[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.

                          ____________________