[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3314-H3318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins). Pursuant to House Resolution
503 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 4205.
{time} 1024
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year
2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina (Chairman
pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, May 7, 2000, amendments en bloc printed in House Report 106-
621 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) had been
disposed of.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 10 printed in House
Report 106-621.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Sanford
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Sanford:
At the end of title III (page 82, after line 14), insert
the following new section:
SEC. ____. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR LESS-THAN-FAIR-MARKET-
VALUE TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Provisions Repealed.--Sections 381 and 2576a of title
10, United States Code, are repealed.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 18 of such title is amended by striking
the item relating to section 381.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 153
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 2576a.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I think is in the best
interests of the United States military, and I say that for many
different reasons. But one of the reasons I would say that is that when
the American taxpayer buys this helicopter, not this helicopter, but
the model that it represents, this is a UH-68 Blackhawk Helicopter, is
it runs somewhere between $8- and $10 million a copy. That is when they
buy them.
Now, at the end of the cycle, when the Army is through using them,
rather than selling the wheels or selling the motor or selling the
frame or selling the whole thing, it is given away. It is given away to
other pieces of the Federal Government, it is given away to State or
local governments. I think that in this era, which has been talked
about through the course of this debate, of scarce military dollars,
the military needs every dollar they can have. Rather than continuing
to give these dollars away, why does the military not keep it?
The origins ever the program behind giving this helicopter and other
things away made a lot of sense 50 years ago, because in the wake of
World War II we had all kinds of things out there. So the idea was let
us give some of this stuff away.
What is interesting is by the Department of Defense's own estimates,
roughly, approximately, $350 million a year gets given away through
this program. Now, that is, if you assume that this helicopter is worth
$1. If it is, in fact, worth $10, we are talking about $3.5 billion a
year that is given away out of the back door of DOD to other agencies,
State, local or Federal.
Now, to give you an idea of scale, the Law Enforcement Support
Program takes 5,000 orders a day. It gives away, as I said, that amount
of money. Over the last two years, they have given away, given away,
253 aircraft, including 6 and 7 passenger airplanes, Blackhawks, Hueys,
MD-500s and Bell Jet Rangers. They have given away 7,800 M-16s, they
have given away 181 grenade launchers, they have given away 1,161 pair
of night vision goggles. That is a lot of things, and that is just part
of the list.
To give you another idea of scale, the State and Local Law
Enforcement Equipment Procurement Program sells at reduced prices a
number of things within the DOD inventory. I went down their Web page.
If you look on the Web page, you will find things like wristwatches,
stopwatches, compasses, lubricating oil, commercial automobile oil,
camping and hiking equipment.
The point of all that is to say this is not used stuff. It is not
used, like the helicopter. It is brand new stuff that is still sitting
in its case. It has market value. It could be sold at an open auction,
and those dollars could be used by DOD for procurement and they could
be used for training.
So I offer this amendment because it stops money from being siphoned
off from defense. It, secondly, helps to create a clear budget. If we
are to make good decisions in government, they rest on reality. Budgets
have to show reality. Unfortunately, current budgets do not. What they
do is they overstate the cost of defense, and they understate the cost
of other Federal agencies, and understate the cost of state and local
government.
The third reason I offer this amendment is because it is in the best
interest of the taxpayer. That is why it is supported by the National
Taxpayers Union, that is why it is supported by Citizens Against
Government Waste. They do so because if something is given to you, you
oftentimes treat it very differently than if you have to pay dearly for
it.
To give you an idea of the kind of excesses that occur in this
program, for instance, 60 Minutes did a special about 2 years ago about
a small rural county in central Florida that, through this program,
among other things, had been given 23 helicopters, an armored personnel
carrier, and two C-12 airplanes. As it turned out, that county was
using it as a revenue source.
{time} 1030
They would keep the stuff for a couple of years and then they would
sell it on the open market, making hundreds of thousands of dollars for
that county.
If it is not used that way, frankly, it is used strangely. I went to
a county in South Carolina where the chief of police was taking
helicopter lessons in a helicopter that would run $1,500 an hour. It
did not cost the county that much because they had been given the
helicopter, but it did cost the taxpayer that much.
Another reason I offer this is if it is not used that way, the
equipment sits idly by. I flew into a small county airport in South
Carolina surrounded with a number of large Air Force and Navy
airplanes, and I said to my brother, what is the trouble with these
airplanes?
They were given to the county through this Federal program and, as he
explained it, the county accepted it not because they had any use for
it, the equipment had been sitting there for years, but because they
could not afford not to take it since it was given away.
I think this amendment makes common sense. I would urge its adoption.
It is about priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that any program that any agency
of government runs may have some abuses in it, and certainly the
Committee on Armed Services would like to know where there are abuses
and to be able to correct them.
Basically what this amendment does is to repeal two sections of the
code which have proven extremely useful to law enforcement throughout
America.
[[Page H3315]]
One section of the code that would be eliminated is a provision which
allows local law enforcement agencies to buy equipment from the catalog
list that is available to the Department of Defense and buy it at the
prices that the Federal Government or the Department of Defense,
through their purchasing power, can obtain at lower prices.
I, frankly, see no reason why we should deprive law enforcement
agencies of the opportunity to acquire equipment that they need to
fight crime at the lowest price and to have the Federal Government
being involved in cooperating and making that possible.
The second aspect of the amendment would repeal a provision of the
law that says that the Department of Defense can give to local law
enforcement agencies surplus equipment that is no longer needed by the
Department of Defense.
This has been a source for a great deal of equipment moving to law
enforcement agencies, has been very helpful to them, and this provision
has the strong support of law enforcement agencies and associations
throughout the country, and certainly the amendment has the resounding
opposition of those agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum).
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bateman) for yielding 2 minutes to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am very strongly committed to the proposition that we
need to rebuild our defenses, that they have been built down way too
far, and I am sympathetic to the concerns about saving money and doing
that that the gentleman who offered this amendment proposes.
I also chair the Subcommittee on Crime in the House and I know that
the programs he is trying to strike here are vital to the efforts of
local law enforcement to be able to fight the drug war, to be able to
do what they have to do in antiterrorism. I have been personally out in
the field in numerous jurisdictions looking at things where the surplus
properties were properties purchased because of the buying program that
allows the volume to be purchased the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bateman) talked about that are in full use.
Principally, they are helicopters that they are acquiring in the
excess surplus program so they can fly around and deal with the issue
of locating marijuana growing areas or finding the bad guys or
whatever.
The oil that the gentleman referred to is used to be able to have the
oil for the airplanes for the most part. Maybe occasionally it is oil
for their vehicles that they would not otherwise be able to do.
Sadly but truthfully, local law enforcement does not have the kind of
resources allocated to it from the counties and the local government or
the States that are required to be able to have this larger item, the
helicopters in particular, and if they had to go out and buy that from
scratch there simply would not be the kind of protection to the
citizenry we need in law enforcement in the local communities. There
would not be the helicopters flying around at night that many people
see helping to deter crime and locating these narcotraffickers and
others that are out there.
So I have to reluctantly, severely, oppose this amendment. Counties
like Hernando and Lake in Florida, in particular, I think have recently
acquired such products as this. Bulletproof vests, helmets, computers,
other critically items when they are in surplus, should go to the local
law enforcement community first.
I think they should go the right way at a lower cost or at no cost in
certain cases, such as the helicopters, where they are in excess and we
need them for the protection of our folks.
So I strongly oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote
no on it.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining minute of the time
to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor)
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bateman) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to say that the National
Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, the Airborne Law Enforcement Association all oppose the Sanford
amendment, but I would also remind him that Charleston County is the
beneficiary of this. They have received a helicopter, as has Greenville
County, South Carolina; as has Lexington County, South Carolina; as has
Saluda County; as has the South Carolina Law Enforcement Divisions.
Actually, this is a very good program. The taxpayers paid for these
things. It makes sense that our underfunded cities and counties should
be able to use them before some foreign country gets them. That is why
we changed the law about 8 years ago to give the American taxpayer
preference for these things. We should leave the law as it is.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would not dispute any of the things
about this program of having great value to local law enforcement. The
simple question I would ask is one of priorities.
It is one that I am trying to teach my young boys, and that is right
now given what we have talked about in this debate, which is the
scarcity of dollars in the Department of Defense, we simply have to set
priorities. We cannot do both, and that is why I think these dollars
ought to be retained within DOD.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are
talking about surplus equipment. The military has made the decision to
surplus these things. I am not telling them to surplus it. Once they
make that decision, the question is then should the American taxpayers
get the benefit through their counties, through their cities, or should
someone else?
The gentleman would deprive them of those benefits. I think that is a
bad idea.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, my concern with this amendment is quite
simple: while well intentioned, I think it undermines our efforts in
the war on drugs. This amendment would end the ability of State law
enforcement agencies to purchase equipment needed specifically for the
war on drugs and the fight against terrorism. While the phrase ``war on
drugs'' tends to bring to mind images of jungles in Latin America, the
reality is that it is fought everyday on our streets, in our
schoolyards and playgrounds. Vivid proof of this came a few years ago
in my southwest Florida district--the regional office of the Drug
Enforcement Agency was blown up by individuals involved in drug
trafficking. Allowing the Defense Department to sell appropriate
surplus equipment to law enforcement agencies ensures they have the
tools they need to counter this very real threat. I encourage my
colleagues to reject the Sanford amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Sanford Amendment to H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2001. This amendment proposes to eliminate an important
element of a federal cooperative purchasing program which allows state
and local police departments to purchase supplies and services at
superdiscounted federal prices.
In 1997, I worked with police departments in my own congressional
district to promote participation in cooperative purchasing. Twelve of
my district's sixteen police chiefs attended a workshop that I
sponsored on the cooperative purchasing process. I sponsored this
workshop because I view cooperative purchasing as an invaluable
resource for police departments seeking to maximize their operations
budgets. The ability to purchase supplies and services at
superdiscounted federal prices makes for better equipped and more
efficient police forces.
The elimination of cooperative purchasing would clearly be contrary
to the interests of the tax payers not just in my own district, but
across the country. Created in 1994, as a provision in the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), cooperative purchasing takes
advantage of the federal government's purchasing power. As a large
consumer of all kinds of goods and services, the federal government's
procurement agency--the General Services Administration (GSA)--
negotiates superdiscounted prices with the suppliers of these goods and
services. Cooperative purchasing simply allows state and local police
departments to purchase surplus items directly from the federal
government at these superdiscounted prices. The result is millions and
[[Page H3316]]
millions of dollars in savings for our nation's taxpayers. To eliminate
cooperative purchasing would be to eliminate these savings.
Cooperative purchasing has allowed state and local police departments
around the nation to make meaningful cuts in their supply budgets. Some
police departments have been able to cut their supply costs by 10
percent. Should we vote to eliminate cooperative purchasing, the
American tax payer will be forced to pay a premium in order to properly
equip the men and women who keep our nation's neighborhoods safe. The
elimination of cooperative purchasing powers would represent yet
another instance of special interests being promoted over the public
interest.
I urge my fellow Members of Congress to vote against the Sanford
Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) will be postponed.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) for a colloquy.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment at the desk regarding
section 2813 that I was going to offer, but after working with the
Committee on Armed Services I have decided not to offer it.
My concern with section 2813 was the possibility that it could alter
current law with respect to the military's ability to control utilities
distribution facilities located on military bases.
The committee-adopted bill appeared to eliminate the Department of
Defense's discretion to award privatization contracts based on
competitive merit and instead shift the discretion to the State
regulatory bodies.
I feared that the State regulatory authorities would have the
opportunity to veto the Department of Defense's procurement decisions
and direct DOD to award contracts to local incumbent utilities instead,
thus opening the door for an unprecedented relinquishment of Federal
contracting authority.
I also had concerns that this language might overly restrict the list
of eligible bidders. The purpose of my amendment was to ensure that the
Federal Government receives the maximum number of bids for those
privatized facilities with a corresponding maximum amount of revenue to
the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment at the desk that I was going to
offer, but after working with the Committee on Armed Services I decided
not to offer it.
I would like to enter into a colloquy, if I might, about section
2813, with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado for a colloquy
with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to enter into a colloquy
with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. LARGENT. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley).
The gentleman from Colorado has been very gracious in agreeing to
work with the interested Members, including members of the Committee on
Commerce, on this provision as the bill proceeds through the
legislative process. I am concerned that this provision, which allows
for the privatization of utility systems on military bases as it is
currently drafted, is overly broad in requiring compliance not only
with State laws but also with State rulings and policies.
It is unclear to me how someone would comply with a State policy, and
there is the strong possibility that some State agencies could use that
language to develop policies that are not consistent with State law. I
hope we can work together to fix this problem.
Mr. HEFLEY. I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent),
I have committed to work with him to make sure that the language is not
overly broad. We do not intend for it to be overly broad. We do not
intend for it to create inconsistencies with State law and regulation.
I am happy to work with the gentleman on that.
Mr. LARGENT. I also am concerned that the provision only mentions
State law and does not mention Federal law, and I hope that the
provision can be modified to make it clear that purchasers of these
systems have to comply with relevant Federal law, such as the Federal
Power Act, as well as State law.
Mr. HEFLEY. I agree, and I would not want that unintended consequence
either.
Mr. LARGENT. Finally, as the gentleman knows, we are very close to
passing a bill to increase competition in the electric utility
industry. I and several members of the Committee on Commerce are
concerned that this language would have the unintended consequence of
increasing the monopoly power of incumbent utilities in these areas. I
hope the gentleman will work with concerned Members to make sure that
these provisions are not used in a manner contrary to what we are
trying to do with electricity restructuring legislation.
Mr. HEFLEY. I will work with the gentleman and other interested
Members to make sure that we do not inadvertently put in place policies
that may be contrary to what might be accomplished with the
comprehensive electrical utility restructuring legislation.
I want to reiterate to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) that
it is the intent of the provision to level the playing field in the
acquisition and maintenance of military utility infrastructure.
Section 2813 would require DOD's privatization initiative in this
area to be conducted consistent with the Competition in Contracting
Act. Moreover, we would require any awardee to conform to State
regulations solely for the terms of that specific contract so that the
same standards apply to infrastructure on both sides of the fence and
that all parties to the competition for the contract are judged by the
same standards.
I agree that competition will get the best result for DOD and for the
taxpayer.
Mr. LARGENT. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with me
on this issue, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the intent of the Largent
amendment.
The existing utility privatization statute is unclear and needs the
clarification we added in Committee with bi-partisan support.
The Committee language ensures fair competition and helps guarantee
the reliability of energy distribution to our military bases.
The amendment would create unregulated monopolies with unprecedented
bargaining power that could hold bases and taxpayers hostage in
contract renegotiations.
Default, abandonment or early termination by the unregulated entities
could imperil reliability and impose huge costs on our bases.
The amendment would upset the process of utility deregulation; no
state has deregulated distribution services.
As approved in Committee, unregulated utilities could still compete.
They would simply be expected to comply with the same health, safety,
reliability, and system standards which apply to every other energy
distribution system in that state.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and maintain the
carefully drafted language approved by the Armed Services Committee.
Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 2 by
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); amendment No. 3 by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier); amendment No. 4 by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther); amendment No. 20 by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); amendment No. 13 by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns); and amendment No. 10 by the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a
[[Page H3317]]
recorded vote on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
At the end of subtitle A of title X (page 302, after line
11), insert the following new section:
SEC. 1006. ONE PERCENT REDUCTION IN FUNDING.
The total amount obligated from amounts appropriated
pursuant to authorizations of appropriations in this Act may
not exceed the amount equal to the sum of such authorizations
reduced by one percent. In carrying out reductions required
by the preceding sentence, no reduction may be made from
amounts appropriated for operation and maintenance or from
amounts appropriated for military personnel.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 88,
noes 331, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 194]
AYES--88
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Clay
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Filner
Frank (MA)
Ganske
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Smith (MI)
Stark
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--331
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Barton
Campbell
Fattah
Fossella
Hoyer
Kaptur
Leach
Markey
Meek (FL)
Mollohan
Salmon
Slaughter
Stupak
Udall (NM)
Young (AK)
{time} 1105
Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. BEREUTER, GORDON, DAVIS of Virginia and Ms.
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. SHAYS, PAYNE, ENGEL, CONYERS and OBERSTAR changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 194 I was unable
to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Pursuant to
House Resolution 503, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a
minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by
electronic device may be taken on each additional amendment on which
the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Dreier
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Dreier:
At the end of title XII (page 338, after line 13), add the
following:
SEC. 1205. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE
LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.
(a) Layover Period for New Performance Levels.--Section
1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. app. 2404 note)is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of subsection (d), by striking
``180'' and inserting ``60''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Calculation of 60-Day Period.--The 60-day period
referred to in subsection (d) shall be calculated by
excluding the days on which either House of Congress is not
in session because of an adjournment of the Congress sine
die.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any new composite theoretical performance
level established for purposes of section 1211(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 that
is submitted by the President pursuant to section 1211(d) of
that Act on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415,
noes 8, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 195]
AYES--415
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
[[Page H3318]]
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--8
Ganske
Green (WI)
Hayworth
Hostettler
Hunter
Payne
Rothman
Taylor (MS)
NOT VOTING--11
Barton
Campbell
Hoyer
Kaptur
Leach
Meek (FL)
Mollohan
Salmon
Stupak
Udall (NM)
Young (AK)
{time} 1113
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 195, I was unable
to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________