, I would note that under the Arms Export Control Act,
the Congress has never successfully enacted a resolution of disapproval
over a President's objection to ban an arms sale. More importantly,
however, is that under the AECA, and now under the procedures
established by this amendment for nuclear exports, the Congress will
have a mechanism to hold the appropriate executive branch agencies
accountable for what exports are being approved. Such a formal
mechanism would allow the Congress the ability to hold hearings and to
gain information on proposed nuclear sales.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is purposely drawn to exclude nuclear
exports to our Western European allies as well as other allied and
friendly countries, including Japan, Australia and New Zealand. This
amendment is also purposely drawn to exclude certain types of nuclear
exports, including those requiring general licenses or general
authorizations.
The purpose of narrowing the list of countries and the type of
licenses that are captured under the amendment is to make certain that
the Congress does not create an undue administrative burden on the
executive branch or adversely affect our Nation's nuclear industry's
ability to compete in a world market.
I fully recognize that there is a fundamental difference between a
weapon and a nuclear reactor provided for the purposes of a civilian
nuclear energy program. But, Mr. Chairman, there are real world
examples in which U.S. nuclear technology has been provided for
purportedly civilian nuclear programs but then diverted to military
programs. I am thinking, of course, of India.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment will give us the ability
to hold both China and Russia's feet to the fire with respect to their
nuclear nonproliferation policies.
In the case of China, we want to make certain they do not backtrack
on their pledge to halt new nuclear assistance to Iran, and that they
maintain their commitments made pursuant to
[[Page H3707]]
the U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement.
And with regard to Russia, we want to make certain that they meet
their commitments pursuant to their membership in the Nuclear Suppliers
Group and we want to examine closely their continued assistance to the
Iranian nuclear program.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that, in my view, had there
been any knowledge in the Congress of the possibility of a missile
technology transfer to China as a result of satellite exports, those
exports would have been denied. This amendment gives the Congress the
ability to give the necessary congressional scrutiny to nuclear
exports, particularly those which may be of a proliferation risk.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. It is a vote for enhanced congressional review of U.S.
nuclear exports.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
I do agree with many of his concerns about nuclear proliferation. I
think Congress does need sufficient information to be able to
accomplish its oversight responsibilities, but I believe we already
have that.
{time} 1900
I am concerned about the unintended consequences of this amendment
which will be contrary to our Nation's best interest. This amendment is
unnecessary. Applications for licenses to export nuclear facilities,
fuel and controlled nuclear technology are already required to be made
public immediately upon filing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
We do not need to add another layer of bureaucracy and complexity to
this process.
Non-OECD countries like Taiwan, Thailand and others are planning the
construction of several nuclear power facilities over the next decade.
U.S. companies are on the cutting edge of these technologies and would
be strong competitors for this business. This is business that could
run into billions of dollars during the next 25 years.
No other nation prohibits its nuclear equipment suppliers from
selling to potential customers, including China. Unlike their
counterparts designed in Russia, U.S. light-water reactors are at very
little risk for nuclear proliferation, and our reactor designs are not
conducive to the production of highly enriched uranium, plutonium and
other weapons-grade materials. We as a nation can rest easier knowing
that reactors built in these non-OECD countries are not producing
weapons materials.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that that amendment is overkill, that it will
add a layer of bureaucracy and unnecessary time-consuming requirements
to our suppliers, and I would urge a vote in opposition to the Gilman
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has
expired. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
In studying this amendment, we find that, quite frankly, it is
unnecessary and that under the Atomic Energy Act no export license can
be granted unless the United States Government has already negotiated a
nuclear cooperation agreement with the nation receiving the equipment
or the technology.
These agreements are reviewed by the Congress before their
implementation, thereby eliminating the need for further congressional
review with each individual license. Changing licensing procedures
would reward India, imposing new restrictions on peaceful nuclear
trade, especially with China at this time. It would harm U.S. China
relations and would perversely reward India for detonating its nuclear
device and punish China for India's misdeeds.
New licensing procedures that institute greater delay and greater
certainty will leave China and other potential markets like Brazil to
view U.S. vendors as unreliable suppliers.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of our time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 20 printed in part D of
House Report 105-544.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Hunter
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part D amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Hunter:
At the end of title VIII (page 199, after line 25), insert
the following new sections:
SEC. 804. INCREASE IN MICRO-PURCHASE THRESHOLD.
(a) Increase in Threshold.--Subsection (f) of section 32 of
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
428(e)) is amended by striking out ``$2,500'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``$10,000''.
(b) Exemption of Micro-Purchases From Procurement Laws.--
Subsection (b) of such section (41 U.S.C. 428(b)) is amended
by striking ``to section 15(j)'' and all that follows through
the end of such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: ``any provision of law that sets forth policies,
procedures, requirements, or restrictions for the procurement
of property or services by the Federal Government, except for
a provision of law that provides for criminal or civil
penalties.''.
(c) Domestically Produced Goods and Services.--In the
implementation of the amendments made by this section through
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (as required by section
32(e) of such Act), the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall
require the head of each executive agency to ensure that
procuring activities of that agency, in awarding a contract
with a price not greater than the micro-purchase threshold,
make every effort to purchase domestically produced goods and
services.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsections (c) and (d) of
such section (41 U.S.C. 428(c) and (d)) are each amended by
striking ``$2,500'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the
micro-purchase threshold''.
(2) Section 15(j)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
644(j)(1)) is amended by striking ``$2,500'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``the micro-purchase threshold (as defined in
section 32(f) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 428(f))''.
SEC. 805. AUTHORITY FOR STATISTICAL SAMPLING TO VERIFY
RECEIPT OF GOODS AND SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 141 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 2410n. Statistical sampling procedures in the payment
for goods and services
``(a) Verification After Payment.--Notwithstanding section
3324 of title 31, in making payments for goods or services,
the Secretary may prescribe regulations that authorize
verification, after payment, of receipt and acceptance of
goods and services. Any such regulations shall prescribe the
use of statistical sampling procedures for such verification.
Such procedures shall be commensurate with the risk of loss
to the Government.
``(b) Protection of Payment Officials.--A disbursing or
certifying official who carries out proper collection actions
and relies on the procedures established pursuant to this
section is not liable for losses to the Government resulting
from the payment or certification of a voucher not audited
specifically because of the use of such procedures.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter 141 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``2410n. Statistical sampling procedures in the payment for goods and
services.''.
Modification to Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Hunter
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a modification to my amendment at
the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered
in accordance with this modification.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Hunter:
The amendment as modified is as follows:
At the end of title VIII (page 199, after line 25), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 804. STUDY ON INCREASE IN MICRO-PURCHASE THRESHOLD.
(a) Study Requirement.--The Comptroller General, in
consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy, the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration, and the Secretary of Defense, shall conduct a
study to assess the impact of the current micro-purchase
program and the advisability of increasing the micro-purchase
[[Page H3708]]
threshold under section 32 of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428) to $10,000.
(b) Matters Covered.--(1) The assessment of the impact of
the current micro-purchase program shall be based on purchase
activity under the micro-purchase threshold conducted during
the two-year period beginning on February 10, 1996 (the date
of the enactment of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions
D and E of Public Law 104-106)). The assessment shall
include, to the extent practicable--
(A) a general breakdown of the supplies, services, and
construction purchased; and
(B) an evaluation of the rate of small business
participation, economic concentration, and competition.
(2) The assessment of the advisability of increasing the
micro-purchase threshold shall include a comparison of any
adverse impact of an increased micro-purchase threshold (such
as on small business participation) to benefits (such as cost
savings, including administrative cost savings, savings from
a reduced acquisition workforce and logistics structure, and
reduction in acquisition lead time).
(c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after completion of the
study, the Comptroller General shall submit a report on the
results of the study to--
(1) the Committees on Armed Services and on Small Business
of the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on National Security and on Small
Business of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 805. AUTHORITY FOR STATISTICAL SAMPLING TO VERIFY
RECEIPT OF GOODS AND SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 141 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 2410n. Statistical sampling procedures in the payment
for goods and services
``(a) Verification After Payment.--Notwithstanding section
3324 of title 31, in making payments for goods or services,
the Secretary may prescribe regulations that authorize
verification, after payment, of receipt and acceptance of
goods and services. Any such regulations shall prescribe the
use of statistical sampling procedures for such verification.
Such procedures shall be commensurate with the risk of loss
to the Government.
``(b) Protection of Payment Officials.--A disbursing or
certifying official who carries out proper collection actions
and relies on the procedures established pursuant to this
section is not liable for losses to the Government resulting
from the payment or certification of a voucher not audited
specifically because of the use of such procedures.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter 141 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``2410n. Statistical sampling procedures in the payment for goods and
services.''.
Mr. HUNTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is simply a request for a study, and it is a study
in an area where we are trying to make some headway in bringing the
Department of Defense up to speed with domestic civilian practices;
and, particularly, we are now undertaking a program whereby we use
credit cards instead of lengthy contract orders to purchase items up to
$2,500.
The Department of Defense and the Administration would like to move
ahead and increase that limit from $2,500 to $10,000. There are a
number of people in the small business community who have concern about
that. They feel that there may be problems. They want to know what the
impact is.
And so, we now have a modification to this amendment, which, for
practical purposes, simply requests the GAO to study the issue and to
give us what it believes to be the impacts on small business and also
on savings that could accrue to the Department of Defense should we
move that threshold from $2,500 to $10,000. That is the essence of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, as there is no Member opposing the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) would be kind enough to engage in a bit of a
dialogue with me.
I am sure that he would agree that the question of bundling contracts
is of some concern to our small business constituents and friends, and
I wonder if the gentleman could comment with respect to the study and
the question of bundling contracts.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, there is concern. Because when we move to a
credit card system, the government buyers are under an obligation to
try to look at the entire market, the entire array of sellers to the
best of their ability. They are required to try to be good purchasers,
to get the best value. That means, in most cases, the lowest price. But
not always.
And there is always a fear in the small business community that we
are going to have a buyer who is going to choose their favorite seller,
if you will, or their favorite company and simply move contracts that
way. And so, small businesses are always concerned about this.
On the other side, sometimes we end up, because we have a very
complicated system of contracting, we end up paying $500 for $100 desks
after we have gone through all the competitions and all the things that
attend that and, ultimately, write a fairly complicated contract.
So the idea is let us give our buyers for the small amounts for the
small goods, let us assign them a certain element of discretion and
presume that they are going to be honest and have good judgment, and
that when they go down to buy office equipment and other things that
come up under the $2,500 threshold, that they are going to use good
judgment and that they are going to use the small business community in
a practical way and they are going to spread these purchases around.
And that means that we pay $100 for the $100 desk instead of $500.
So there is a certain fear on one side; and, on the other hand, there
is a certain efficiency to be gained. So this simply asks the question
and requires a study as to what the results will be.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.
But the intent here, and I guess I just want to make the intent clear
for those who may be doing the study, the intent here is to also look
at such questions of working something up so we get a series of $10,000
or 10,000 $100-contracts that could go to a fairly large corporation
and cut out otherwise legitimate small business.
I know that is not the intent of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter). But we do not want to have a study that ends up in that
fashion.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield,
first, this does not affect or change the ability of the government to
bundle contracts. But we want the GAO to look at that also, the idea of
loading up or bundling contracts.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment on this
side, and we have no objection.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman. I wish to commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for revising his amendment
regarding the Micro-Purchase Threshold. I support his amendment to
provide for a study of implementation of the Micro-Purchases procedures
that were enacted as part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
of 1994 (FASA).
During the consideration of FASA, the small business community had
voiced deep concerns about the contracting procedures that applicable
to Micro-Purchases, those purchases less than $2,500 in value. They
could be awarded without any competition. Of even greater concern,
Micro-Purchases were exempt from the long-established requirements of
the Small Business Act that initially reserved small purchases for
competition among small firms.
Purchases below the $2,500 Micro-Purchase Threshold also represented
a very substantial pool of potential business highly suitable for small
firms. Procurements below $2,500 are estimated to represent
approximately 85% of the procurement actions each year, which totalled
some $15 million in fiscal
[[Page H3709]]
year 1997. In dollar terms, procurement opportunities below $2,500
total approximately $4 billion.
The Department of Defense has been advocating increasing the Micro-
Purchase Threshold. Such action should not be taken until we know the
impact of Micro-Purchase procedures at the current $2,500 threshold. To
do otherwise would do a disservice to the small business community.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) considered as Amendment No.
39 printed in part D of House Report 105-544.
Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part D amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. Taylor of
Mississippi:
At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 227, after line
14), insert the following new section:
SEC. 1023. RANDOM DRUG TESTING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
EMPLOYEES.
(a) Expansion of Existing Program.--(1) Chapter 81 of title
10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
1581 the following new section:
``Sec. 1582. Random testing of employees for use of illegal
drugs
``(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
expand the drug testing program required for civilian
employees of the Department of Defense by Executive Order
12564 (51 Fed. Reg. 32889; September 15, 1986) to include the
random testing on a controlled and monitored basis of all
such employees for the use of illegal drugs.
``(b) Testing Procedures and Personnel Actions.--The
requirements of Executive Order 12564 regarding drug testing
procedures and the personnel actions to be taken with respect
to any employee who is found to use illegal drugs shall apply
to the expanded drug testing program required by this
section.
``(c) Notification to New Employees.--The Secretary of
Defense shall notify persons employed after the date of the
enactment of this section that, as a condition of employment
by the Department of Defense, the person may be required to
submit to mandatory random drug testing under the expanded
drug testing program required by this section.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1581 the following new item:
``1582. Random testing of employees for use of illegal drugs.''.
(b) Funding.--No additional funds are authorized to be
appropriated on account of the amendment made by subsection
(a). The Secretary of Defense shall carry out the expanded
drug testing program for civilian employees of the Department
of Defense under section 383 of title 10, United States Code,
as added by subsection (a), using amounts otherwise provided
for the program.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as was pointed out in the recent dialogue with the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes), there is a war on drugs going on, and our Nation is losing.
Mr. Chairman, the point that would I like to make with this amendment
and the law that I would like to change with this amendment would allow
our Department of Defense to test all of its employees for drugs and,
in the future, tell future hires that, as a requirement of working for
the Department of Defense, that they will submit to random drug
testing.
In February, I went to Colombia, went to places like Ibague, went to
places likes San Jose, where American pilots are flying crop dusters
and being shot at by Colombian guerillas and Colombian narco-
traffickers.
We have American A-teams on the ground in Colombia training the
Colombian Lance Arrows, their word for Ranger. We have American Seals
training their navy. We have Americans in Iquitos, Peru, right across
the Amazon River, training their riverine operations. It is a real war.
It is a real war with real casualties.
The week after I left Colombia, the Lance Arrows that I had the
privilege of visiting went out, 125 of them. Eighteen of them returned.
The remainder were either killed or captured.
The point I am trying to make is it does not make much sense to tell
our uniformed personnel that work for the Department of Defense that
they are subject to drug testing but the civilian who does almost the
same job as a mechanic, as a technician who is working right next to
him, is not.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Taylor) and will concur, and I intend to vote for his amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
{time} 1915
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)
Tragedy At Thurston High School In Springfield, Oregon
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, a tragic event has occurred in my
congressional district, in my hometown; and I am requesting a leave of
absence for Friday and the balance of the week, as the eyes of the
country turn toward my hometown of Springfield where, early this
morning, a number of students at Thurston High School were shot by a
fellow student.
Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. At
this time, many, many questions remain about the circumstances of this
horrible tragedy. But what we do know is that a terrible tragedy has
occurred. I need to return to Oregon to be with my family and my
community in this time of sorrow.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
use the 5 minutes in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have a drug problem. As a State Senator of
Mississippi, I am real proud of the fact that I helped pass the
toughest drug law in America. In Mississippi, if you sell two ounces of
cocaine, two ounces of heroin, 100 pills, 10 pounds of marijuana, in
one sale or intent or a series of sales over the period of 1 year, you
are caught and convicted, you spend the rest of your life in the
Mississippi State Penitentiary.
But it is not enough, because we have this disconnect in our country
where we say, if you are a dealer, you are bad; if but if you use it,
it is okay.
I often wonder how many kids here on Capitol Hill use drugs. They
work for our Nation. They should not. I would hope at some point during
this Congress we will see to it that everyone who works for this
Nation, as a requirement of working for this Nation, will subject
themselves to drug tests.
But I cannot do that on this bill. I can, however, require that we
take a step in that direction and say if you are going to work for our
Nation's Department of Defense, if you are committing your life to
defending our Nation or working to support those people who defend our
Nation, you are not going to use drugs. You are not going to take your
Federal paycheck and break the law and use illegal drugs. That is what
we are asking to do.
I do not think there is any opposition to this. I want to thank the
chairman for allowing this amendment to come to the floor. I want to
thank our ranking member who went to bat with the Committee on Rules to
see to it that this amendment was made in order.
I want to thank the Committee on Rules. I think they made a mistake
[[Page H3710]]
when they voted not to bring it to the floor, but they admitted their
mistake and saw to it that it could be voted on. It takes a big man to
admit he made a mistake.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) considered as amendment number
41 printed in part D of House Report 105-544.
Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Thomas
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part D amendment No. 41 made in order by an order of the
House of May 21, 1998, offered by Mr. Thomas:
At the end of title XXXIV (page 373, after line 2), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 3408. TREATMENT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA CLAIM REGARDING
NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NUMBERED 1.
Section 3415(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 7420
note) is amended by striking out the first sentence and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``Amounts in the
contingent fund shall be available for paying a claim
described in subsection (a) in accordance with the terms of,
and the payment schedule contained in, the Settlement
Agreement entered into between the State of California and
the Department of Energy, dated October 11, 1996, and
supplemented on December 10, 1997. The Secretary shall modify
the Settlement Agreement to negate the requirements of the
Settlement Agreement with respect to the request for and
appropriation of funds.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly do want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on National Security and the ranking member, respectively the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), first of all for their courtesy in allowing me
to discuss the amendment at this time. Actually, I have to go back. The
original genesis of this amendment is once again thanking them; only at
that time they were known as the Armed Services Committee and the
subcommittee that consists of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman)
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
It involved the sale of the naval petroleum reserve known as Elk
Hills. In 1974 President Ford ordered oil produced at this naval
petroleum reserve at its maximum efficient rate. For more than two
decades, oil was produced commercially, but it was a government-held
property. We always wanted to try to sell it if it was going to be used
to simply produce oil to sell. But as I was wont to say at one time,
you can shear a sheep every year, and you can slaughter it only once.
It was producing more than $1 billion a year of revenue for more than
a decade. But the gentleman from Virginia put together a sale and
bidding procedure which not only succeeded in reaching the CBO's
estimate of a $2.6 billion sale, but, in fact, sold for $3.65 billion.
One of the reasons we think it sold at that price was that a lien on
land held by State teachers, given to the teachers during the land
grant college period, and the tracts of land being incorporated in the
Elk Hills area, they never received a penny off the land. It was a
Federal Reserve. But when it was going to be released for sale, they
certainly were going to claim a revenue stream from that land.
The solution put in the legislation in the then Armed Services bill
was to take 9 percent of the sales price, whatever it was, and provide
it to the State Teachers Retirement Fund. It was put in language that
said pursuant to an appropriation.
Elk Hills has been sold, $3.65 billion. Almost $326 million is held
in reserve to be doled out over the years. In the wisdom of a number of
people around here, we came to the conclusion of why not just give it
to them. The money is sitting there. There is no reason to dole it out.
Certainly $1 billion more than was planned would cover the cost of
moving these dollars.
So I am indebted, once again, to the now Committee on National
Security for their willingness to accommodate the ability to pay the
State teachers once out of a fund that is now reserved. That is the sum
and substance of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, as there is no Member to claim the time in
opposition, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I hereby yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, after having once again thanked the
Committee on National Security, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment D-19 Offered By Mr. Gilman.
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 405,
noes 9, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 181]
AYES--405
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
[[Page H3711]]
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--9
Brown (CA)
Dooley
Fazio
Frank (MA)
McIntyre
Pickett
Sawyer
Skelton
Tauscher
NOT VOTING--19
Bateman
Blumenauer
Coyne
Dixon
Foley
Gonzalez
Harman
Johnson, Sam
McDade
Meeks (NY)
Oxley
Parker
Quinn
Skaggs
Spratt
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Wicker
Yates
{time} 1942
Messrs. FAZIO of California, FRANK of Massachusetts and SAWYER
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SISISKY, ADAM SMITH of Washington and RANGEL and Mrs. CAPPS
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3616,
the Department of Defense Authorization Act for FY 99, because it
contains two egregious provisions which adversely affect women in the
military--allowing gender segregated training and housing facilities,
and banning access to health care clinics overseas for a full range of
health care services.
However, I am in support of the bill's authorization of $655 million
to aid in the cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats nuclear site near
Denver. This total represents an additional $40 million to President
Clinton's request, and I commend the Committee on National Security for
its vision and leadership on this important project.
Yet the provisions which attacks on the rights of women in the
military are needless poison pills to this very important and necessary
authorization bill. Every woman in America has a constitutional right
to have an abortion. The anti-choice movement in Congress has been
relentless in its effort to overturn this constitutional right.
Additionally, segregating women from men will not improve discipline,
training, or effectiveness. In times of war, women and men fight
together, not separately. In fact, our military opposes this
initiative, yet the House of Representatives has approved this
unprecedented initiative.
Consequently, I oppose this legislation in its current form and I
urge my colleagues to think about the message they are sending to all
American women when they take away these rights of military women. I
hope that the conference report will return to the House without these
two meanspirited and harmful provisions.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would
like to commend the work of both the Chairman, Mr. Spence and the
Ranking Member, Mr. Skelton. I believe the priorities which they have
established in this bill are good for both our Nation and for our
Nation's defense.
We are preparing to enter the 14th consecutive year of real decline
in defense spending. I am one of those who believe that we cannot
continue to put the military at risk. The funding constraints imposed
by the balanced budget agreement make our choices more difficult.
However, we still must ensure that other priorities do not drive us
away from one of the primary responsibilities the Congress has, and
that is ensuring for the Nation's defense.
We all realize that the United States holds a unique position in the
world. People all over the globe look to us for security and stability.
It may not be fair, but it is the reality. While our Military Forces
are shrinking, operations around the world are increasing. The
increased pace of peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and other
contingency operations is forcing our Armed Forces to do more with
less. However, doing more with less is not always conducive with
ensuring the long term readiness of our Armed Services. Our troops
serving today in Bosnia are just one of the recent examples of our
global leadership and responsibility. I continue to support our
deployment of troops in Bosnia and believe the work they are
accomplishing there makes America a better place and the world a safer
one.
I say to both the Chairman and the Ranking Member that their
priorities are right for our Nation, we need to stand up for those
priorities and pursue them.
I support this bill to authorize $270 billion for critical defense
needs in fiscal year 1999 and want to commend the committee for what is
in the bill before us: a 3.6% military pay raise; the $2.7 billion for
procurement of 27 FA-18 E/F's; $36.2 billion for continued research and
development, which includes $456 million for the joint strike fighter;
the continued support for the important mission of the special
operations command; the $2 billion to purchase the second new attack
submarine. The $285 million for 30 Blackhawk helicopters, 18 of which
are for the Army National Guard; and the procurement of 8 V-22 Ospreys
for the Marine Corps.
I also want to commend Chairman Hefley and Ranking Member Ortiz for
their work on authorizing $8.2 billion for military construction.
I commend the Committee for funding these DOD and Navy priorities and
for addressing the needs of our men and women in the Armed Services.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, although I am unable to cast my vote for
this legislation, I am pleased to take this opportunity to voice my
support for H.R. 3616, the Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense
Authorization Act.
For the fourth consecutive year, the Department of Defense's
modernization budget fell far short of the $60 billion that former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Shalikashvili testified the
military needs each year to update its aging force. Even more
disturbing is the continuing trend of budget requests for modernization
that are billions less than they were forecast to be during the
previous year.
The research and development situation in the United States military
looks very bleak as well. Spending for research and development
accounts are forecasted to fall by at least fourteen percent.
This year's overall budget request represents the lowest real level
of U.S. defense spending since before the Korean War. Clearly, the
practice of the United States military increasing its number of
missions while resources decline will continue unless the defense
budget is increased.
H.R. 3616, while consistent with the Balanced Budget Act, continues
the 14-year trend of real decline in defense spending. I commend the
National Security Committee for working within these constraints to
focus the limited resources available on addressing readiness, quality
of life, and modernization shortfalls. This bill provides the
Department of Defense with some of the tools necessary to better
recruit and retain quality personnel, better train them to the highest
possible standards, and better equip them with advanced military
technology while trying to provide for an improved quality of life.
The high pace of operations continues unabated with attendant
negative impacts on military quality of life. America's military forces
are under severe stress.
H.R. 3616 takes proactive measures to directly reduce the stress and
would provide military personnel a 3.6 percent pay raise--.5 percent
more than that requested in the budget--to halt the growing pay gap. In
addition, the bill limits the Department of Defense's ability to
accelerate military personnel cuts and add $74 million to help the Army
maintain adequate manpower levels.
Among many other important provisions, the bill also would mandate
that burial honors for all veterans be provided on request after
October 1999 and increase funding for the National Guard Youth
Challenge Program to $50 million.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate Chairman Spence
and Ranking Member Skelton for bringing forward a good bill in a tough
year. At a time when we are asking our armed services to do more with
[[Page H3712]]
less, this bill represents the most balanced approach to our military
priorities.
I would like to take a few moments to highlight a few issues in this
legislation that I have had the privilege to work on over the last
several months.
F-22
I am very concerned about recent GAO recommendations that would have
us further delay the F-22. This program has experienced too many delays
and too many reductions in planned buy. Specifically, the GAO has
expressed concern about lack of test hours conducted to date. The truth
is this program is meeting or exceeding all performance targets set by
the USAF, and the Air Force is fully satisfied with the quality of data
derived from the test hours that have been conducted.
Furthermore, last year this Congress imposed a very restrictive,
unprecedented cost cap on the contractor, a cap that set in stone the
cost of this program over a planned buy of nearly 340 aircraft. I am
pleased to report that the Air Force and contractor are meeting the
terms of those caps while also meeting established performance
requirements. Now is not the time to throw this program into further
disarray.
I am also pleased to report that Raptor 01, our first test aircraft,
flew again just two days ago at Edwards AFB. This fully successful
flight lasted nearly two hours. The bottom line is that this bill
provides for a fully funded program that is absolutely necessary to
ensuring air dominance for our warfighters into the 21st century. I
commend the Committee on its work in this area.
jstars
Over the last decade, DoD has well-established this nation's ground
reconnaissance need. That need is translated into 19 fully operational
JointSTARS aircraft. Today, DoD is ignoring that stated need for 19
aircraft, and it has stopped procurement at 13.
This bill makes a commitment for long-lead funding for 2 of the
necessary 6 additional aircraft. In the area of intelligence, there is
no room for compromise. There is no substitute. And the bottom line is
that JSTARS is absolutely necessary to meeting our land reconnaissance
needs in the 21st century.
mwr
Morale, Welfare and Recreation is an issue that does not receive much
attention in such a massive bill, but one that is very important to our
troops in the field--it relates to their quality of life.
I am proud of the good work in this bill, under the leadership of
Chairman McHugh, work that will translate directly into a better
standard of living for our men and women in the armed services.
Tough decisions were made, decisions that require we balance many
interests, but decisions that ultimately must weigh heavily in favor of
the military men and women who have committed themselves to us.
Specifically, the Panel authorized the expansion of commissary
benefits to Reserves from 12 to 24 days. Today we are asking more and
more of our guard and reserve forces. It is only fair that they are
more integrated into our military community, which includes increased
access to the ``military benefit.''
In addition, the Panel worked hard to protect the military resale
system. Notwithstanding the hard work of DoD, the Panel remains
concerned about unsupported initiatives that may do more harm than good
to our resale system.
Finally, I am pleased to report that the Panel recommended a
provision that will require that DoD privately contract for a survey of
military resale consumers to determine their preferences on key issues
facing the resale system. A key item to be surveyed is the desirability
of the availability of beer and wine products in military commissary
stores. The Panel authorized such sale by DoD. It is the opinion of
many members of the Panel that convenience to the military consumer
must come first. I look forward to the results of such a survey.
pay raise
Last, but not least, I am proud to observe that this bill includes a
3.6 percent pay raise for our military members. We must invest in our
military and continue to draw the most talented young people in our
nation. Today we face very serious recruiting and retention issues in
all of our services. It is my hope that this pay raise will begin to
show our commitment to the hard work our military does every day.
more funding
Mr. Chairman, we have done the best with what we have been given.
However, it is not enough. The world continues to be a dangerous place,
and recent developments in India and Pakistan bring this point home. As
Chairman Weldon often notes, we are facing a train wreck around 2001
and 2002--a train wreck that will require tradeoffs that will not be in
the national security interest of this nation. We must have more
resources, as we must never grow complacent with our role as the
world's superpower. I vow to work together with my colleagues to
continue to press for adequate funding of our military priorities.
Until that day, I am pleased to report that this bill is a fair balance
of our priorities.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY 1999
Defense Authorization Act and in appreciation of the inclusion of a
provision, brought to my attention by my constituent, Mr. James
Biscardi of Quakertown, Pennsylvania. Without his continued dedication,
the men of the Navy Armed Guard, who served with honor, dignity, and
courage, would still be awaiting their deserved congressional
recognitioin.
In the beginning of the 104th Congress, Mr. Biscardi, a true American
Patriot, contacted my office seeking recognitioin for those who served
in the Navy Armed Guard. By working with him, I drafted legislation,
now part of the FY 1999 Defense Authorization Act, that recognizes the
outstanding service of the members of the Armed Guard during World Wars
I and II and thanks the surviving crewmen of the Armed Guard for their
service.
The Armed Guard was created as a branch of the United States Navy
during World War I to protect the merchant ships of the United States
by maintaining weapons on 384 merchant ships. During World War II, the
Armed Guard was reactivated as a response to the German strategy of
attacking and sinking merchant ships, even those of neutral countries,
which appeared to be bringing goods to the Allied Nations in Europe.
Over 144,900 men served in the Armed Guard on 6,236 merchant ships
during World War II. Nearly 2,000 of these men made the supreme
sacrifice, and gave their lives in defense of their country.
The dedication of, and sacrifices made, by the men of the Armed Guard
deserve the recognition and gratitude of the United States. Through the
passage of the Defense Authorization bill, the United States Congress
will be acknowledging the outstanding service of the 144,970 men who
served in the Armed Guard during World War II, and the men who served
in World War I. These men have earned a heartfelt thanks from the
country that they so gallantly fought to protect.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3616) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths
for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 441, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1945
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts moves that the bill be
recommitted to the Committee on National Security with
instructions to report it back forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of title XII (page , after line ), insert
the following new section:
SEC. . WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM THE
REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.
(a) Limitation.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999
may be used for the deployment of United States Armed Forces
in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina after December 31,
1998, unless a law has been enacted that explicitly
authorizes the deployment of such Armed Forces.
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation contained in subsection (a)
shall not apply with respect to--
(1) the deployment of United States Armed Forces for the
express purpose of ensuring
[[Page H3713]]
the safe withdrawal of such Armed Forces from the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina;
(2) a limited number of members of United States Armed
Forces sufficient only to protect United States diplomatic
facilities and citizens; or
(3) noncombatant personnel to advise the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) Commander in the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence) reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for
intruding at this late date, but it did seem to me, having the elected
representatives of the American people vote on whether or not American
ground troops ought to stay in Bosnia until infinity was a reasonable
use of about 20 minutes.
It is not ideal to do it this way, but the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Hilleary), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I submitted
this germane amendment in a timely fashion to the Committee on Rules
and we were told we could not debate it. My colleagues may not realize
how important the issues have been that we have been dealing with,
because they were so important, the ones we have been debating for the
last couple of days, that we did not have a chance to vote on Bosnia.
We are told that we are spread too thin. A number of Members have
complained of the President's dispensing the troops to Bosnia. Being
heard here today is important, because a lot of Members here have been
heard on the subject of Bosnia. I am delighted to give them a chance to
put their voting cards where their mouths have been.
We are here faced with an amendment that says the troops have to
leave by December 31. That is plenty of time. It does allow for troops
afterwards, if they are needed, to pull out in an orderly fashion. This
is a correctly drawn amendment by the gentleman from California. It
even says, because we were told, well, later we will come in with the
right conditions. This amendment says, if a subsequent bill comes
forward, then that will cover it. All this says is, we will not by
silence acquiesce in the indefinite extension of that mission.
This is not Mission Creep, this is Mission Rush. This is Mission
Hurdle, and we are all allowing it to happen if we do not vote for
this.
Now, I believe it was a good thing that the world, and the U.S.
leading, stopped people from killing each other in Bosnia. The fight
has been broken up; we have stopped the killing. We have a relatively
easy military mission, I think. It is to keep the combatants apart.
Now, Bosnia is very close to the following countries: Germany,
France, Italy, England, the Scandinavian countries, the Benelux
countries. They are members of a vestigial organization known as NATO.
We are giving NATO a chance to mean something. The U.S. carries the
burden in South Korea; the U.S. carries the burden in Iraq. Is it never
to be time for Europe to do something on their own? Can Europe never be
expected by us to do this? It is a relatively small thing: Keep the
troops in this police action to separate people.
Members just voted, I did not vote, but Members just voted to put
American troops on the border. Well, where are they going to come from?
Maybe we can take them from Bosnia. We are told we have to have troops
in Europe because they are our allies. Well, if that is the case, if we
show we are allies by having troops in each other's countries, are we
sending for Dutch troops to control the Mexican border to deal with
drugs? Can we expect some French troops to help us implement the
Traficant amendment? We cannot keep voting for more and more and not
sometimes say no. If we do not believe the European troops are capable
of maintaining the peace in Bosnia on their own, then let us stop
pretending that there is anything but a unilateral American presence.
This amendment is a chance for Members to vote to say, and we will
save, by the way, $2 billion. In the supplemental we asked for $162
million a month, Pentagon calculation. That is the incremental cost of
keeping the troops in Bosnia. So we can save $2 billion on the defense
bill, we can inconvenience our European allies by asking them to
increase their forces, and we can be consistent if we have said we are
for pulling the troops out of Bosnia, and I have to say to my
Republican colleagues, you have been fighting the President all over
the place. You have been whacking him and hitting him and smacking him.
This is something he cares about. They have the troops in Bosnia, you
have been shadow boxing and dancing and creating and melting snowmen.
You have been taking care of China and you have been taking care of
this and that. Here it is.
The chairman of the Committee on Rules said he could not allow this
amendment because the President told him not to. Well, the President
cannot control the vote on a motion to recommit, so if you want to show
that you believe in the constitutional function of Congress, you can
vote for it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I
will only take a moment to say that the gentleman in the well is
expressing about the most important prerogative that a Member of the
House of Representatives can express. The Constitution makes it
imperative that we vote to go to war, that it not be done by a
President, that it be done by the people's representatives. When we
send soldiers and sailors and air personnel to die overseas, they must
know it is with the approval of the people's representatives in this
House.
I applaud the gentleman for his courage and I ask for an ``aye''
vote.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
the time, but I hope I do not yield back the prerogatives of this
House.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim
the time in opposition to the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let us stop and pause for a moment in where we are. This is a motion
to recommit saying we are going to tell the President of the United
States that he has to bring the troops home and we have to do it now. I
have been before this body and I have stood here and I have offered
amendments in the past with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale). I did not like how we
went into the Dayton Accords, but let us stop and think about where we
are right now.
Has the mission been successful? It has. Have we completely and
always agreed? No, we have not. I gave a commitment to the President, I
said I would no longer be your critic, I will be your constructive
critic, and this is not about politics, because it could be in the year
2000 we could have a Republican President and we are going to inherit
Bosnia and there are going to be troops that are going to be in Bosnia,
because I firmly believe those troops are still going to be in Bosnia.
The key is, how do we slowly bring those troops home so we then have a
commitment to an enduring peace in Bosnia? That is what this is about,
an enduring peace in Bosnia.
Do not get consumed by this by saying, oh, this has got to be about
the troops, bringing the troops home. If we believe in the commitment
toward peace, if we really believe in that, this is also about NATO and
our relationship with our NATO allies. Oh, I also want NATO to carry;
actually, I want our European allies to carry a greater burden in the
peace and the stability of the continent of Europe.
But right now, where are we right now? This is not a wise thing to
do. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) of the Committee on
International Relations and myself are working on a resolution, along
with the administration. When the President of the United States said
that what we are going to do is we are going to set very real
benchmarks for success in the civil implementation of Bosnia,
[[Page H3714]]
what is key is that we make sure that the benchmarks of success are
realistic, they are viable, and that they are pragmatic.
What we are going to do is, and we put this into resolution form, we
want to come here to this body so that everyone has a comfort level
with regard to the benchmarks of success, because I do not want, nor do
my colleagues want troops in Bosnia for a very long time, and what is
unfortunate is they may be there because of the parameters that were
set out in the predicate of the Dayton Accords that may require
generation secure.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this.
We debated this fully this past March. With the gentleman in the well
I had an amendment that opposed the initial placing of troops in Bosnia
for the simple reason that there was army and training that should not
have taken place. That has been a success. This is not the right
message to send to the troops, it is not the right message to send to
our allies who, by the way, furnish 75 percent of the troops there, and
by the way, provide 85 percent of the reconstruction assistance. I
think we should vote this down and pass this bill.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 251, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 182]
AYES--167
Archer
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blunt
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Danner
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
Doggett
Duncan
Emerson
English
Ensign
Ewing
Farr
Filner
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Ganske
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hooley
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Owens
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shays
Shimkus
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOES--251
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Livingston
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Bateman
Foley
Gonzalez
Harman
Johnson, Sam
McDade
Meeks (NY)
Parker
Quinn
Skaggs
Spratt
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Wicker
Yates
{time} 2013
Mrs. EMERSON and Messrs. NETHERCUTT, SNOWBARGER, McKEON and
HUTCHINSON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a five-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 357,
noes 60, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 183]
AYES--357
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
[[Page H3715]]
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--60
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Conyers
Cramer
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Doggett
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Filner
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
Lee
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Miller (CA)
Minge
Morella
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Paul
Payne
Petri
Rahall
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanders
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Stark
Velazquez
Vento
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--16
Bateman
Foley
Gonzalez
Goodling
Harman
Johnson, Sam
McDade
Meeks (NY)
Parker
Quinn
Skaggs
Spratt
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Wicker
Yates
{time} 2021
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. Yates against.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read:
``A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________