[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.''
____________________