[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 85 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5599-H5616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2000
 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4425, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2001

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of 
the House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4425) 
making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and 
base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, the conference report is considered as having been 
read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page H5600]]

  (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this conference report deals with 
the military construction appropriations bill. The conference report 
contains two parts, one is the conference report on the military 
construction appropriation bill, as I said, and the other part is the 
conference report on the supplemental for the Defense Department and 
other items that were passed on March 30 in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hobson), the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction, to explain what is in that part of the bill.
  (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, Division A of the conference report we 
present to the House today recommends a total appropriation of $8.8 
billion for military construction, family housing, and base closure. 
Overall, the agreement recommends $3.6 billion for items related to 
family housing, $4.2 billion for military construction, and $1 billion 
for the implementation of base realignments and closures.
  As always, I want to express my appreciation to all members of the 
subcommittee, as well as expressing to our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for his cooperation in 
crafting this agreement.
  These funds represent an investment program that has significant 
payback in economic terms and in better living and working conditions 
for our military personnel and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the big chairman and all the 
other chairmen that worked on Division B. This has not been an easy 
process for them to go through, but it is an essential process to 
maintaining our defense posture in this country. I hope that when we 
complete our work tonight we will have passed this bill in support of 
our troops, in support of their living conditions, and I want to 
express my sincere thanks to everyone who worked very hard to make this 
a reality this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record data relating to Division A of 
the Military Construction Appropriations Bill.

[[Page H5601]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.041



[[Page H5602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.042



[[Page H5603]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to object to the anti-environmental provision of 
this conference report. That provision is a direct assault on the Clean 
Water Act. It prevents the EPA from proceeding with a final rulemaking 
on the Total Minimum Daily Load proposed rule which has been under 
consideration for several years and which is important to addressing 
the last frontier of the Clean Water Act: discharges from open spaces, 
runoff from land that gets into our waters through our creeks and 
streams, into lakes and rivers, and into estuaries.
  The EPA was proceeding in proper fashion with this rulemaking. It has 
removed from the final rule any reference to and effect upon 
silviculture, forestry, in order to deal more comprehensively, 
effectively and thoroughly with the fundamental issue of runoff from 
nonpoint sources. It is regrettable that language was inserted in 
conference in this bill to prevent EPA from moving ahead to improve the 
quality of the Nation's waters.
  Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago, the majority, with much 
fanfare, claimed to have adopted a policy of no antienvironmental 
riders in appropriations bills. That policy did not last until even the 
first conference report--which does contain language preventing EPA 
from improving the quality of the Nation's waters.
  Mr. Speaker, the provisions in the conference report which prevents 
EPA from proceeding with the TMDL rule is a direct attack on the Clean 
Water Act--preventing EPA from spending any money to advance the 
process of developing and implementing the program for Total Maximum 
Daily Loads.
  The TMDL program is the final phase of the Clean Water Act. It is the 
mechanism by which we will fulfill the promise made to the American 
public in 1972 to make the Nation's waters fishable and swimmable.
  The opposition to the TMDL rule is badly misguided and fueled by an 
unwillingness to achieve water quality in a fair and timely manner. The 
TMDL process is an effective, rational, and defensible process by which 
to achieve the water quality goals of The Clean Water Act.
  This is how the process works: First, states identify those waters 
where the water quality standards which the states have developed are 
not being met.
  Second, states identify the pollutants that are causing the water 
quality impairment.
  Third, states identify the sources of those pollutants.
  Finally, states assign responsibility for reducing those pollutants 
so that the waters can meet the uses that the states have established.
  We have made great improvements in water quality through the 
treatment of municipal waste and industrial discharges. Thanks to 
billions of dollars invested by industries and municipalities, these 
point sources are no longer the greatest source of impairment. 
Nationally, the greatest problem is nonpoint sources. Now, nearly 30 
years after the Clean Water Act, it is time for the states to get all 
sources of pollution to be part of the solution.
  I have heard the arguments that the TMDL rule is not based on 
science. In my considered judgment, the TMDL rule is not only based on 
science, it is also based upon the facts.
  Just this week, EPA published its biennial report entitled ``National 
Water Quality.'' This report provides Congress with information 
developed by the states, and the states tell us that there are still 
major water quality problems to be addressed. Further, the states tell 
Congress that for rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds, the 
leading source of water quality impairment, by far, is runoff from 
urban lands under development and from those agricultural lands that 
are not properly managed to contain runoff.
  Mr. Speaker, the TMDL process is the most fair and efficient way to 
clean up the Nation's waters. The TMDL rule is not perfect. Many have 
criticized it, including some in the environmental community, and EPA 
has responded by making adjustments.
  EPA has changed the TMDL rule to make it clearer and more responsive 
to the concerns of the agricultural community. EPA has also in its 
entirety withdrawn that part of the rule which addresses forestry, and 
has promised to work with stakeholders to develop a new rule.
  The vast majority of the environmental community supports going 
forward. The Department of Agriculture supports going forward. The 
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies supports going forward.
  I hope that EPA does in fact move forward, and that this 
inappropriate, unnecessary rider will be revered in subsequent 
legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today really to offer my thanks to 
the chairman and the ranking member for including in this supplemental 
claims for the Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico. It was less than 2 
months ago now when the National Park Service lit a fire that destroyed 
the homes of over 400 families in the town of Los Alamos in northern 
New Mexico. And in less than 2 months, some folks working very hard 
here have come up with a way to compensate the victims and try to get 
them on the path to rebuilding their homes and their lives.
  I particularly wanted to thank Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman 
for their leadership. I wanted to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young); the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
 Hobson) for their hard work and their willingness to include this 
claims language and the compensation in this bill.
  From the people of New Mexico, we thank you very much.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, my comments will refer to the military construction part 
of this legislation, and I want to start by saying that it is a great 
pleasure to work with the chairman of this Subcommittee on Military 
Construction, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). It is also a 
pleasure to work with the staff, both the majority and minority staff, 
the majority clerk, Liz Dawson, and our minority staff, Tom Forhan.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement, negotiated in a fair and bipartisan 
spirit under the leadership of subcommittee chairman deserves our 
support. It was not an easy negotiation. The bills produced by the two 
parties were miles apart. Therefore, to reach agreement, there were 
worthy construction projects that had to be reduced or dropped. So not 
everyone is happy with the result in either branch or from either side 
of the aisle.
  I am not pleased with giving up the $20 million deferral of 
construction funding for national missile defense that the House-passed 
bill included. It is very clear to me that the appropriations in this 
bill for national missile defense represents a head-long rush toward a 
goal that exceeds our grasp.
  Supporting material for the budget request was thin and vague. Cost 
estimates were based on the most expensive options in every case. The 
prevalent presumption is that the site of the facility will be Alaska, 
which would break the ABM Treaty. With the leadership of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the House tried to apply reality to this 
program; but the Senate was obdurate.
  However, looking at the good in the rest of this bill, I support its 
passage. The agreement provides for better workplaces and housing for 
the men and women that serve our Nation in the military, along with 
their families and, as such, will help us to retain our well-trained 
people.
  The appropriation for military construction is 5 percent higher than 
last year, so we are not losing ground in dealing with our facilities 
and housing backlog. At least half of the dollars of the appropriated 
dollars go to family and bachelor housing, both new and for 
improvements to existing housing. And several hundred million 
additional dollars are for child development centers, hospitals and 
health clinics, and schools. So I think we are on the road to improving 
the quality of life for our military families.
  I want to thank the subcommittee chairman particularly for the 
bipartisan spirit behind this bill. And again I want to recognize both 
the minority and majority staff on this bill. They are dedicated 
professionals who put the time and effort into making this agreement 
real. I urge my colleagues to support the military construction 
conference report.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the

[[Page H5604]]

 chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement, which will, as far as the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs is concerned, will 
provide $1.3 billion in assistance for Plan Colombia.
  There are some in this body and some who question whether or not this 
is the right direction; but this is the direction that the President of 
Colombia, the President of the United States, and our drug czar, 
General McCaffrey, has requested that we submit to the Colombians, this 
necessary ingredient to help them stop the flow of drugs into the 
United States. It is imperative that we do this tonight, and it is 
imperative that my colleagues join with us.
  To satisfy some who are concerned about some of the human rights and 
justice program, we have included an additional $29 million above the 
President's request to make certain that human rights and justice are 
provided for all citizens. And I certainly encourage the Members of 
Congress to vote for it.
  On that note, let us not send any doubt that the U.S. Congress is not 
behind this plan that has been developed to help eradicate this 
tremendous problem for the United States and for the world. Even though 
we have gone through all of the debate and all of the negotiations and 
all of the discussions about whether or not this is the right 
direction, in my opinion this is the right direction at this time. I 
think that if we are going to do anything to combat drugs, we must 
respond to those people who have pledged to eradicate this tremendous 
plague on the people of the United States and the people of the world 
and, at the same time, to provide the Colombian government with the 
necessary resources.
  We are not giving direct cash to the Colombian government. Most of 
the money that we are providing will go in vehicles that are 
manufactured by American workers. Most all of this $1.3 billion will be 
spent here in the United States providing the artillery and providing 
the necessary vehicles that the Colombians need to win this war against 
drugs.
  So this is the time when we should support our President, support the 
Colombian plan, support the other allies throughout the world who are 
contributing nearly $5 billion towards this program. Our share is only 
$1.3 billion of the $7.5 billion plan. So I think it is the right 
direction for our country to take, and I would encourage all Members to 
vote for this conference report which includes these very vital 
provisions.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise tonight on the supplemental as a former Peace Corps volunteer 
who lived 2 years in Colombia. I am very concerned about the issues 
that the chairman of the subcommittee just talked about, Plan Colombia.

                              {time}  2015

  We are sending $1.185 billion in aid to Colombia and, as the chairman 
said, not directly to Colombia but in many different ways.
  My message tonight is that with this funding comes a message from the 
American people to Colombia, and that is that we want to help the good, 
honest people of that beautiful country to end the violence in 
Colombia. With the money comes our voice. Our voice joins their voice 
in ``no mas,'' ``no more,'' no more drugs, no more corruption in their 
politics, no more violence in the campo, no more kidnappings, no more 
insurgence by political rebels who do not want to participate in the 
Democratic process that their Government guarantees.
  We are sending them helicopters but not troops, we are sending them 
professional training of their National Police and Army, but only if 
they assure us that they will not violate human rights and only if they 
assure us that they will prosecute such violators in civil court.
  If they use our helicopters to assist anybody that is not fighting 
the drug war, if they use them to assist the paramilitary, they lose 
it. If they use them to assist insurgence, they lose those helicopters.
  Let it be known to anyone who aids and abets Colombian insurgence or 
the paramilitary that they will lose any visas that they apply for or 
will lose any if they already have them, any member of FARC, any member 
of ELAN, any member of the AUC. They will also lose any deposit or 
investment of any illegally obtained monies. It will be impounded.
  Yes, we are aiding Colombia tonight in Plan Colombia. We send them a 
message. We send them a message that this aid is to help them out of 
violence, to help them become the democracy that they can be.
  We hope that it will work. If it does not, we will make sure that 
they do not get any more.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time 
for closing.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the House to understand that 
all the agriculture commodity issues have been deferred so that they 
will be dealt with on the regular Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  With respect to the Colombia provision that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) just mentioned, I think that is a profound 
mistake. I voted against it. I lost.
  I do think that we are in better shape in the conference report than 
we were in the original bill because we now do have the Byrd language, 
which will require a new authorization for that operation if new funds 
are asked for the year 2002 or beyond.
  We also have the human rights language that Senator Leahy pushed in 
this bill. This bill does contain the disaster assistance, which cannot 
be delayed any longer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, an earlier speaker had mentioned that this bill was $2 
billion over the original House bill. I think there was a mistake in 
addition or subtraction. Because the House bill that we passed on March 
30 was $12.7 billion. This conference report is $11.2 billion. So that 
is less than the House-passed bill.
  Now, that is unusual because normally when we come back from 
conference we have a bill that is much larger than either the House or 
the Senate.
  Now, there is one reason that this bill might appear to be higher is 
because of a provision that sets aside $4 billion to be used 
exclusively to pay down on the national debt. If we add that $4 
billion, then, of course, the number gets higher. But that $4 billion 
is not spent. It is reserved and it is set aside to pay down the debt.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the original House-
passed bill had $4 billion in defense spending in it which is not in 
this bill that was moved to the Defense Appropriations bill?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman 
is correct. There was some adjustment on that issue, yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask our Members to support this conference report and 
move it on to the other body.
  Before I yield back my time, I want to thank the principals who 
worked so hard in making this bill as good a bill as it is today. It is 
a good bill. There are some things that Members want that did not get 
in there. There were some things that I had in the original bill that 
were of importance to my State that are not in the bill tonight. And 
quite a few of us have had that experience. But it is a good bill, and 
it is a clean bill.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who worked 
diligently to get the military construction section of this bill 
concluded in a very expeditious manner; and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the 
gentleman

[[Page H5605]]

from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha); and 
then my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is the 
ranking member on the full committee.
  I must tell my colleagues that it has been a difficult procedure. But 
we have worked together. We have had some strong differences of 
opinion, and we have worked them out.
  There are still some areas where the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) is not satisfied and where I am not satisfied, but this is as 
good a bill as we could produce for this supplemental.
  I want to pay tribute, also, to the many members of our staff, 
subcommittee staff and the full committee staff, who worked many, many 
long and hard hours to help us put together the mechanical parts of 
this bill. To do the adding and subtracting has been a tremendous 
effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a yes vote on the conference report.
  At this point in the Record I would like to insert a table providing 
the details of the conference agreement.

[[Page H5606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.043



[[Page H5607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.044



[[Page H5608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.045



[[Page H5609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.046



[[Page H5610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.047



[[Page H5611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.048



[[Page H5612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.049



[[Page H5613]]

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I compliment all those who worked so hard to 
bring this Military Construction bill which contains an emergency 
antidrug aid package to the floor today. Passage of this bill affects 
every school, hospital, courtroom, neighborhood, in all of our 
communities throughout America.
  This bill will provide sorely needed assistance to our allies in 
Colombia who are all on the front lines in the war against illegal 
drugs. The numbers have been shocking. Eighty percent of the cocaine, 
75 percent of the heroin consumed in our Nation comes from Colombia. 
Illegal drugs have been costing our society more than $100 billion per 
year, costing also 15,000 young American lives each year.
  As a result of inattention from the administration, the civil war in 
Colombia is going badly for that government. This past weekend alone, 
26 antidrug police were killed by the narcoterrorists in Colombia. The 
specter of a consolidated narcostate only 3 hours by plane from Miami 
has made it patently clear that our Nation's vital security interests 
are at stake.
  As the sun begins to set on his administration, President Clinton is 
finally facing the reality of the Colombian drug-fueled crisis with 
this emergency supplemental request. As former Supreme Court Justice 
Felix Frankfurter eloquently noted, and I quote, ``wisdom too often 
never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes 
late.''
  Heroes like Colombia's antidrug leader General Jose Serrano want our 
Nation to stand with them in their fight against the drug lords, 
including the right-wing paramilitaries. This legislation provides more 
assistance where it can do the most good with the Colombian antidrug 
police. Colombia is not asking for nor should we offer American troops 
in that war. Investing American aid dollars now in Colombia to stem the 
hundredfold cost to our society only makes common sense. It is a proper 
role for our government. We at the Federal level have the 
responsibility to help eradicate those drugs at their source.
  Accordingly, I am urging our colleagues to support this package. 
Colombia's survival as a democracy and our own national security 
interests are at stake here.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I speak today to express my strong 
opposition to the back room deal that resulted in the FY 2000 
Supplemental package being attached to the FY 2001 Military 
Construction Appropriations bill.
  As with H.R. 3908, the original House version of the FY 2000 
Supplemental Bill, a major concern of mine regarding this legislation 
is that no authorization language was passed to allow Members the 
opportunity to argue for funding for projects important to them. As a 
Member of the Committee on International Relations and the 
Representative of the largest Colombian-American community in the U.S., 
I wanted to be involved in the development of our policy on Colombia.
  We should have developed a bill that would strike a balance between 
the needs of international concerns, such as Colombia, human rights and 
Kosova, and domestic spending priorities. I would have supported such a 
bill. Unfortunately, despite the passage of much improved legislation 
in the Senate; this bill does not appear to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I say appear because I have not had the opportunity to 
read the Conference Report on the FY 2000 Supplemental. The backroom 
deal that negotiated this legislation circumvented the normal 
appropriations process and brought it directly to the floor without 
providing Members the opportunity to read and digest the legislation. I 
find this very troubling. This legislation provides billions of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars without real Congressional oversight.
  Additionally, as with the original House Supplemental, this 
legislation may also lack the necessary human rights conditions on our 
assistance to Colombia.
  As with the first House Supplemental, the provisions in this 
legislation dealing with civil society programs are woefully under 
funded, especially when compared to the vast funding levels for 
counter-narcotics assistance.
  Now, I will say that I have had the opportunity to review the funding 
levels in this legislation and I am happy about the modest increase for 
human rights and justice programs in Colombia and the region. In fact, 
these programs are funded at $29 million more than the President 
requested for a total of $122 million. This is a positive step, but a 
relatively small one when compared to the high level of military 
assistance for Colombia and the region.
  Finally, on the Colombia portion, no money was included for domestic 
prevention and treatment. Interdiction plays a role, but it is next to 
useless without prevention and treatment programs. Demand will always 
find supply. I am sorry the Republican leadership will not acknowledge 
this simple truth.
  As I said during the debate on the previous supplemental, I have met 
with Colombian leaders in Washington, D.C., in my Congressional 
District and in Colombia. I have traveled to Colombia and seen the need 
for U.S. assistance. I know the problems of the Colombian people and I 
am especially supportive of judicial reform efforts, but this 
supplemental is not going to provide the right kind of assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Colombia portion of this 
Supplemental, I am also concerned that the President's request for 
Kosova was under funded by almost $334 million and that the 
Administration's request for debt relief funds for poor countries was 
not included at all.
  I find the failure to include funding for debt relief for the Highly 
Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) especially troubling because the 
international agreement on debt relief requires U.S. participation in 
order for other countries to contribute their pledges. At a time when 
many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are facing an epidemic of biblical 
proportions with the AIDS crisis, failure to provide for debt relief is 
bad policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Supplemental retained important 
provisions for the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program 
(LIHEAP). I am also glad that it included $35 million for the Social 
Security Administration to respond to the increased workload resulting 
from the recent repeal of the Social Security earnings limit and $2 
million for Commission on International Religious Freedom. However, 
this Supplemental and the backroom deal that brought it to the floor 
without a review period troubles me greatly.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the supplemental and I 
request that the relevant committees be asked to deal with these 
funding increases through the normal budget process.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Conference 
Report, which includes $8.8 billion for military construction and 
family housing for Fiscal Year 2001, while also providing $11.3 billion 
in supplemental appropriations for FY 2000.
  I am particularly pleased that this Conference Report includes $10 
million in military construction funding for the construction of an Air 
National Guard supply complex at Ellington Field in Texas, home of the 
147th Fighter Group. The Base Supply and Civil Engineering Complex 
project was the number one FY 2001 funding priority for Ellington Field 
and the Texas Air National Guard. I am particularly pleased that this 
project obtained funding this year, as it was originally included in 
the Future Years Defense Plan for FY 2002. Since this project is of 
critical importance to the Air National Guard, I am grateful that my 
colleagues, including Chet Edwards in the House and Kay Bailey 
Hutchinson in the Senate worked to include this critical project in the 
FY 2001 budget.
  In recent years, the 147th Fighter Group has successfully converted 
from an Air Defense Mission to include a General Purpose Tasking. This 
new combined mission requires properly sized and adequately configured 
support complexes for the operations and training of the F-16 squadron 
and a 24-hour CONUS Air Defense Mission. The current facilities have 
substandard utilities, are inadequately sized, and require 
unnecessarily large amounts of operations and maintenance funds to 
operate. As the roles and missions for the Air National Guard grow, it 
is imperative that the Air Guard be provided with funding to construct 
and maintain facilities to meet these growing needs.
  I am pleased that the funding levels contained in the FY 2001 
Military Construction Conference Report will provide the 147th Fighter 
Group with the necessary facilities to successfully carry out its 
missions. As the Air National Guard is increasingly taking on the 
responsibilities of our nation's active duty forces, maintaining the 
quality of its operational facilities are critical. With approval of 
this Conference Report, Congress is helping to make the Air National 
Guard more mission-efficient and ready to serve.
  I support the funding contained in this Conference Report, and I 
encourage my colleagues to vote for its passage.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, when the House passes the Conference 
Report on H.R. 4425, the Military Construction Authorization bill, we 
will also be voting on a massive supplemental bill that has been 
attached. Unfortunately, members have not even been given the courtesy 
of an opportunity to review the contents of the conference report. So, 
we can not possibly know in detail what we are considering.
  However, I do know that the Military Construction bill authorizes 
billions of dollars' worth of unnecessary, irresponsible, and dangerous 
equipment and programs. Two provisions included in this measure are 
particularly troubling to me.
  The first is $60 billion for construction of national missile defense 
facilities in Alaska. I believe that the decision to go forward with 
construction for this plan is misguided, extremely premature, and 
actually risks the welfare of our nation. We have already spent 
billions of dollars on development of this system and it still has not 
been proven to work. I do not believe that it ever will. Leaders in the 
scientific

[[Page H5614]]

community and even the Pentagon's own experts have raised serious 
questions about NMD. Moreover, it is clear to me that moving forward 
with construction of this system will undermine diplomatic efforts to 
curb the threat of weapons of mass destruction to our nation. I believe 
that the United States should be investing in peace with at least as 
much vigor as we continue to fund our wasteful military agenda. I 
believe that the deployment of a national missile defense system will 
in fact bring this nation closer to war.
  Another misguided, and extremely troubling provision in the 
legislation we are considering tonight is the more than $1 billion in 
aid for Colombia. I have spoken out against this plan on numerous 
occasions and I want to go on the record in strong opposition to this 
Colombian aid package tonight. If we really want to help the Colombian 
people, as I do, we should not be escalating military conflict in that 
nation. We should not be giving over $1 billion in military aid to a 
government with one of the worst human rights records in this 
hemisphere for a mission that promises to bring further suffering and 
violence to a country that has already endured so much.
  I want to share with my colleagues a report by the Heartland Alliance 
that evaluates both the House bill as it relates to Colombia and the 
version passed by the other body and submit it in the Record. I believe 
the report is well done and commend it to the attention of all members. 
The text of the report follows:
       Heartland Alliance's Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights 
     Center Summary Response to Senate Bill and House Bill 
     Relating to Aid to Colombia and Recommendations
     I. Principles relating to aid to Colombia
       1. Rather than focusing on the expressed aims of the 
     Colombia government and armed forces, first and foremost U.S. 
     aid should address the grave humanitarian needs of the 
     hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced 
     persons as a result of forty years of civil war in Colombia.
       2. Work against the consumption rather than the production 
     of narcotics.
       3. Develop and support viable, long-term agricultural 
     alternatives to drug production rather than pursuing 
     ineffective short-term measures such as crop destruction.
       4. Suspend and/or condition aid packages to Colombia until 
     an effective peace agreement between internal combatants is 
     secured, thereby providing an incentive for peace rather than 
     prolonging violence.
       These principles define a clear role for the U.S. as a 
     defender of peace, prosperity and human rights in the 
     Americas rather than a supporter of impunity and armed 
     conflict.
     II. Senate bill S. 2522
       A. Evaluations
       1. Demobilization and rehabilitation of child soldiers.
       2. Conditions on the aid: certifications from the 
     Department of State regarding the following areas:
       a. Investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of 
     Colombian Armed Forces personnel by civilian courts in cases 
     of human rights violations;
       b. Suspension of members of the Colombian Armed Forces who 
     are alleged to have committed violations of human rights;
       c. Full cooperation of Colombian Armed Forces with civilian 
     authorities and courts in the investigation, prosecution and 
     punishment of members of the armed forces for human rights 
     violations;
       d. Prosecution of leaders and members of the paramilitary 
     groups and members of the Colombian Armed Forces aiding or 
     abetting such groups.
       3. Consultative process between the Department of State and 
     human rights organizations.
       B. Recommendations
       1. Support child soldier aid.
       2. Establish adequate monitoring procedures that 
     effectively ensure:
       a. The investigation and prosecution of human rights 
     violators in the military;
       b. The suspension of military personnel involved in 
     violations of human rights;
       c. The cooperation of military personnel with civilian 
     authorities and courts and;
       d. The investigation, prosecution and punishment of members 
     and leaders of the paramilitary and military personnel aiding 
     or abetting such groups.
       3. Establish a formal consultative process with clear 
     monitoring procedures between the Department of State and 
     human rights organizations.
     III. House bill H.R. 3908
       A. Evaluations
       1. Limitations on the use of helicopters
       2. Assistance to internally displaced persons
       3. Humanitarian training and support for investigations on 
     human rights violations by the Colombian Armed Forces
       4. Enhancement of U.S. Embassy capabilities to monitor the 
     assistance and to investigate human rights violations
       5. Monitoring actions of the guerrilla groups and the 
     paramilitary groups against U.S. citizens
       6. Presidential waiver power on the conditions on military 
     assistance
       B. Recommendations
       1. Direct aid to support and improve the investigation 
     capabilities of the Prosecutor General in Colombia
       2. Create the physical and technical capability for the 
     U.S. to systematically monitor the effects of the aid
       3. Support the aid for internally displaced persons
       4. Eliminate presidential waiver power, which may 
     contribute to the escalation of the conflict and ignores the 
     monitoring functions of the U.S.
     I. Senate Bill S. 2522
       1. Demobilization and rehabilitation of child soldiers.--
     The Senate Bill includes a provision that no less than 
     $5,000,000 shall be made available for demobilizing and 
     rehabilitating activities for child soldiers.
       This is an important issue considering that both guerrillas 
     and paramilitary forces voluntarily and forcibly recruit 
     minors. Furthermore, it is important to insist that the 
     government should not voluntarily recruit minors, as it does 
     presently in spite of various public announcements and 
     actions.
       2. Conditions on the aid: certification by the Department 
     of State.--The Senate Bill conditions the disbursement of aid 
     to certification from the Department of State. The detailed 
     and specific conditions of the Senate Bill need to be 
     outlined, and the following considerations need to be 
     applied.
       a. Investigation, prosecution and adjudication of Colombian 
     Armed Forces personnel by civilian courts in cases of human 
     rights violations.--The Senate Bill requires a statement from 
     the President of Colombia to the Secretary of State that 
     members of the Colombian Armed Forces personnel who are 
     alleged to have committed human rights violations will be 
     brought to civilian courts in accordance with the 1997 ruling 
     of Colombia's Constitutional Court.
       However, a recently adopted Military Penal Code will enter 
     into force as soon as a statutory law on the administrative 
     structure for the military courts is adopted. This new code 
     did not take into account all the elements established on the 
     aforementioned decision of the Constitutional Court, 
     specifically in relation to the concept of ``service-related 
     crimes''. Concretely, the only crimes expressly excluded are 
     torture, genocide and forced disappearance. Other human 
     rights violations, international humanitarian law breaches, 
     and common crimes such as rape will be brought to the 
     military courts. Additionally, obeying orders can be argued 
     to avoid responsibility.
       b. Suspension of members of the Colombian Armed Forces who 
     are alleged to have committed violations of human rights.--
     The Senate Bill establishes that the Department of State 
     should certify that the Commander General of the Colombian 
     Armed Forces is promptly suspending from duty any armed 
     forces personnel who are alleged to have committed violations 
     of human rights or to have aided or abetted paramilitary 
     groups.
       It is important to establish the meaning and effect of such 
     suspension. Presently such suspension has no punitive 
     effects.
       c. Full cooperation of Colombian Armed Forces with civilian 
     authorities and courts in investigation, prosecution and 
     punishment of members of the armed forces for human rights 
     violations.--The Senate Bill requires a certification that 
     the Colombian Armed Forces are cooperating fully with 
     civilian authorities in investigating, prosecuting and 
     punishing in the civilian courts, members of the Armed Forces 
     who are alleged to have committed violations of human rights.
       Even though the general idea of such a requirement is 
     positive it is necessary to make it as concrete as possible 
     so that more than a general statement, it would require 
     individual cases to be examined and aid conditioned 
     accordingly.
       d. Prosecution of leaders and members of the paramilitary 
     groups and members of the Colombian Armed Forces aiding or 
     abetting such groups.--The last certification requirement 
     refers to the prosecution of leaders and members of 
     paramilitary groups and members of the Colombian Armed Forces 
     who are aiding or abetting such groups.
       Again, more than a general statement is required for 
     effective enforcement. Evidence should be submitted to 
     Congress demonstrating that effective actions are being 
     carried out and that the impunity described in the U.S. 
     Department of State Country Report has been overturned.
       3. Consultative process between the Department of State and 
     human rights organizations.--The consultative process between 
     the Department of State and human rights organizations is a 
     positive aspect of the Senate Bill. It acknowledges the 
     experience and professionalism of these organizations and 
     also contributes to improving the human rights information in 
     a country in which the United States is investing a 
     considerable amount of resources.
       It can be concluded that a certification from the President 
     of Colombia to the Department of State is not a sufficient 
     condition. It is essential that adequate monitoring 
     procedures be established to effectively determine that U.S. 
     aid is not contributing to or sustaining human rights 
     violations.
       Conditions placed on the aid could compel the Colombian 
     authorities and armed forces to respect and protect human 
     rights. The creation of a formalized consultative process 
     would contribute to the production of reliable and complete 
     reports on a complex country enmeshed in an internal armed 
     conflict.

[[Page H5615]]

     II. House bill H.R. 3908
       1. Limitations on the use of helicopters.--The House Bill 
     specifically conditions that helicopters only be utilized by 
     the Colombian National Police for counter-narcotics 
     operations in southern Colombia.
       The Senate Bill, regrettably, does not establish any 
     limitations on the use of the helicopters. This is a positive 
     aspect in the sense that the helicopters would not be used 
     for the general development of the armed conflict but 
     exclusively for counter-narcotics operations.
       2. Assistance to internally displaced persons.--The House 
     Bill specifically indicates that not less than $50,000,000 of 
     the funds appropriated, shall be made available for 
     assistance for internally displaced persons in Colombia.
       No specific mention of internally displaced persons is 
     mentioned by the Senate Bill, in spite of the considerable 
     number of victims, as mentioned above, and their special 
     vulnerability as victims of complex and continuous human 
     rights violations.
       3. Humanitarian training and support for investigations on 
     human rights violations by the Colombian Armed Forces.--The 
     House Bill establishes that up to $1,500,000 shall be made 
     available to provide comprehensive humanitarian law training 
     and to support the development of a judge advocate general to 
     investigate human rights violations by Colombian Armed 
     Forces.
       The Senate Bill, regrettably, does not include such 
     important provisions.
       4. Enhancement of U.S. Embassy capabilities to monitor the 
     assistance and to investigate human rights violations.--The 
     House Bill establishes that up to $250,000 shall be made 
     available to enhance the U.S. Embassy's capabilities to 
     monitor U.S. assistance to the Colombian Armed Forces and to 
     investigate reports of human rights violations related to 
     such assistance.
       These resources would be particularly useful to train U.S. 
     officials and to develop the capacity to fund specific 
     evidentiary tests through a joint program with the Colombian 
     judiciary.
       5. Monitoring actions of the guerrilla groups and the 
     paramilitary groups against U.S. citizens.--An equal amount 
     of funding is established to monitor the actions of the 
     Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National 
     Liberation Army (ELN) and the United Colombian Self-Defense 
     Organization (AUC) relative to criminal actions against U.S. 
     citizens.
       In summary, the House of Representatives was expressly 
     concerned with obtaining reliable information on Colombia. 
     The Senate disregarded these initiatives and supported a 
     certification procedure.
       The House Bill provides for the possibility to use aid to 
     support and improve the investigation capabilities of the 
     Prosecutor General's Office in Colombia. Empowering Colombian 
     judicial authorities to prosecute cases of human rights 
     violations would contribute to a general improvement in the 
     human rights situation in Colombia.
       An effective monitoring procedure would contribute to 
     providing the U.S. Congress with tools to evaluate the impact 
     and effect of the U.S. aid in Colombia.
       Moreover, restrictions on the use of military equipment 
     would help to ensure that U.S. aid is for anti-narcotics 
     purposes and not to foment civil conflict or arbitrary 
     violence. Finally, establishing a minimum amount of aid for 
     internationally displaced persons would help to mitigate the 
     adverse effects of the aid package on many different social 
     groups in Colombia, particularly those who have been forcibly 
     displaced.
       6. Presidential waiver power on the conditions on military 
     assistance.--An especially negative aspect of the House bill 
     is endowing the U.S. President with waiver power regarding 
     the conditions of military assistance.
       Such a waiver weakens the conditions established by the 
     House of Representatives, which are more vague than those 
     contained in the Senate Bill.
       We hope that you find this information useful and if you 
     have further questions, concerns or would like to further 
     discuss these issues, we will be more than happy to meet with 
     you, or your staff or to draft any documents regarding U.S. 
     aid to Colombia.
       Thank you again for your concern and interest on this 
     important issue.
     Mary Meg McCarthy,
       Director, Midwest Immigrant &
                                              Human Rights Center.
     Helena Olea,
       Legal intern.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition 
to this conference report. I cannot approve of the process that has 
brought us to this point or of the result. A good bill was hijacked to 
produce what I think is a problematic package.
  This is called a conference report on the military construction bill. 
But in reality it is much more, and includes both money for many other 
purposes and provisions dealing with other subjects. And we are 
considering it without anyone except the conferees having even had a 
chance to review its contents.
  I supported the Military Construction Appropriations bill when we 
considered it on the floor in May. I supported it because it funds 
military construction projects, family housing, base realignment, 
environmental cleanup, and other programs. I supported it in particular 
because it funds a number of important projects for Colorado, namely 
funds for a training site at Fort Carson, for a munitions storage and 
maintenance site at Buckley Air National Guard Air Force Base, and for 
upgrading facilities at Peterson Air Force Base.
  If that were all that was in this conference report, I could support 
it as well.
  However, this conference report also includes many items that were 
originally part of a separate measure, a supplemental appropriations 
bill for the current fiscal year.
  As I noted when the House originally considered that bill, there are 
other good things in it that I support. For example, some parts of the 
bill truly concern ``emergencies''--funding to help low-income families 
cope with sharply rising home heating oil bills; funding to repair 
damaged roads and bridges and to develop affordable housing for those 
dislocated by recent floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters; 
disaster loans for small businesses, farm aid, and rural economic and 
community development grants to meet needs arising from natural 
disasters. These are all important and worthwhile and appropriate 
purposes for an ``emergency'' spending bill. Also important is funding 
that the bill provides for NASA's Space Shuttle upgrades, security at 
our nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories, and funds to 
accelerate environmental cleanup of DOE facilities.
  But these good things are far outweighed by what I consider to be 
some very problematic provisions.
  One of the most troublesome is the ``anti-drug'' package for 
Colombia. I don't doubt the magnitude of the problem that the proposal 
attempts to address. Indeed, there is much cause for alarm. Colombia 
produces 80 percent of the world's cocaine and about two-thirds of the 
heroin consumed in this country, and new estimates show that cocaine 
production in Colombia is up 126 percent in the last five years. That 
said, I am not convinced that a costly military approach is the best 
response to the problem. I believe we should be considering other ways 
to address the source of the problem--the U.S. demand for drugs--by 
funding additional treatment and education programs right here at home.
  There is very little about the Colombia package that has been shown 
to merit our support. Think for a moment about the dismal human rights 
record of the Colombian military. The military would itself be the 
recipient of the billions of dollars in U.S. aid. Human rights 
organizations have linked right-wing paramilitary groups to the 
Colombian military and to drug trafficking and atrocities against 
civilians. How can we be content to pass a bill that could well make 
this situation worse?
  We should also think about the lack of clear objectives for this 
program. There is no ``exit'' strategy spelled out. There is no way to 
ensure farmers won't resume cultivating drug crops once this billion-
dollar assistance package dries up. None of these questions about the 
long-term goals for this program have been adequately answered. Still, 
we're being asked to support a program that could draw U.S. troops into 
a protracted counterinsurgency struggle--and one that may ultimately 
have little effect on the drug trade.
  In addition, the conference report reportedly includes at least one 
anti-environmental rider that would block EPA from taking certain 
actions to enforce the Clean Water Act--and there may be more. I would 
have problems with that even if we had had a chance to review the 
language before voting. Since we can't even do that, I have no choice 
but to oppose the conference report for that reason as well.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report on the Military Construction Appropriations bill.
  This important legislation contains critically necessary relief 
assistance to North Carolina's victims of Hurricane Floyd. I want to 
thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey for their leadership in 
securing these funds to help in the recovery effort from this 
devastating storm.
  Hurricane Floyd ripped into my State last September with rains of 
historic proportion. The massive flooding that resulted was of a 
magnitude not seen since before Christopher Columbus landed in the New 
World.
  Most folks think of a hurricane as winds ripping into beach houses. 
But Floyd's greatest damage occurred some 150 miles inland from the 
coast. Last September we endured the most devastating storm in my 
State's history.
  Three months ago, this House passed a supplemental appropriations 
bill to aid Floyd's victims. Earlier this month, another hurricane 
season began with predictions of more destruction to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for helping my constituents, many 
of whom are still in travel trailers. I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Military Construction Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001 and the 
Emergency Supplemental bill.
  I supported the Military Construction Appropriation's bill when it 
came to the House floor

[[Page H5616]]

for a vote last month and would have supported the bill again had the 
Republican leadership followed traditional procedures and allowed the 
two bills to be considered separately.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to giving the Colombian Government use of 
our military, supplies and additional cash reserves rather than using 
these funds for a number of important domestic programs. At a time when 
the Leadership of this Congress is proposing to eliminate funding for 
the Summer Youth Program, which allow tens of thousands of kids job 
opportunities in our home communities, this Congress is providing $1.3 
billion to the Colombian Government for anti-drug efforts. A better 
solution would be to give additional funds to local law enforcement 
officials to fight drugs in our communities and to our border patrol to 
stop drugs from coming into our country.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this misuse of allocations included in 
the Emergency Supplemental bill. Vote no on final passage.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the vote on the motion to suspend 
the rules and agree to H. Res. 535 immediately following the vote on 
final passage will be 5 minutes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 306, 
nays 110, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 362]

                               YEAS--306

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--110

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Terry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bishop
     Canady
     Clay
     Cook
     Ewing
     Filner
     Hastings (WA)
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Lazio
     Markey
     Martinez
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Mollohan
     Shuster
     Strickland
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2042

  Ms. McKINNEY, and Messrs. TERRY, PHELPS, OWENS, COX, GANSKE and SMITH 
of Michigan changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Messrs. HALL of Texas, TOOMEY, SUNUNU, 
SERRANO and PASTOR changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 362, I was 
unavoidably detained and did not cast a vote. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________