[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 118 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H8128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2670, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2000

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2670) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.


            Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that in resolving the difference between the 
     House and Senate, the managers on the part of the House at 
     the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
     the bill H.R. 2670, be instructed to insist on the higher 
     funding levels for programs related to embassy security 
     included in the House-passed bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is what level of funding we ought 
to provide to do our dead-level best to provide security arrangements 
for our various embassies around the world. As we very well know, we 
have had a number of terrorist attacks against those embassies. Many 
people in our society have a tendency to dismiss State Department 
officials as being ``stripe pants boys.'' But the fact is that many of 
them have lost their lives promoting U.S. interests around the world 
and a number of those lives have been lost in terrorist attacks.
  I find it somewhat interesting that the administration seems to be in 
a position where they are damned if you do and damned if they do not in 
terms of embassy security.
  I remember earlier in the year the House committee held a hearing and 
at that point demanded that the administration support a higher level 
of funding for embassy security. The administration requested an 
additional $314 million in this bill, and the House committee approved 
$314 million. But then when it got to the Senate, the Senate cut back 
that number to $110 million.
  In my view, the House number is correct. The purpose of this motion 
is to send a clear signal that the House would prefer to fund the 
highest level possible given what the spread of the difference is 
between the House and the Senate on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. This is a motion that we can agree to. 
It is not controversial, at least on this side of the Capitol. It may 
be when we reach the other body.
  But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is correct. After the 
embassy bombings in Africa, the administration made announcements that 
they were going to pursue embassy security around the world in a much 
more vigorous way, something that we agree with here in this 
subcommittee and I think the full Congress.

                              {time}  1715

  But then when the administration sent their budget to the Hill, we 
looked very quickly to the section dealing with embassy security and 
maintenance of U.S. missions abroad, and found that there was an 
absolutely inadequate request. When the Secretary came to testify 
before the subcommittee, the request, I think, was for $36 million. We 
told the Secretary that the request was absolutely inadequate, that we 
had to pay attention to the problems that were being presented to us 
around the world in the way of threats to our personnel, and we asked 
her to go back to the White House and to come up with an amended 
request.
  In due course of time, they did just that. And so the request, then, 
from the administration was amended. They requested an additional $264 
million, for a total of $300 million for a security capital 
construction program. And that is exactly the dollar figure that the 
subcommittee, the full committee and now the full House included in 
this appropriation bill. The Senate bill is at $36 million for this 
program. That is the original request level. The Crowe Commission, 
named for Admiral Crowe who headed it up, dealing with embassy 
security, had called for a major investment in new secure embassy 
facilities. That followed on the heels of many other requests by 
various commissions down through the years. And so we stand ready to 
pursue the full House figure. We hope we can convince our colleagues 
across the Capitol that this level of funding is necessary.
  I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for bringing the 
matter to the attention of the body, and it is a matter that we can 
fully agree upon. I urge the adoption of the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would simply say in closing that I think this is one point on which 
there is no difference of opinion between the administration and the 
House on either side of the aisle in the House. I do think if I were 
the administration, I would be hard-pressed to follow the conflicting 
instructions that seem to be coming from the two congressional bodies, 
with the Senate going in one direction and the House in another, but I 
think they are going in the right direction on this item with their 
amended request. I think the House agrees with that. I think this 
motion to instruct will make it clear to the Senate that we believe 
they ought to back off and accept the higher number now contained in 
the administration request.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Rogers, Kolbe, Taylor of North Carolina, 
Regula, Latham, Miller of Florida, Wamp, Young of Florida, Serrano, 
Dixon, Mollohan, Ms. Roybal-Allard and Mr. Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________