[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.''
____________________