[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 172 (Wednesday, December 12, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H9311-H9318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3338, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3338) making appropriations for
the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2002, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 3338, be instructed
to insist on the maximum levels within the scope of
conference for defense, homeland security, and local recovery
efforts from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; in
particular, to insist on:
(1) the House position for higher levels for defense,
including fully funding the $7.3 billion requested by
President Bush as emergency spending for defense;
(2) the Senate position for higher levels to counter
potential biological and chemical terrorist threats
(including additional funds to improve State and local
capacity to track and to respond to bioterrorism, to purchase
smallpox vaccine, and to sanitize mail and protect postal
employees and customers from exposure to biohazardous
material),
(3) the Senate position for higher levels to increase staff
to combat terrorism along the Nation's borders and ports of
entry, to improve food safety, to assist state, local and
federal antiterrorism law enforcement, to accelerate nuclear
non-proliferation activities, and to enhance security for
nuclear labs and plants, and other federal facilities;
(4) the higher of either the House or Senate provisions for
transportation security, including the higher Senate level
for cockpit security, the Senate higher funding for the Coast
Guard, the Senate provision to compensate airports for the
costs of implementing stronger security requirements and the
higher House level for hiring sky marshals;
(5) the Senate position for higher levels for FEMA disaster
relief payments for recovery activities in New York, Virginia
and Pennsylvania, Community Development Block grant
assistance, Payments to hospitals that responded to the
attacks of September 11, 2001, assistance in meeting
workmen's compensation needs related to the terrorist
attacks, funding for improved security in the Amtrak tunnels
in New York, assistance to the ferry system between New York
and New Jersey, and to reimburse claims for first response
emergency service personnel who were injured, disabled or
died in the terrorist attacks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will
be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the House has a decision to make today which in the real
world would have a real effect on virtually every American. We have to
face this question:
Are we going to provide money now to tighten security on our borders,
in our ports, on our airplanes, or are we going to wait?
Are we going to provide the public health services and local
governments with money now to defend against bioterrorism, or are we
going to wait?
[[Page H9312]]
Are we going to accelerate our efforts to protect nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons from falling into the wrong hands in the former
Soviet Union now, or are we going to wait?
Are we going to clean up our mail, or are we going to wait?
Are we going to give the Nation's Federal, State and local law
enforcement officials the additional resources they need to find al
Qaeda cells operating in this country, or are we going to wait?
There are people downtown who would like us to wait. They want to
take the time to study these problems. They want to participate in
these decisions. Perhaps they want credit for being part of the
solution. That is all fine. We need their thoughts. We need their
input. We need them both. Now. We are glad to give them credit, but we
cannot wait. We are in a race against time. All you have to do to
understand, that is, to look at the headlines every day in the
newspaper, look at the pictures on your television, and listen to what
our enemies say. We may have an enemy that is wounded, but they are not
destroyed. They are as dangerous now as they have ever been. And while
we need to do all that we can do to defeat them overseas, we have to be
equally aggressive at blocking their efforts here at home.
This motion is very simple. It would instruct the conferees to
maintain the House position on defense which is $5.3 billion higher
than the Senate's figure; it would insist that the conferees support
the Senate position on homeland security which is $2.7 billion above
the House bill; and it would instruct the conferees to support the
Senate position for funds to help recover from the attacks of September
11, an additional $2.6 billion above the amount in the House bill.
There is only one way that that can happen. Everyone here needs to
understand that this instruction will put the conference at least $5.3
billion above the House-passed bill.
Members may try to pretend that they cannot add, but numbers are
stubborn things. If you want to tell the conferees to stay within the
$20 billion limit that the House Republican leadership has mandated,
then you had better vote against this instruction, because this
instruction breaks that limit by at least $5.3 billion, and I make
absolutely no apology for that in any way whatsoever. We cannot have it
both ways. You cannot spend the same money twice.
In fact, Members need to understand that this bill, in fact, will be
a little bit above $5.3 billion above the House bill because we take
the Senate number on sky marshals which is higher than the House number
is.
I would urge Members to vote for this motion to instruct because it
is the right thing to do, it puts the security of the country's home
front first, it recognizes that we have additional costs in running the
war as well, and it forthrightly admits that this is now the time to
pay for them rather than putting it off to another more convenient day.
I do not think our adversaries will wait for whatever actions they
contemplate. We have an obligation not to wait, either.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct.
While we have made improvements to transportation security since
September 11th, we must do more. This motion directs the House
conferees to seek the higher funding levels for transportation security
programs.
The tragedies of September 11th happened because terrorists were able
to enter the cockpits of four airplanes. Unfortunately, the House bill
contains only $50 million for cockpit door improvements. The Senate
bill contains $251 million for cockpit door improvements, much closer
to the Administration's request of $300 million. This motion instructs
the House conferees to accept the Senate funding level.
Today, the airlines have made some improvements so that cockpit doors
cannot be as easily broken into, such as the strengthening of bolts.
The President proposed $300 million so that modifications can be made
to secure the cockpit door in such a way as to permanently prevent an
intruder from entering the cockpit door.
The funding included in the Senate bill would be provided to airlines
to ensure that all aircraft cockpit doors are modified as quickly as
possible. This funding should be included in the conference bill.
The House bill provides additional funding for more federal air
marshals, where the Senate bill contains no such funding. The
Administration has made good progress in increasing the number of
federal air marshals, and the House bill would provide for a further
increase. It is important to public safety and confidence that we
bolster their numbers to the greatest extent possible. This motion
would instruct the House conferees to insist on the House funding for
more air marshals.
The Senate bill also provides additional funding to our nation's
airports to meet additional security needs.
Since September 11th, the Federal Aviation Administration has imposed
additional security requirements on our nation's airports, and rightly
so.
Increased patrols of ticket counters, baggage claim areas, and
screening checkpoints have been mandated, as has increased inspections
of controlled access points and the areas outside the airport. Airports
have also been required to re-issue all airport identification and
verify such identification at all access gates.
To meet these additional requirements, the airports have incurred
additional costs, primarily for additional law enforcement officers and
overtime.
The American Association of Airport Executives estimates the cost of
these additional requirements to be about $500 million this year. These
increased costs come at a time when airports are losing money. The
airports estimate the total revenue decrease to be $2 billion in 2002,
or 20 percent of estimated revenue.
The Senate bill includes $200 million to assist airports in meeting
the costs of the increased security requirements mandated by the FAA.
This motion instructs the House conferees to accept this funding level.
The Senate bill also includes a total of $285 million for the Coast
Guard, compared to the House level of $145 million. The higher funding
level in the Senate bill is needed so that the Coast Guard may continue
its current, increased level of operations, and further expand its port
security activities.
Since September 11, Coast Guard port security operations have
increased substantially. The Coast Guard is now patrolling ports and
checking crew lists of those entering our ports. Much more needs to be
done to enhance port security, but what the Coast Guard has done is a
good start.
These current Coast Guard operations should not be reduced; and the
funding provided in the Senate bill will ensure that they are not. This
motion would instruct the House conferees to accept the Senate's higher
funding for the Coast Guard and port security.
In closing, let me say that this motion to instruct is the right one.
It addresses the security needs of this country and the traveling
public. We should do no less.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to say at the outset that I congratulate the gentleman from
Wisconsin for the work that he has done on this issue. We have had this
discussion between the two of us. We have had this discussion with the
President of the United States. We have had this discussion at the
Committee on Appropriations. And we had this discussion on the floor of
the House when we passed the bill.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the needs
that the gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed out here. If you recall,
on September 14, the House, with the gentleman from Wisconsin and I
working closely together, passed an emergency supplemental of $40
billion right after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. The same day, the Senate passed the bill and we actually
conferenced that bill and passed a conference report, all on the same
day. So we moved quickly. We have proved that we can move quickly when
it comes to the defense of our Nation and the protection of our
citizens.
I want to make the case that of the $40 billion emergency
supplemental, most of the money has not been allocated yet. In that $40
billion, the first $20 billion that the President had control over plus
what the House did in our supplemental, there is $21 billion for the
Defense Department to prosecute the war. Will it take more than that?
Very likely.
We do not require that money today, but we are going to provide
whatever is necessary to complete that war in Afghanistan and anyplace
else that we
[[Page H9313]]
might have to go to seek out and destroy the terrorist cells that pose
a threat to the United States of America and to our people and our
interests, wherever they might be. We are going to provide whatever it
takes to make that happen. We are not going to allow Americans to live
in fear, and we are not going to allow our places and our properties to
be attacked. That is pure and simple.
On the issue of biological and chemical terrorist threats, we need to
be concerned about that, and we are concerned. This Congress several
years ago began providing the preparation and the research necessary to
combat any biological and chemical threat, but more needs to be done.
In the House bill together with the President's $20 billion package,
there is already $2.2 billion. One of the most important things that we
need to do is guarantee that our ports of entry, that our borders, are
protected. We provide about $700 million immediately to begin to hire
and train the people who would provide that security.
As for transportation, The United States of America, without
transportation is in deep trouble. Economically and every other way,
from the national defense standpoint, our transportation systems must
be safe. We provide funding for the hiring of sky marshals and to train
them and to implement stronger security requirements at our airports
and our other transportation stations.
{time} 1630
We have $1.2 billion already here to begin that process.
We need to assist our State officials, local officials and Federal
officials who deal with the antiterrorism law enforcement. We have $400
million to begin that process already in the bill.
Nuclear nonproliferation activities are very important. We have money
in our regular bills for this purpose. We add another $100 million in
the package that we present today.
To the City of New York, we have all made commitments to the City of
New York. We are going to keep them. The President agreed to a $20
billion package for New York, and we immediately agreed to that; and it
was put into our $40 billion emergency supplemental. Already in the
package that we present, $10 billion is made for the City of New York.
We are doing all of these things at the present time.
Now, we could take the package of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), and, frankly, I would have liked to have supported it all the
way through the process with the President, the leadership, the
committee, and lastly, on the floor. But we agreed to a $20 billion
limit on the supplemental, and that is the only difference that I have
with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on this motion to instruct
today.
We are going to do the items that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) identifies, because he and I have gone over these items already,
and I agree with what he is suggesting. The only difference we have is
timing.
The President of the United States has said that he will request an
emergency supplemental at the moment that it is needed, when we do not
have enough money already in the pipeline to provide the things that we
are talking about here to secure our Nation. Our leadership has
promised that when that request is made available to us it will be
presented immediately.
As chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I have made the
commitment over and over again that I will move that supplemental
appropriations bill just as soon as I possibly can after we receive the
information and the request from the President of the United States,
who is leading the battle to secure America, who is leading the battle
to seek out the perpetrators of terrorism, and to do away with their
ability to threaten us at any time in the future.
The President is the leader. Congress is important, we are in a
support role in this issue; but we cannot all run that war. That is why
we have a Commander in Chief as proposed by the Constitution of the
United States.
So, Mr. Speaker, today I am going to accept the gentleman's motion to
instruct, with that reservation that we are going to try to do as much
as we possibly can on that motion within the $20 billion limit, and
that we will address the additional amounts at whatever moment they are
identified as being required.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, what we just heard from my good friend from Florida is
that he is going to accept this amendment, which requires the
conference committee to report back with a bill which is $5.3 billion
higher than the $20 billion ceiling to which he has just referred, and
yet he has suggested that somehow he is going to reserve the right to
come back still under that $20 billion cap. One cannot do both at the
same time.
Now, I sympathize with the gentleman, because I know he is personally
in favor of what we are trying to do. So are many other Members on the
Republican side of the aisle. They have told me that. His problem is he
has been ordered by his leadership, no matter what, to stay under the
$20 billion ceiling.
He knows he cannot win a vote against this motion, and so he is
accepting it to try to leach all meaning from the vote. Yet you cannot
hide from the fact that this motion to instruct says we should ignore
the $20 billion artificial limit and meet the legitimate security needs
of this country, both in the defense budget and in homefront defense.
That is what this motion says.
If people want to try to play it both ways, I understand the
gentleman's dilemma, but that does not make his position any more real.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness to the gentleman from
Florida, my friend misheard him. I do not always speak with perfect
diction. I understand when people mishear people.
You said you think he said he would accept it, A-C-C-E-P-T; he said
he would except it, E-X-C-E-P-T. That means he is going to vote for it,
except for the money for the Defense Department; he is going to vote
for it, except for the money for New York; and he is going to vote for
it, except for the money for domestic homeland security.
So, if the gentleman had said he was going to accept it and
simultaneously disregard it, you would be perplexed; but if you had
understood him correctly as saying he is going to except it and do
everything except what it says it is supposed to do, the perplexity
would be gone.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think what the gentleman is pointing out is there is a
word game going on here, and the fact is this is too serious for games.
The gentleman from Florida is right in his heart. He knows we need this
money. He knows we need it now.
He knows that we need new border guards now, not in 3 months. He
knows we need greater security at the FBI, the NSA and a number of
other national security agencies. He knows we need it now, not later.
He knows that we need a far greater protection for public health than
we have right now. He knows that right now we are not prepared for
chemical or biological attacks in most of the municipalities in this
country.
He knows all of that, but he is being required by his leadership to
pretend that this motion to instruct does not in fact vitiate his
leadership's instructions, because his leadership knows and he knows
they cannot win a vote on the merits, because there are too many
responsible Republicans who recognize that this money is needed and it
is needed now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct.
I opposed the House version of this bill precisely because it failed to
live up to the House's commitment and in fact repealed the requirement
in the original supplemental bill that we had earlier passed to provide
at least $20 billion in relief and recovery costs to the victims of the
September 11 attack and to the people of New York, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania.
Thankfully, we still have a chance to improve the bill and increase
funding for areas of critical need, and that is
[[Page H9314]]
why we should support this motion to instruct.
Now is not the time to artificially cap the costs of this crisis. If
it costs more than $40 billion, we ought to provide more. We should not
be bound to an artificial limit that was agreed to 3 days after the
attack.
Today we know that in fact we do need more funds to help New Yorkers,
to aid small businesses, to protect against chemical and biological
attacks and to substantially increase our national security.
Some say we in New York do not need more funds than provided in this
bill now; but we do, now. Yes, sufficient funds are flowing for the
cleanup and the physical reconstruction, but not for the 100,000 people
who lost their jobs as a direct result of the attack; not for the
10,000 small businesses at risk in Lower Manhattan.
The Small Business Administration is proud it has given out over
17,000 loan applications, but it has made only 360 loans. Our small
businesses need help, cash grants, now. Next spring will be too late.
They may not exist by next spring.
Let us pass this motion to instruct. Let us live up to our
commitments and let us be proud to support a bill that meets the
desperate needs of our constituents and the desperate needs of our
country. I urge support for the motion to instruct.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend from
Massachusetts, to the points he made. I am sure he believes he made a
real powerful point, but I have not been able to figure out what it was
yet.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, my point was that it would be confusing if
the gentleman had accepted the motion and simultaneously disregarded
it. So it seemed to me what he was saying was he intended to make
exceptions to it, and that ``acceptance'' and ``exception'' got
confused, because the gentleman said he was going to vote for a motion
which required additional spending which he then said he planned to
oppose.
Since that would not have made any sense, I tried to follow the
principle that you try to listen to what people say and you try to make
some sense out of it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Okay. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
reexplaining that.
Mr. Speaker, we have to be real. The other body had this issue of
appropriating money over the $20 billion. Because it went over the $20
billion, it was subject to a point of order and it required a 60-vote
margin to overcome the point of order. The vote was 50-50, and that 50-
50, I would suggest, is going to stay in the Senate regardless of what
we might do here today and what we might do in conference. So I am just
trying to be helpful and friendly here. The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) is very well aware of the fact that I want to be helpful. We
are going to do the very best we can in this conference.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) have developed an outstanding defense bill
for the $317 billion basic defense bill. Most of our differences in
conference will be over this $20 billion emergency supplemental package
that is attached to the defense bill as an amendment.
We are going to do the best we can, but I will guarantee you we are
not going to leave something undone that needs to be done today,
because there is more flexibility in monies that have already been
appropriated.
So I say that we will support this today, and we are going to do the
best we can in conference to accomplish what the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants to accomplish; but before it is over, we
will have provided whatever is needed to secure the United States of
America and to allow the President to run this war and make sure that
he has the money when it is needed to do that.
None of us are going to be satisfied if something is undone, if
something is not done, if some security measure is not taken care of
because of a lack of money. We are going to provide whatever is
necessary to fight terrorism, to guarantee that the terrorists do not
have an opportunity to attack America again or our friends or our
allies or our interests, wherever they might be.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to note that if anyone votes for this
motion today, they are accepting the obligation of the conferees to
report back a bill which is $5.3 billion higher than the bill as it
left the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Murtha), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, the dilemma we are caught in here, and the
gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentleman
from California, all of us know this, is we have an agreement with an
artificial cap, and we have to try to meet the needs of the war while
this is going on.
We know that in the amendment that we have offered we can speed up
the renovation of the Pentagon. We know we can speed up some of the
weapons systems; and some people would say that with the phenomenal
increase already, we do not need any more. But some of the problems we
are trying to solve have gone on for years.
For instance, we are trying to figure out a way to replace tankers.
We run into the artificial ceiling. The tankers are worn out. We are
using them every day. Some of those flights today have to be refueled
four or five times by the time they get to Afghanistan and back. Yet we
cannot buy the tankers, so we are probably going to have to lease them,
if we finally agree; and we have been resisting this on the House side.
But if we agree, it will cost us $7 billion or $8 billion more in order
to lease them rather than buy them. So we have put ourselves in a
dilemma.
I realize the Speaker and the President have made an agreement, and I
would hope at some point we can convince them. I worry that last year,
the supplemental, we kept thinking it was going to be up here, we kept
urging him to bring it up. We all called for him to send the
supplemental up, and they waited forever. I would hope they would get a
supplemental to us as soon as possible, because we only have like 12
legislative days from January to the end of March. So we really are in
a box in the sense that while the war is going on, unless they send a
supplemental up that we can act on, we will have them doing the same
thing they did last year, reaching into other processes in order to get
the money.
So we have some real problems here that we have to solve. I know the
reason that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) decided that
he could not support extra money is because when the President said he
is going to veto the bill, he would veto the bill. I know that is a
problem. We have this artificial ceiling we have to deal with, but I
hope at some point we can convince the President and the Speaker that
we really do have a problem here.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
{time} 1645
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned about our crossing that line of
the agreement, because it conceivably could lead to a veto, but I think
the gentleman's motion today is very helpful in connection with that,
because it, indeed, is very possible that the other body will come in
with a lot less in that package than we have, and if there is a
statement here that suggests that we really know what we would prefer
to have move, that may very well cause the administration to bring us
back for a supplemental much earlier. So I feel very comfortable with
this discussion and I hope we go forward positively.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just hope that when
Members vote on this, they will understand that we need more money in
homeland security. We need to speed up the process of getting teams to
combat biological and chemical warfare out; we need money for the
borders;
[[Page H9315]]
but we also need money for operational money and the war. I know we
will take care of the immediate needs, but I worry about the
supplemental, and I hope we are putting the executive branch on notice
that they need to send us a supplemental as soon as possible, that they
do not wait around and let those experts at OMB decide when the
supplemental is sent up.
So I would just urge the Members to vote for this motion and,
hopefully, in the subcommittee, we will be able to work the best we can
under the artificial limitations we have, and then they will understand
that we need more money and get the supplemental up as quickly as
possible.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I rise to agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). He
is one of the best national defense experts that I know anywhere in the
House or the Senate, or at the Pentagon, as a matter of fact. He is
right. He mentioned the tankers. There is no doubt that our tankers
have been worn out. Our AWACS, we actually have foreign AWACS flying
around the United States protecting our major cities. There is no doubt
we have a lot of needs.
But I also agree with the gentleman that we should have a
supplemental as early as we possibly can. He mentioned how slow the
administration was last spring getting us a supplemental and, again, he
was right. But that was pre-war. When that supplemental came down, it
was before September 11. After September 11, we took up the emergency
supplemental, passed it in the House, the Senate, and conferenced it
all on the same day. So we can move quickly when the security of our
Nation is at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, nuclear terrorism is a serious threat to
our Nation and our families, but this Congress is not acting like it.
Inexplicably, in the waning hours of this session of Congress, we will
have spent less on nuclear nonproliferation this year than we did last
year.
Considering the consequences of September 11, considering all that we
have learned in recent weeks since then about even al Qaeda trying to
get its hands on nuclear materials which could, in effect, kill
millions of American citizens in one nuclear incident, I just cannot
understand how we can go back home to our constituents and say we
should be spending less to protect them from the potential holocaust of
nuclear terrorists.
President Bush recently said that preventing nuclear terrorism should
be a top national priority. I agree. The President is right. I think
today it is time we start following through on that belief.
We have had enough rhetoric about dealing with nuclear terrorists.
Tonight, in this Obey motion, we need to actually take concrete action
to prevent it. We must decide whether we just want to talk about
stopping nuclear terrorists or really want to prevent them. I believe
we have an obligation to our constituents and families and, yes, even
our children and grandchildren to do everything possible now, not next
year, not the year after, to do something now to stop a nuclear
holocaust in our country.
How serious is this threat? Well, this year, former Senator Sam Nunn
and Howard Baker, a Democrat and a Republican together, after a year-
and-a-half study concluded, and I quote, that ``Nuclear terrorism is
the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States.''
In my opinion, as of this moment, this Congress has failed in our
serious responsibility to the American people to take responsible,
effective, proven steps to keep nuclear materials away from terrorists.
Nobody in this House or this country would intend to help nuclear
terrorists, but I would suggest that we have to do more than just talk
against them; we have to fund the programs that help protect nuclear
materials from these kinds of people.
The Obey motion that we will vote on in just a few moments will add
over $220 million to proven, effective programs that our Department of
Energy has carried out in Russia to protect Americans from nuclear
holocaust.
The question of timing has been raised. Well, let us just wait until
next year. The President will have a proposal, let us fund it then. If
that is what happens, I hope and pray that that will be soon enough.
But taking action next year will not do Americans and future
generations any good if grapefruit size of nuclear material needed to
kill 2 million Americans is stolen next month or in the next several
months. We must support this Obey motion.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh), a subcommittee chairman on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
This discussion is a bit difficult to follow. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the leader of the minority on this issue, offers
a motion to instruct. Our chairman, the leader of the majority on this
issue, accepts. But what does this really mean? Well, I would submit
that it means nothing, because we are not instructing the Senate; the
Senate is instructed by the Senators. We are instructing the House
conferees. Since there is no controversy over the defense bill, the
only thing we are instructing the conferees on is the supplemental.
Now, who are the conferees? Well, they just happen to be all here
today at the same time in the same room: the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young.) They know how they are going to
vote, clearly. So who are we really instructing? What is this exercise
all about? Polemics? Politics? I am not sure.
The fact is, the President has made the point over and over again.
The supplemental will not go over $20 billion. It took me a while to
figure that out. I offered an amendment in the Committee on
Appropriations to add money to this. We lost the amendment. The House
decided not to go over $20 billion, and we did not. The Senate,
reacting to what the House did and what the President said that he
would do, also did not go over the $20 million. I submit to my
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that the conference will not go over $20
billion either.
Now, there are a couple of problems with what has not happened. We
have not helped workers with unemployment insurance benefits or their
health benefits. If the Senate majority leader, Mr. Daschle, would stop
obstructing the stimulus package and let that bill go forward, we could
deal with the really vital issues that need to be dealt with in this
bill.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we need to move forward on this
bill and we need to have this conference and we need to get these
expenditures resolved quickly.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair will remind all
Members not to urge Senate action or inaction on any matter.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked what this is about. It is very
simple. What this is about is the fact that thousands of Americans died
3 months ago because the country was hit by terrorists in an unexpected
way. What this is about is trying to see to it that that does not
happen again. That is what this is about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in very strong support of this
motion. As I understand it, we would go to the higher levels and, in
that case for defense, it would be additional; we would go back to the
$7 billion that was in the House bill.
In my judgment, we desperately need that money for defense and
national security. One of the things that came out at our hearings this
year, led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), is that each of the services
told us that they were somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion
short on money for procurement of new
[[Page H9316]]
weapons systems to recapitalize our force. This is something that I am
very concerned about, because in each of these wars that we have had,
Desert Storm, Desert Shield and Kosovo, now Afghanistan, we have
heavily used this equipment. It is getting older. It is going to have
to be replaced.
Unfortunately, one area where the Clinton administration did not do
enough and, in fact, the Bush administration is a little below them
this year in the 2002 budget on procurement, is in the area of buying
new weapon systems. The CNO of the Navy testified that in order to
maintain a 300-ship Navy, he has to buy 10 ships a year. The budget
only allows him 5. In order to maintain and reduce the age of the
aircraft, the attackers coming off those carriers that we see operating
and flying into Afghanistan, he has to acquire 180 to 210 planes a
year. He is only able to buy 81.
So if we continue to reduce the money in this supplemental for
defense, we are going to have problems equipping the force and doing
the things that are essential.
I just hope that this Congress can work with this President and,
during this war, add the additional money that is necessary to
recapitalize our forces. I think it is the number one defense priority.
We are doing a good job on readiness. We are helping our troops with
adequate pay increases and health care, but what we really are failing
to do is to get the new equipment that they will be using. I worry, as
we saw one of the B-1s lost today, and we are pleased to hear that the
pilots were able to bail out and I think are safe, hopefully. But it is
that kind of problem that will occur if we do not do a better job of
modernizing and, therefore, I hope we can save this $5 billion, and I
support the Obey motion.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Subcommittee on
Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have stated in the well before that
the two committees which are the best to serve on is the Subcommittee
on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, and when I served on the
Authorization Committee with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and those guys, but also
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) know that yes, we need
funds. We need them desperately, not just for our forces, but we need
them for homeland defense also.
My point is, why are we here in this position? Why are we here today
asking for more and more money? Eight years of the Clinton
administration and 124 deployments has nearly devastated our military.
The cruise missiles, we do not have JDAM kits for precision-guided
weapons today. We have 37 ships tied up that we cannot repair with
deferred maintenance.
Mr. Speaker, 124 deployments. Look at Haiti. Most people have seen
Blackhawk Down. We got our rear-ends kicked out of there and we lost 19
rangers in the process. We got our rear-ends kicked out of Somalia, 5
times in Iraq, bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan. All of these
different deployments put us over $200 billion in debt for defense. And
guess what? At the same time we deployed in defense, our national
security forces, our CIA, our FBI, they also have not been able to
modernize. Those accounts are deficits. Those accounts are low.
Now, we find ourselves not only in a war in Afghanistan, but here in
the home front. We cannot make up $200 billion plus like this. Now we
are asking to go $5 billion above the $20 billion, and then another $20
billion. That is no small change. And to do that, yes, we have a bill
coming up before long that is called Medicare. We have a bill coming up
called Social Security and the Social Security Trust Fund.
{time} 1700
We are going to want money there. But we cannot keep deficit spending
on all of these; and yes, there are priorities. The condition we are in
right now of having to build ourselves out of this hole is going to
take a while. We cannot spend all this money; we cannot spend $20
billion, in 3 months. We will spend it as we need it, and with the
supplemental coming down the line.
If we try to do it now, we have all this money; and a lot of it is
going to go where the gentleman and I do not want it to go.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the
gentleman would not argue that we are not short of the procurement
dollars that are needed to modernize the forces, would he? Would the
gentleman not agree with that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think that is exactly what I said. But
the reason we got here is because 124 deployments in the last years of
the Clinton administration have nearly destroyed our military, and we
cannot bail ourselves out of it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, there are several oddities being announced
today. One is that when we know we are going to need more money, we
should not, in the basic budget bill, vote all that we are going to
need, but we should hold some back for a supplemental.
I had thought the purpose was, when we were pretty sure we were going
to need money, to vote that at the outset so there could be intelligent
planning on the part of those receiving it, and reserve a supplemental
for something unexpected. We are told here, yes, you are right, we need
this money; but let us not do it in the overall budget bill. Let us
wait for a supplemental. Why? Because the President does not want it.
That is really quite striking. That is the second interesting
constitutional point. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) said the
President leads and we support. In terms of the deployment of troops
and the command in the field, of course that is the case. But in terms
of allocation of resources, this is a very odd constitutional theory,
that it is somehow inappropriate for Congress to say to the President,
we think you need more money. It is a good thing Harry Truman did not
believe that during World War II when he did such a good job of
oversight.
Apparently, there is this new theory that once the President says
something, that is it, that our job is simply to do what he wants.
Pretty soon, under that theory, the only place we are going to find
checks and balances around here is in the Members' bank accounts,
because we have this view that says that whatever the President wants
we have to accept.
By the way, there is reason to question the President's judgment. I
know that is considered now to be, by John Ashcroft, somewhat
treasonous, but the fact is, the President's judgment seems to be
flawed.
All last year, I heard Candidate Bush and Candidate Cheney talk about
how weak and pitiful the American military had been. We heard again
from the gentleman from California that the American military had been
reduced to a state of pitiful decrepitude.
So I have a question: Where did that wonderful military come from
that just did such a magnificent job in Afghanistan, while it was
simultaneously maintaining forces in Korea, in the former Yugoslavia,
and continuing to bomb Iraq? In fact, the denigration of the military,
which was the theme song of the Republican ticket last year, has just
been very effectively refuted by the wonderful performance of that
military in Afghanistan.
Now having performed that way, there is a need to replenish.
Apparently, what we are told is yes, we do need to replenish them, we
know that, it is foreseeable; but let us not do it in the basic budget
bill because the President does not want us to, because Mitch Daniels
will yell at him; and, therefore, let us do a supplemental.
It is not a sensible way to budget; it is not a sensible way to
conduct legislative affairs; and it is not a sensible way, in my
judgment, to try and spend money efficiently. If we think the military
is going to need more money, let them have it at the outset. Let us do
homeland security at the outset.
[[Page H9317]]
The supplemental is meant to be a way of taking care of unanticipated
needs; it is not supposed to be a way to show congressional submission
to an all-powerful executive which feels it would be inconvenient to
spend now what it knows it is going to have to spend.
I hope that the resolution is adopted, and that it is in fact
conscientiously carried out by those who vote for it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are as far apart on this as it seems.
We all understand what the requirements are. Mainly, we are talking
about timing.
What I suggest is we get about this conference report and bring it
back to the floor so that the House can complete it on next week. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), as chairman of the subcommittee,
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), as the ranking
member, have done an outstanding job in preparing an excellent bill.
Are there other requirements? Absolutely. I can tell the Members, we
talked about the tankers, wearing out that fleet; we talked about the
AWACs. An awful lot of our combat aircraft are in the hangars being
used as a source of spare parts. Because of all the deployments that
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned, we are in
fact wearing out much of the equipment of our military.
On the other hand, the bill that we are debating today is $317
billion. That is a lot of money. We have said that when additional
money is needed over and above that, we are going to make it available.
Who better knows than the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces what
they need to conduct the war in Afghanistan, or wherever that war might
take us, to eliminate the threat of terrorism, to disrupt the ability
of terrorist organizations to threaten the United States of America?
Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest to my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I complimented the gentleman from California
(Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and
I would not only compliment but thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
how we have worked together on all of our bills. We have worked
together extremely well. We have worked together very well on this
bill.
The gentleman from Wisconsin and I made a strong presentation to the
President. The President made a final decision, as Commander in Chief;
and that is the decision that we are working with today.
So now we are at the point where the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) has made a motion to instruct the conferees. I have already said
that we are going to accept that motion, so I just ask the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to take ``yes'' for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the question before us is very simple: What is more
important, to adhere to an artificially imposed $20 billion spending
ceiling on national security-related items, or to do what we think is
necessary today to deal with our vulnerabilities?
We are told by the majority Members, wait until next year. In my
view, that is a slogan more befitting a Chicago Cubs fan than it is a
Member of Congress.
If we take a look at what my good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), has said, he said that we have urgent
military needs; yet we are being told that those needs have to be
sacrificed to that $20 billion ceiling that we supposedly agreed to.
There is no such ceiling. That ceiling is a fiction. When we agreed
to supplemental funding requests after the events of September 11, we
all agreed, and the President, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
and I are all on record publicly as admitting that that was simply a
downpayment. It was not a final ceiling; it was a downpayment on
meeting future needs. The needs are obvious. Members on both sides of
the aisle know it.
We are told we are supposed to wait. We are told that this money
cannot be used now. Not true. We can hire more border guards now. We
have had over 600 of them already cleared by the agency. They are just
waiting to get the authority and the money to hire them.
We can give the FBI a modern computer system now. Right now they have
computers that cannot even do pictures. If they want to send a picture
of a suspected criminal from one station to another across the country,
at least one-third of their computers do not have the capacity to do
that. And we are asked to wait? Give me a break.
We can improve the percentage of imported food that is inspected at
our borders now. Only 1 percent is inspected right now. Yet we are told
that somehow, rather than doing these things, we have to adhere to this
$20 billion agreement. The fact is very simple: to wait is to play
Russian roulette with the safety of every American.
Make no mistake about it, a great effort has been made here today to
imply that Members can vote for this motion and still vote to keep the
$20 billion ceiling. Members cannot. This motion specifically instructs
the conferees to accept the higher dollar amount contained in the House
bill for defense funding in the supplemental. It instructs the
conferees to accept the higher dollar amount for assistance to New
York, which is only half of that which was originally committed by the
President, and it requires the conferees to accept the higher Senate
amount for homeland security.
That means that if the conferees do that, they will be required to
bring back to this floor a bill which contains more than $5.3 billion
in additional security spending above the level that would be imposed
by that $20 billion artificial ceiling. Mr. Speaker, they cannot vote
for this motion and then claim to be consistent with it if they bring
back a bill which falls short of that $5.3 billion add-on.
The American public wants these expenditures, the vast majority of
Members want these expenditures, and the only reason the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) has accepted it while at the same time trying to
pretend that he can still stay within that $20 billion ceiling is
because he knows that his leadership could not win a vote against this
motion if they took it on. That is because most Members of Congress
recognize this funding is necessary, and so do most members of the
American body politic.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress did not say, Wait until next year, before
it decided to give $24 billion in 15-year retroactive tax breaks to
some of the biggest companies in this country. It did not say, Wait
until next year, to the people who were given multi-billion dollar tax
breaks on the estate tax. But when it comes to providing more help for
the FBI, more help for the Customs people, more help for our other
security agencies, we are now told, Wait until next year.
Let us do it now. Vote for this motion to instruct and mean it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motin to
instruct.
In the three months since terrorists attacked America, Congress and
the American people have been called upon to make extraordinary
commitments.
Our men and women in uniform are risking their lives, helping to
liberate Afghanistan from the grip of al-Qaida and and root out
terrorists. Ordinary citizens are making sacrifices, volunteering their
time and money to help victims of terrorism. And, in the days
immediately following the September 11th attacks, Congress took
unprecedented action to do its part--providing $40 bilion in emergency
funding to help the rescue and recovery effort, enhance our military
might, and ensure the safety and security of all Americans.
Despite our best intentions, what we provided was not enough. And we
know we can do better. We must do right by our military, we must do
right by the American people, and we must do right by the people of New
York.
In the wake of September 11th, the President made a promise to
provide whatever it took to rebuild New York. And Congress made that
promise law, setting aside $20 of the $40 billion in emergency funding
for relief and reconstruction. But neither the Senate nor the House
bill fulfills this promise.
The devastation in New York is not just at Ground Zero, where teams
are working around the clock to recover bodies and clear away the
rubble. Widows need health insurance. Laid off workers--who were just
getting by--need extended unemployment benefits. Residents need checks
to cover security deposits in temporary homes, and to repair their
apartments. Small businesses need grants to stay solvent.
[[Page H9318]]
And it is not just New York that is hurting. The American people have
become victims of the fear and uncertainty that terrorism breeds. And,
while investments in homeland security will not allay all the fears--
they will go a long way to keep our communities safe. Safe from threats
to our postal system and our food and water supply. Safe from threats
to our ports, borders, and our schools. It is our responsibility to
invest in safety both at home and abroad--providing adequate funds to
ensure the superiority of our military and the security of our
citizens.
It is simply wrong to force the American people to choose between
homeland security and a strong national defense. And it is wrong to
force us to choose between either of these and cleaning up New York.
$40 billion will not be enough to meet all of our commitments, but we
have been blocked from increasing this amount before the end of the
year. I urge our conferees to maximize our investment in all of these
priorities, and I hope Congress will return in January ready to do our
job--to commit whatever it takes to rebuild New York, win the war
against terrorism, and keep America safe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. 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.
This 15-minute vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion
to close the conference.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 370,
nays 44, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 494]
YEAS--370
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--44
Akin
Armey
Barton
Burr
Cannon
Chabot
Coble
Collins
Culberson
Deal
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehlers
Flake
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kerns
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nussle
Otter
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Toomey
Upton
NOT VOTING--19
Bishop
Buyer
Camp
Cubin
Delahunt
Dooley
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hoeffel
Hostettler
King (NY)
Lowey
Luther
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Pence
Schakowsky
Wexler
Young (AK)
{time} 1737
Messrs. MORAN of Kansas, SMITH of Michigan, GRAVES, DUNCAN, EHLERS,
PETRI, and UPTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Without objection, the
Chair appoints the following conferees:
For consideration of Division A of the House bill and Division A of
the Senate amendment, and modifications committed in conference:
Messrs. Lewis of California, Young of Florida, Skeen, Hobson, Bonilla,
Nethercutt, Cunningham, Frelinghuysen, Tiahrt, Murtha, Dicks, Sabo,
Visclosky, Moran of Virginia, and Obey.
For consideration of all other matters of the House bill and all
other matters of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Messrs. Young of Florida, Lewis of California, and Obey.
There was no objection.
____________________