[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 113 (Thursday, September 21, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7939-H7943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4919, SECURITY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2000

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I

[[Page H7940]]

call up House Resolution 584 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 584

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4919) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     and the Arms Export Control Act to make improvements to 
     certain defense and security assistance provisions under 
     those Acts, to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to 
     certain foreign countries, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 584 is a rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4919, the Security Assistance Act of 2000. The 
rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the 
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
International Relations. The rule waives all points of order against 
the conference report and its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this rule which provides for the 
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4919, an act 
to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Control Act, 
to make improvements to certain defense and security assistance 
provisions under those acts, and to authorize the transfer of naval 
vessels to certain foreign countries.
  H.R. 4919 seeks to increase the funds spent from the foreign military 
financing account to build security ties with more areas of the world. 
The conference report authorizes $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 and 
$3.6 billion in 2002 for the foreign military financing program.
  In addition, it makes several improvements to defense and security 
assistance provisions, such as authorizing $2 million in 
nonproliferation and export control funding for training and education 
of personnel from friendly countries in the United States as well as 
authorizing $55 million in 2001 and $65 million in 2002 to carry out 
international military education and training of military and related 
civilian personnel of foreign countries.
  The legislation represents the first time since 1985 that the 
security assistance programs of the United States have been fully 
authorized. Passing this conference report is an important step in 
achieving this goal which can help us toward a safer world.
  This bill, H.R. 4919, passed under suspension of the rules and passed 
the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. I believe this 
conference report is an excellent product. I want to commend the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for his leadership and hard work 
in bringing forth this legislation.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Florida has explained, this rule 
waives all points of order against the conference report. The measure 
authorizes a total of $7.7 billion in the next 2 years for foreign 
military financing, international military education and training, 
antiterrorism, nonproliferation, and export control assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the conference report. However, I 
believe that the process that has brought this legislation to the floor 
this morning is flawed and opens the possibility for mistakes that will 
be difficult to correct. Moreover, the process has limited the 
opportunity for House Members on both sides of the aisle to debate and 
participate in the shaping of this legislation.
  This bill has never been considered by any committee of the House of 
Representatives. In July, the full House voted on a scaled-down version 
of this measure, and that was only under suspension of the rules which 
limits the opportunity for debate. The conference report was made 
available only yesterday, the same day the Committee on Rules took up 
the measure. As the bill passed this House, it had to be on the 
suspension calendar under $100 million. The bill is now up to $7.7 
billion. It will have a major effect on the lives of millions of people 
around the world. It deals with the fundamental issues of war and 
peace. Yet most of what is in this conference report has never been 
seen by House Members until today.
  Already, we have found two critical mistakes in the conference report 
affecting our assistance to Israel. We spent considerable time in the 
Committee on Rules last night debating how best to fix these mistakes. 
Our Israeli friends deserve better than this.
  Let me give my colleagues one example of a provision in the 
conference report that the House has never seen before. The legislation 
authorizes over the next 2 years $120 million for the international 
military education and training program, known as IMET. Through IMET, 
the United States trains students from around the world how to wage 
war. The conference report we are now considering sets the level of 
IMET funding at more than double the level just 5 years ago. This is a 
controversial issue. Many observers believe that IMET fails to 
sufficiently address the need for protecting human rights and promoting 
democracy.
  I believe the administration has misused the IMET program by funding 
the military of nations involved in human rights abuses. This has gone 
on under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Until 
recently, our government provided IMET assistance to Indonesia, which 
has carried on a brutal campaign against East Timor. Only from the 
pressure of Congress was this position changed.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to all IMET funding, I am opposed to a 
House process that denies Members the opportunity to shape this 
program.
  Finally, I want to express my disappointment in the House that we are 
unable to increase international development assistance, humanitarian 
relief and aid to refugees. These programs, along with the military 
assistance contained in this conference report, are an essential part 
of our foreign policy and our moral obligation. We seem to have no 
problem moving military assistance at lightning speed, but increases 
for humanitarian assistance are much harder to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, by taking up this conference report, we are considering 
legislation that has never been debated in a House committee and that 
has never been debated on the House floor. Because this is a conference 
report, there is no opportunity for amendment. And because it is a 
conference report, there is no chance to consider the measure again 
before it is sent to the White House. On top of that, we are waiving 
the House rule that requires a 3-day layover for conference reports. 
This further limits the chance for House Members to read and understand 
the bill before the vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is very important legislation which again I reiterate my support 
for and urge adoption of both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the leader behind this important effort is the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. On 
the issue of Israel, for example, that the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio brought up, there is certainly without any doubt no stronger 
supporter of that critical ally of the United States than the chairman 
of the Committee on International Relations and also on issue after 
issue whether it be military education that stresses loyalty to 
civilian control and human rights and so many other issues, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) is at the forefront leading the 
best efforts of this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from

[[Page H7941]]

New York (Mr. Gilman) in order to clarify the points that have been 
brought up by the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, with regard to the gentleman from Ohio's concerns, the 
full committee did consider this legislation. In fact, we had rollcall 
votes on the House bill during full committee consideration.
  The gentleman is correct that the House bill did not authorize any 
funding. We receded to the Senate on these numbers. These are the 
President's numbers, the President's requests for authorization, and 
they are the numbers that the House will most likely adopt when it 
considers the Foreign Ops legislation, including the level of funding 
for IMET.
  With regard to development assistance for fiscal year 2001, this is 
still substantially higher than last year's level and more than the 
President had requested. I am fully committed to more spending for 
development assistance and would like to authorize more for these 
programs. But the gentleman fully knows that we have encountered a 
number of difficulties in authorizing development programs, largely 
because of family planning issues.
  I want to assure the gentleman that we will continue in our efforts 
to make certain that we do as much as we can for development 
assistance.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume and just respond to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), 
for whom I have great respect, that most of the funding in this bill we 
do not have a problem with. I do not have a problem with. I think the 
problem that I see and some people on the Committee on Rules see is 
that when we pass a bill originally in a conference or in a suspension 
package which does not go to any committee, it is under $100 million, 
it goes over to the Senate, and then it comes back very close to $8 
billion. We do not get a chance to not only debate it, we do not get a 
chance to amend it. We do not have a lot to say about it. We get one 
vote up or down.
  So the bill left here without any debate, well, with a little bit of 
debate on something that was under $100 million; and it was all taken 
care of in the Senate. Who knows what they put in there in the Senate. 
It comes back here without any thought, without looking at it, waiving 
the 3-day layover, it is now $8 billion; and it has got some 
controversial programs in here like IMET that a lot of Members here if 
they really looked at it probably would have some problems with it, but 
they cannot get at it, we cannot amend it; and as a result we are 
dealing with almost an $8 billion bill of which there will be very 
little discussion.

                              {time}  1045

  We do not like the process and how this has come up, and we think it 
is unfair this late in the session. We think probably, without having a 
chance to debate it, there are probably some very controversial things 
in here that if brought up on individual votes would fail.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, urging support for the rule, it is a 
fair rule, bringing forth this conference report and the underlying 
legislation, I also yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. Gilman. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 4919, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4919) to amend the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act to make 
improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions 
under those Acts, to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain 
foreign countries, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Pursuant to House Resolution 
584, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 19, 2000, at page H7743).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. Gilman. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the conference report on H.R. 4919.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. Gilman. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. Gilman asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor for House 
consideration a conference report on H.R. 4919, the Security Assistance 
Act of 2000. Permit me to begin by thanking the ranking Democratic 
Member of our committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson), for his work and cooperation on this conference report. I 
appreciate his willingness to work on a bipartisan basis to authorize 
security assistance for the first time in 15 years.
  The conference report is a 2-year authorization measure for security 
assistance. In fiscal year 2001, this measure authorizes $3.8 billion 
in security assistance, fully funding the President's request for 
foreign military financing, for international military education, and 
training for antiterrorism and for nonproliferation and export control 
assistance.
  In fiscal year 2002, this measure authorizes $3.9 billion for the 
same programs. I am pleased to support these authorization amounts for 
security assistance.
  The fiscal year 2001 levels meet the President's request, and they 
reflect levels that we expect our appropriation colleagues to be at as 
they wind up their work on the Foreign Operations measure.
  This conference report modifies authorities with respect to the 
provision of security assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1961 and the Arms Export Control Act, including those authorities 
governing war reserve stockpiles in allied countries, excess defense 
articles for foreign nations, and defense drawdown authorities.
  The measure before us also includes provisions which will ensure that 
our weapons systems are not going to be diverted by foreign nations for 
purposes that were not intended by ensuring end-use monitoring on 
government-to-government arms sales and by modifying the existing 655 
report on annual military assistance to provide information on 
commercial arms sales delivery.
  The conference report also adds a new chapter to the Foreign 
Assistance Act to authorize nonproliferation and export control 
assistance and provide specific authorization for the nonproliferation 
and disarmament fund, for the International Science and Technology 
Centers, and for export control assistance programs.
  Further, this measure urges the President to develop a multiyear 
national security assistance strategy which would identify overarching 
security assistance objectives and would identify on a country-to-
country basis how specific resources are going to be allocated.
  This measure also authorizes the transfer of 12 aging naval vessels 
to four nations, to Brazil, to Chile, to Greece and to Turkey, thereby 
serving U.S. foreign policy objectives while saving U.S. taxpayer 
dollars and the Navy scarce resources to scrap those vessels.
  The conference report also includes an important bipartisan provision 
to address the administration's initiative regarding exemptions for 
defense export licensing to foreign countries.
  I want to particularly thank the ranking Democratic member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for his 
cooperation and input on that provision. Further, the conference report 
streamlines the export of commercial communication satellites by 
cutting in half, from 30 to 15 days, the formal congressional review 
period for licenses to Russia, to the Ukraine and to Kazakhstan.

[[Page H7942]]

  We have also included a provision requiring an annual assurance from 
the President that Russian entities, which are approved by the Congress 
for cooperation on space programs with U.S. firms, are not selling 
missile technology to Iran.
  Further, the measure establishes a special military assistance 
program for Eastern Europe and for the Caucasus to strengthen the 
territorial independence of these countries in the face of Russian 
efforts to undermine and sabotage their fledgling democracies. The 
countries authorized for this special program are Georgia, Azerbaijan, 
Armenia, Uzbekistan, Moldova, and the Ukraine.
  Finally, I want to point out that this conference report authorizes 
$1.98 billion in military aid to Israel for fiscal year 2001 and over 
$2 billion for fiscal year 2002, authorizes $1.3 billion in military 
aid to Egypt for fiscal year 2001 and 2002, and allows for the sale of 
U.S. military equipment to Israel from the United States War Reserve 
Stockpile, and provides for rapid disbursement of military assistance 
funds to both Israel and to Egypt.
  It is my understanding that the administration does not want to 
oppose the conference report. We expect the President to sign it into 
law.
  I would also like to recognize the excellent staff work that went 
into producing this conference report, particularly thank David Fite 
and Amos Hochstein from the staff of the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson); Walker Roberts on our staff on our side of the aisle; 
Marshall Billingslea of Senator Helms' staff and Ed Levine of Senator 
Biden's staff.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to fully support this bipartisan 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, while I commend the chairman on some of 
our accomplishments on some of this legislation, there is still a lot 
left to be done. It seems that we were not able to reverse what has 
been a damaging impact on America's satellite industry. Since the 
transfer of the licensing process from the Commerce Department to the 
State Department, we have had a 40 percent loss in American sales in 
the area of satellites. We continue to place restrictions on Russia as 
if they were the old Soviet Union and appear to try to re-create 
tensions that we ought to be working to ease.
  Lastly, in this legislation, while we made some progress from the 
original concerns by Senator Helms, it is clear that what we have here 
we are still placing restrictions on the United Kingdom and Australia, 
two of our closest allies that we work in harmony with in almost every 
theater in the world. The idea that American sales of nonclassified 
defense items should go through a complicated licensing process is 
against our national interest and against our global interest.
  One of the things we are going to have to do as a country, as we have 
downsized as a result of the end of the confrontation with the Soviet 
Union, is to make sure that the systems we manufacture have 
adaptability and are sold to some of our closest allies because we will 
not be buying them in sufficient number to keep the per-unit price 
affordable if countries like England and Australia and others that are 
our close friends find it easier to buy systems made in Germany, France 
or other countries around the globe.
  In a similar manner, the restrictions that were placed on the exports 
of satellites leave us in a situation where we have seen 40 percent of 
America's market share lost in a year's period in one of the most 
critical future industries for this country. When we take a look at 
where America is most competitive, it is most competitive in the front 
end of technology, the most modern technologies, and to put obstacles 
in the way of sales in that area makes no sense at all.
  I want to thank the chairman for his work and effort and success in 
passing this first authorization in years and commend the work he has 
done; but we have a long way to go in these other areas, especially 
when we take a look at the nature of international competition today. 
The United States is in a very strong position, but it was not that 
long ago the American economy was in deep trouble. In the early 1990s 
and before that, we sat and watched as the Japanese seemed to control 
every element of international competition. We do not want to, as a 
result of the actions of Congress, cripple American industry and end up 
back in that same position.
  So I commend the chairman for his success in getting this conference 
through and a number of things we accomplished here. There is a lot 
more that needs to be done that we have not done, and some damage that 
has been re-created by this Congress we need to undo very rapidly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) for his remarks. I welcome his support. We look forward to 
working with him and doing what more has to be done up the road.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern 
over a provision of H.R. 4919, the Defense and Security Assistance Act 
Conference Report, that we are considering today.
  I understand that Section 514 of this conference report allows U.S. 
aid to Egypt for the entire Fiscal Year 2001 to be disbursed in a lump 
sum no later than October 31, 2000, and placed in an interest-bearing 
account at the Federal Reserve, thereby earning $25 to $30 million in 
additional funds for the Egyptian Government during the course of 2001.
  The provision, which can only be seen as a reward of additional U.S. 
taxpayer dollars to Egypt, is poorly timed:
  At a time when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek is indicating that he 
will move to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian State, in 
direct contravention of U.S. policy;
  At a time when the Foreign Minister of Egypt, Amr Mousa, is demanding 
that a future Palestinian State have Jerusalem as its capital, a fact 
which directly contravenes the will of the U.S. Congress, which has 
repeatedly gone on record affirming Jerusalem as the State of Israel's 
undivided capital;
  At a time when publications supported by the Egyptian Government have 
been undermining the Middle East Peace Process by printing anti-Israel 
and anti-Semitic diatribes;
  Why, at this time, would we seek to reward Egypt with $25 to $30 
million in additional U.S. aid, especially when close to $2 billion in 
U.S. taxpayer dollars already goes to Egypt every year?
  I think it is more appropriate to ask why Egypt is obstructing the 
Middle East peace process and why our longtime ally is not serving as a 
helpful facilitator, a role Egypt played back at the 1978 Camp David 
talks.
  Rewarding Egypt when it hurts America's efforts to help Israel secure 
a lasting peace with the Palestinian people is wrong. To be a friend, 
to be deserving of more U.S. aid, Egypt should work with the U.S. and 
help bring a new dawn of peace in the Middle East.
  Notwithstanding my support for this bill, I urge my colleagues to 
think long and hard before they appropriate more U.S. aid to Egypt.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 396, 
nays 17, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 485]

                               YEAS--396

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell

[[Page H7943]]


     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--17

     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Hostettler
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Paul
     Rahall
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Stark
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Cunningham
     Dooley
     Hastings (FL)
     Kasich
     Klink
     Lazio
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Napolitano
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Vento
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1123

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. DUNCAN and Ms. WATERS changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WYNN, KUCINICH, WISE, ROHRABACHER, and Ms. LEE and Ms. 
WOOLSEY 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.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 485, Defense and 
Security Assistance Act Conference Report, H.R. 4919, I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________