[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10917-H10934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3338, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2002
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
324, I call up the conference report accompanying the bill (H.R. 3338)
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 324, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Wednesday, December 19, 2001.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), my friend, that the House has had a long
night this past night. We have very, very extensive discussions that
should take place regarding this bill, but we have heard this
discussion before. So I am going to pass on those formal remarks, and I
hope that my colleagues will read about them very carefully in the
Record. But in the meantime, there are a couple of items of business
that I must attend to.
First, due to a clerical error, language was mistakenly omitted from
the Statement of Managers that relates to the FMTV truck program, a
very important program to some of the Members of the House.
That language, agreed to by the conferees but inadvertently not
included in the statement of managers, is as follows: ``The conferees
understand that the Army did not request legislative authority to
extend the current multi-year contract. The conferees direct the Army
to act in the best interest of the Army with respect to the FMTV.''
Secondly, I would ask that on behalf of myself and Chairman Young,
that I be allowed to insert in the Record at the end of my opening
remarks a series of tables summarizing the conference agreements, on
both the Defense and Supplemental appropriations bills.
Finally, let me mention that our former colleague from the Committee
on Appropriations, Larry Coughlin of Pennsylvania, who was a proud
Marine by the way, Larry Coughlin was laid to rest at Arlington
Cemetery this morning.
[[Page H10918]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.001
[[Page H10919]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.002
[[Page H10920]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.003
[[Page H10921]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.004
[[Page H10922]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.005
[[Page H10923]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.006
[[Page H10924]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.007
[[Page H10925]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.008
[[Page H10926]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.009
[[Page H10927]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20DE01.010
[[Page H10928]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. We did the best we could
with the little bit of money we had.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for a very brief
colloquy.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Defense Appropriations bill.
Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha have done excellent work in
balancing very difficult and demanding priorities. Most of all, I am
very pleased that the conferees agreed to accept a Senate provision
which allows the Air Force to lease new aircraft to replace the oldest
of our KC-135 tankers. The issue of replacing the Air Force's tanker
refueling aircraft is, in fact, very simple despite the cloud of
confusion being created by its opponents. In their frenzy to condemn
what they see as a special deal, they have totally lost sight of the
facts. The truth is this provision is a good deal--a good deal for our
armed forces and a good deal for taxpayers.
First, it is important to understand that every credible defense and
aviation observer agrees that it is time to replace the aging KC-135-E
tanker aircraft fleet with new tankers based on the 767 aircraft. Both
of the large tanker refueling aircraft now in use were built by the
Boeing Company--current aircraft are based on the 707 and DC-10
airliners--and Air Force analyses have shown that the 767 due to its
size, range, and carrying capacity is uniquely suited to this role. The
proof of this is already evident in the commercial marketplace. The
Italian Government has already signed a deal for 767 tankers for its
Air Force, Japan recently did the same, and several other European
governments are likely to be close behind. The 136 KC-135 E model
aircraft the Air Force is seeking to replace average 43 years of age.
They exhibit severe corrosion and structural damage due to age and
spend on average well over a year in depot in an attempt to patch up
this damage. The Air Force has two choices, either spend billions to
attempt to repair and partially modernize these aircraft, or make the
transition to a new airframe with much greater capability and lower
cost of operation. The decision is not hard. The Air Force must replace
its KC-135 Es and it must begin its program now.
The war in Afghanistan has shown just how vital our tanker capability
is. Navy aircraft flying from aircraft carriers are being refueled at
least 2 and sometimes 3 or 4 times on each mission. Bombers from Diego
Garcia, and even those coming all the way from the United States, are
being refueled, some up to as much as 6 times on one mission. Simply
put, we could not fight a war in Afghanistan without these tankers, and
what we've discovered is that our current fleet is too old to do the
job for long in high intensity situations like the current one. The
only question then is how do we pay to replace these tankers? Again,
for the Air Force the choice is relatively simple. It needs 100
aircraft delivered as quickly as possible. The Air Force calculates
that phasing out the KC-135 Es on an aggressive schedule will save at
least $5.9 billion. But the Air Force's procurement budget was held
flat this year by the new administration, and for now there doesn't
appear to be any help for procurement in sight. The Air Force bears the
responsibility of paying not only for the nation's tanker aircraft, but
also for all of the nation's airlift, most of our space assets, and our
Air superiority capability. So the right answer is to lease tanker
aircraft, which allows the Air Force to spread the cost over up to 10
years, and buy down the value of these aircraft to the point where at
the end of the lease, the Air Force can easily buy or release these
aircraft for their residual value. This is the same principle on which
a car lease operates, an arrangement understood and exercised by
millions of Americans. And the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has determined that ``the lease price quoted is a very good price.''
How can the taxpayer be sure that Boeing will not turn around at the
end of the lease and sell these aircraft to somebody else? Boeing can
sell or lease these aircraft only with US government approval under
export control laws.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the next six
lines of the colloquy be inserted in the record.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Absolutely.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman that
colloquies may not be inserted in the record.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman read this
very brief colloquy to me, and I will try to respond.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I understand that this bill grants approval
for the Air Force to enter into a lease for new tanker aircraft to be
delivered as general purpose aircraft in commercial configuration. Is
that correct?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the
gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that Italy and
Japan have selected the 767 tanker for their air forces. Italy intends
to buy at least four of the tankers, and Japan intends to procure at
least one. Further, I believe that the same tanker configuration is
being offered commercially to other countries to meet their in-flight
refueling requirements. Is that the gentleman's understanding?
{time} 1030
Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, it is.
Mr. DICKS. Then the gentleman would say that a commercial market
exists for general purpose, commercially configured aerial refueling
tanker aircraft?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, very well said.
Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman agree a general purpose aircraft that
will meet the general requirements of many customers; that can operate
as a passenger aircraft, a freighter, a passenger/freighter
``combination'' aircraft, or as an aerial refueling tanker; and is
available to either government or private customers, meets the
definition of a general purpose, commercially configured aircraft?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Absolutely.
Mr. DICKS. The gentleman would agree with that assessment?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Of course. Of course.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill, and I
think we will pass it expeditiously here this morning, but I want to
remind the Members that it does include the $20 billion emergency
supplemental, which is divided into three basic sections; which is
national defense, or military, homeland defense, and the recovery
effort for after the terrible September 11 attack.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for
being a good partner on the minority side, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has been a tremendous partner as we went
through this process. And, of course, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) is an outstanding chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense
of the Committee on Appropriations.
I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker, that this is the 15th, let me
repeat, the 15th appropriation bill that we have done this year. We
have not lumped any of them together. Each bill has had its own
identity. This is something we have been striving to do for years, and
this year we finally accomplished it.
Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering a very important piece of
legislation, our last appropriations bill--H.R. 3338, the Defense
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. Included in this bill is not
only critical funding for the Defense Department and the Intelligence
Community, but also an allocation of the $20 billion in emergency
supplemental appropriations enacted as part of the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States.
I commend Chairman Lewis, working closely with his partner, the
ranking Member of the subcommittee, Jack Murtha--as well as all of the
members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, on the cooperation
that has produced a truly bipartisan Defense portion of this bill that
shares broad-based support. This was not only because of the way this
bill was put together, but because of what it does. It is a bill which
provides strong support for our troops--both in the immediate
[[Page H10929]]
circumstances they find themselves, as well as the longer term security
challenges confronting our Nation.
You may know that the Defense Subcommittee was actually beginning its
subcommittee mark-up of this bill on the very morning of September
11th--when our country suffered the horrific attacks on New York and
Washington. As we all know, those attacks have changed so many, many
things--and I can report that this Defense Appropriations bill was re-
worked by the committee following the attacks as well as the onset of
our military operations overseas, to reflect the new demands of the war
on terrorism as well as the other challenges we confront around the
world. The bill addresses new threats of this new century--ranging from
areas such as Ballistic Missile Defense, to force protection measures
for our troops in the field, and new equipment and technologies such as
aerial refueling aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles. It also fully
funds the President's initiatives in the area of military pay and
quality of life programs--such as the largest military pay raise in 15
years, and more than a 50 percent increase in funding for the medical
programs supporting our troops and their families. And it includes a
new title to deal with counter-terrorism--ranging from more funding for
intelligence, to providing additional resources in the area of so-
called ``cyber war'' (computer network protection) and improved
equipment and research to counter the threats of chemical and
biological weapons.
emergency supplemental
With regard to Emergency supplemental portion of the bill--Division
B--I believe we have struck an appropriate balance between funding to
address our homeland security, recovery efforts and humanitarian
assistance, and defense requirements. We expect that this is only the
first bill that will provide funding to support our war against
terrorism and the needs of this country to respond and recover from the
attacks of September 11th.
The conference report before you today includes $20 billion to
address the immediate requirements.
recovery
The bill provides approximately $8.2 billion to help impacted areas
recover from the terrorist attacks. This brings the total provided for
recovery at $11.2 billion when $3 billion in previously released funds
are added. Included is: $2 billion for the Community Development Block
Grant for economic recovery assistance in New York City; $4.357 billion
for FEMA disaster relief $300 million in additional transportation
assistance and security enhancements, including funds for Amtrak,
subways and ferries; and $140 million in reimbursement to hospitals
impacted by the terrorist attacks.
homeland security
The bill provides approximately $8.3 billion to improve our homeland
defense and to assist communities in their emergency preparedness,
including: $399.7 million for the Customs Service for increased border
and seaport inspections, $285.5 million more than the request; $209
million for the Coast Guard, $6 million above the President's request;
$2.5 billion for Public Health and Bioterrorism activities, $1 billion
above the request; Aviation security initiatives through the Federal
Aviation Administration receive $200 million which includes $100
million for cockpit door modifications and $65 million for the hiring
of additional Sky marshals. An additional $108.5 million is provided to
the FAA for the purchase and installation of explosive detection
systems; $93 million for grants to U.S. seaports for security
assessments and enhancements; $745 million for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for a variety of counterterrorism efforts, $206 million
above the request; $256 million for Legislative branch security and the
U.S. Capitol Police are authorized to hire an additional 195 FTEs; $226
million for Nuclear Nonproliferation, including $120 million to secure
nuclear materials at sites in Russia and the Newly Independent States.
national defense
The bill provides $3.5 billion for the Department of Defense for
increased operational costs, Pentagon reconstruction and classified
activities. This brings the total for defense spending in the counter-
terror supplemental to $17.2 billion. Also provides authority for
agencies to reimburse the National Guard.
I am asking that we move this important legislation forward so we can
get it to the President for his signature. Critical funding for our
military during a time of war and for homeland security and recovery
efforts is at stake.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our
national security. During most of the last decade, the United States
military has been consistently asked to make do with inadequate
budgets. By adding more than $19 billion over the funding made
available last year, this bill marks a turn for the better in defense
funding.
Our nation has recently suffered a devastating blow from a new and
faceless enemy. Terror was brought to our door on September 11th--
masterminded by an enemy as devious as he is evasive.
As we witness the day-by-day actions of our military response to
Operation Enduring Freedom, the importance of our readiness to dominate
the conflict is a constant reminder. If we expect to control the
battlefield, we must be prepared to fight quickly and with decisive
force. We must allocate enough resources to support our troops at the
highest level of readiness.
By appropriating $317.5 billion, H.R. 3338 will give our fighting
forces the funding levels needed to succeed in protecting our national
security interests.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report and give our
expectional military personnel the support and equipment they need to
achieve current goals and those of the future.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the leaders of the House, our
colleagues in the Senate and the president and his administration for
following through today on a commitment made to Colorado to construct a
new facility in Fort Collins, Colorado to replace the aging Center for
Disease Control building there which houses the Division of Vector-
Borne Infectious Diseases (DVBID). The first, and most important step,
in fulfilling this commitment is contained in the resolution before us
now, H.R. 3338--the Department of Defense Appropriations Act conference
report and its supplemental appropriations for bio-terrorism.
As you know, the safety and security of the Division of Vector-Borne
Infectious Diseases in Fort Collins has been of the utmost importance
to me, to Colorado and to the nation. It is a high complement to the
outstanding professional staff and administrators of the Fort Collins
CDC facility to know that they will finally be getting a new facility
commensurate with the world-class researchers who daily accomplish
there important mission in the spirit of devoted public service.
The DVBID employs a number of epidemiologists, entomologists,
molecular biologists, laboratory technicians, and behavioral scientists
along with the other members of their prestigious staff. The DVBID
performs critical functions for the country including conducting
epidemiological studies to monitor disease spread, identification of
risk factors associated with transmission and measuring public health
impact, studying pathogens and developing new and more effective
integrated, community-based prevention and control strategies,
including vaccine development programs.
The facility deals with such deadly pathogens as Lyme disease,
Dengue, Hemorrhagic Fever, Arboviral Encephalitides, Plague and Aedes
albopictus that can be transmitted through hosts such as insects,
mammals, and rodents. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the work done by the DVBID
entails life-saving research affecting not only Colorado and the United
States, but also the entire world. The new facility initiated by this
bill will lend another helping hand as the DVBID continues to fight
these diseases.
Mr. Speaker, the working conditions at the existing facility are not
conducive to allowing the doctors and researchers of the DVBID to do
their jobs as well as they otherwise would be able. As many in this
House know, the Inspector General will soon be issuing a report citing
approximately $100 million as the possible cost for completing this new
facility. Due to the dramatic state of disrepair of the facility and
the more urgent shortcomings in security as documented in the report,
expediting the construction becomes even more critical. When the
laboratory was first constructed in the 1960s, it was only designed to
accommodate 50 employees. Through the years, new personnel have been
added and now the facility contains more than 150 scientists,
researchers, and other workers. Clearly, the number of people working
in this building have tested its capacity and created an extremely
cramped working environment. The security needs of the facility are
well documented in the IG's report and are self-explanatory. Because of
the sensitivity of the report's recommendations, I will not restate
them herein but will insist the report's findings receive expedient
attention.
In addition to the confining workspace, the facility's airflow system
has been a chronic problem. In most government offices, such a
ventilation problem would only be a minor inconvenience (my office in
the U.S. House of Representatives suffers from a similar problem).
However, proper airflow and ventilation become much larger issues when
placed within the context of laboratory conducting research on some of
the world's most volatile viruses.
Mr. Speaker, while I worked hard to make sure the new building would
be constructed,
[[Page H10930]]
this was certainly not a one-man effort. The Senator from Colorado Mr.
Allard, and gentle lady from Colorado Ms. DeGette were instrumental in
helping me elevate the needs of the Fort Collins lab to a state of
national concern. In fact, Ms. DeGette traveled to Fort Collins and
toured the facility with me. Together we observed first hand the clear
and convincing conditions of the facility, which fully warrant
replacement of the lab. Fort Collins Mayor Ray Martinez also joined me
on a separate tour of the facility. His observations and subsequent
leadership likewise proved crucial in conveying to this Congress the
urgency of this project.
The gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Delay took personal interest in the
facility as well and played the pivotal role in inserting the necessary
language to effectuate the facility replacement into the legislation
under our immediate consideration. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I thank
President George W. Bush whose staff helped set this victory in motion.
By pledging its word and its honor early on, the White House has
assured me and Colorado that the new facility will be completed in a
speedy and timely fashion, and through his representatives, the
president has given me his commitment to place the goal of completion
of the Fort Collins facility among his administration's highest
priorities.
Once again the Colorado delegation to this Congress has proved that
working together across party lines for the greater good of Colorado
and all our constituents yields productive results in Congress for
America. I am deeply grateful for the support and assistance of my
Colorado colleagues. Absent their devoted attention to this important
matter, it is most likely the new DVBID facility would remain an
elusive dream.
Mr. Speaker as I have stated, I am proud to announce the new DVBID
facility to be housed at Colorado State University. I congratulate the
employees of the facility, especially the director, Dr. Duane Gubler. I
applaud the efforts of the DVBID and look forward to being at the
groundbreaking ceremony.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, while we all want to support our military,
our fight against terrorism, and efforts to rebuild areas affected by
the terrorist attacks of September 11, I find I must once again express
my strong objection to the continued disregard for existing law and the
House Rules shown by the Appropriations Committee. While the conference
report has only been available for a few hours, there clearly are
several objectionable provisions. While too numerous to specify all of
them, I will highlight just a few.
When the House considered H.R. 3338 on November 28, several points of
order were made striking provisions that funded certain aviation and
highway spending from the Aviation and Highway Trust Funds. The points
of order were upheld because language directing that the funding be
from the trust funds was determined to be a violation of the House
Rules because this funding from the Trust Funds was not authorized. The
$40 billion emergency response supplemental passed after September 11
did not provide for funding from the Trust Funds. This spending should
come from the general fund. Perhaps it is no surprise to find that this
conference report inserts the Trust Fund provisions again, in violation
of the House Rules.
It is shocking that just a few days after the FY2002 Department of
Transportation Appropriations Act was signed into law, the
Appropriators have seen a need to make ``technical corrections'' to the
Act and continue their practice of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
diversion which negatively impacts state formula funds. The
Transportation Appropriations Act diverted roughly $1 billion of RABA
(which under TEA 21 is to be distributed proportionately to states and
among allocated programs) into a few programs to increase their
earmarking opportunities. One of the programs which had its share of
RABA funds zeroed out was the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which under TEA 21
should have received $29.9 million in RABA funds this year. Now, I am
no fan of the vast amounts of federal highway funds going toward this
project, but that is the project's fair share under TEA 21. H.R. 3338
restores $29.9 million to the Wilson Bridge. But the Bridge's good
fortune is more bad news for the States. In order to make room for the
additional funding for the Bridge, all the States will receive another
cut from their TEA 21 formula funds to pay for the $29.5 million. This
is on top of the $423 million cut in formula funds as a result of the
first raid on the States included in the DOT Appropriations Act.
Inexplicably, the Appropriators cut RABA funds for the National
Scenic Byway Program, a program that seeks to preserve some of the
great driving roads across our nation and that should receive $3.4
million in RABA funds.
The Appropriators found time to do a little more earmarking, though
in a less objectionable fashion. Two more projects for Mississippi and
Washington are included, but funded from general funds and added to the
$144 million of projects funded in sec. 330 of the original DOT Act and
then earmarked. While unauthorized, we should at least be thankful
that, unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not fund these
two projects from the Trust Fund programs that were the beneficiaries
of the raid on the RABA funds from the states and other programs.
On December 11, less than 10 days ago, the House passed by voice vote
H.R. 3441. This bill, requested by the Administration, creates the
positions of Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy and Assistant
Secretary for Public Affairs. When the House considered this bill on
the Floor, not one member of the Appropriations Committee expressed any
concerns. In fact, not one word of opposition was uttered on the Floor.
And again, it was passed by voice vote. Yet, section 1107 of this
conference report prohibits the use of any funds for these two
positions. Why? No explanation is given.
Section 1102 provides that no appropriated funds or revenues
generated by Amtrak may be used to implement section 204(c)(2) of
Amtrak's current authorization law until Congress has enacted an Amtrak
authorization law. Section 204(c)(2) requires Amtrak to prepare a
liquidation plan within 90 days of the Amtrak Reform Council
determining that Amtrak will not reach operational self-sufficiency by
December, 2002. It also requires the Council to submit a plan to
restructure Amtrak within 90 days of that finding. The Council made
such a finding last month.
This prohibition on developing such plans will impede Congress'
consideration of the future of Amtrak. The liquidation and
restructuring plans would help educate Members and provide vital
information during reauthorization of Amtrak. It is sad that the
Appropriators saw fit to eliminate this statutory requirement. And,
since it prohibits use of appropriations and revenues generated by
Amtrak, I would argue that this is legislating on an appropriations
bill in violation of the House Rules.
Chapter 11 of this conference report is replete with legislative
provisions affecting programs under the jurisdiction of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This practice of usurping
the jurisdiction of authorizing committees must stop. And it is getting
worse with each passing year. Thankfully, we have completed all action
on appropriations bills for FY 2002, but next year we must not continue
to proceed down this path. I urge all Members, particularly those on
authorizing committees, to stand together against this continuing
assault on the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Appropriations bill for 2002
(H.R. 3338) includes important language to solve a critical problem
with funding deficiencies in a technical assistance program under the
Multifamily Assisted Housing and Assistance Restructuring Act (MAHRA).
The Office of Multifamily Housing and Assistance Restructuring (OHMAR)
was charged with the administration of this program, which offers
grants to non-profit groups for outreach and rehabilitation of housing.
OMHAR mistakenly exceeded an annual $10 million restriction in two of
the last four fiscal years. HUD has subsequently frozen all funds for
the program. Over 100 non-profit and tenant organizations with written,
signed contracts have incurred expenses on the assumption that the
contracts would be honored. Even though these organizations have
completed work according to the terms of their contracts, they are now
forced to lay off staff because invoices for reimbursement have not
been paid. The solution included in the defense appropriations bill
does not require the appropriation of new money. Rather, it includes a
technical correction to appropriate money that already exists within
the HUD budget.
While I strongly support this technical correction as a necessary and
critical step to ensure that 100's of non-profit organizations around
the country are properly compensated, there remains one area of
concern. The language embodies requirements for additional audits and
reviews of the office responsible as well as other elements of the
program. While a full and ongoing investigation of the reasons for
OMHAR's financial errors is absolutely necessary, these steps can and
should be taken without further delaying the reimbursement of non-
profit organizations associated with the program. Any additional
requirements for financial reviews and audits should balance the need
for continued accountability with the need to meet our current and
future obligations to these important non-profit organizations.
I urge my colleagues to work with their local non-profit housing
organizations to ensure that any additional requirements posed by this
legislation do not serve to stymie their efforts to provide quality
housing in our nation's communities.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3338,
the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Conference Report and ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend by remarks.
As a member of the Defense Subcommittee, let me first thank our
Chairman Jerry Lewis
[[Page H10931]]
and our ranking member, Congressman Murtha, as well as our full
Committee Chairman Bill Young.
Our subcommittee was first scheduled to begin work on this bill on
the morning of September 11 at the very hour that terrorists attacked
our county, killing thousands of our fellow Americans and forever
changing the course of our nation's history.
America is now at war and our young men and women in the military
have been called on to defend our citizens and our nation. The course
of our nation's history will not be written by the terrorists but by
the bravery and success of our troops now serving on the frontlines of
this war against terrorism. And our history will be written, in part,
by the actions we take here today.
Today, there is no more important task before this Congress than to
provide our military with the tools and resources they need to defend
our citizens and fight for our freedom. Our military needs to know that
this Congress not only supports their mission in theory but in
substance; that we are prepared to take all the necessary steps and
provide all the necessary means for their safety and their success in
battle. With this Conference Report, we go a long way in doing just
that.
With this bill, we help meet the immediate needs of our troops and
their families, to keep our military at the ready, and to invest in all
the many, diverse capabilities we need to protect our citizens from all
potential threats.
Overall, we provide $317.5 billion for the Department of Defense and
with those dollars, we do the following:
First and foremost, we give our troops better pay.
We add much needed dollars for troop readiness, training, supplies,
and mobility that allow our Commander in Chief to send our Armed Forces
into battle anywhere and at a moment's notice.
We add support for our National Guard and reserves, so many of whom
have now been called to duty.
We provide for modernizing major weapon systems that allow us to
better combat our enemies in the air, on the ground and at sea.
We continue to support critical long-term investments in research and
development so we have the most lethal and effective weapons now and in
the future.
We add significant resources to strengthen classified intelligence
programs, and accelerate and enhance U.S. military intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
And we also add critical funds for our homeland defense to better
protect our citizens from all potential threats.
And with the release of $20 billion in emergency appropriations, we
are also helping to meet the very real needs of those communities and
states most directly impacted by the attacks of September 11 and to
strengthen our homeland defense.
As my colleagues know, New Jersey was on the frontlines of the
attacks of September 11 our people suffered greatly as so many lives
were lost and our state and local law enforcement where there to answer
the call to help our neighbors in New York. And it's important that we
all work to help rebuild lower Manhattan and most important, work
together to help our fellow citizens who suffered to rebuild their
lives.
I want to thank the House for agreeing to requests to help New Jersey
directly by including $30 million to replace our state police
communications system which sat atop the World Trade Center and was
destroyed in the attack. And as a result of the destruction of the PATH
station, thousands of New Jersey commuters are struggling every day to
get to work. Our commuters need help and this bill provides relief for
our commuters by providing $100 million for increased mass transit and
$100 million for increased ferry service. We also provide $100 million
critical safety improvements for the tunnels that take millions of
people to and from Manhattan and New Jersey every day.
Finally, let us also be clear that the commitments we make in this
bill to our military do not meet every need. As more will be required
of our troops, more will be required of this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, as those of us who have served in the military know only
too well, wars are fought by the young. We know, too, that freedom
never has, nor will it be this time, free. At no time in our nation's
history has the sacrifice and service of our young men and women been
more important to the defense of our country and the security of our
future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the fiscal year 2002
Defense Appropriations Conference Report and to do so unanimously.
[From Daily Record, Dec. 20, 2001]
Frelinghuysen Disappointed With Funding for N.J. Military
(By Matt Manochio)
U.S. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen said Wednesday he's
disappointed with the funding provided by the U.S. Senate for
New Jersey's military installations, but the state's two
Democratic senators say they are steadfast in their support
of those bases.
Frelinghuysen, R-Harding, released a statement with details
of the Department of Defense budget that soon will land on
President' Bush's desk.
At Picatinny Arsenal in Rockaway Township, $447 million is
slated for research and development for the arsenal's
Crusader self-propelled howitzer program. All totaled, more
than $600 million is earmarked for Picatinny projects in the
2002 budget.
Frelinghuysen's statement compared House and Senate funding
requests, along with the amounts that actually made it into
the budget.
The House asked for $98 million for the Crusader's ``Common
Engine'' program, compared to $43 million requested by the
Senate. The final amount budgeted was $98 million.
The release listed various projects at Picatinny and other
bases, showing the Senate budgeted no money for them while
the House set aside between $1.5 million and $40 million.
The state's two Democratic senators strongly disagreed with
Frelinghuysen's suggestion that the Senate has failed to
adequately support the military, according to their
spokespeople.
``Basically, we're surprised about it,'' said David Wald, a
spokesman for Sen. Jon Corzine. ``We know that the bulk of
the ($300 million) for Homeland Defense that impacts on New
Jersey started on the Senate side.''
Likewise, Sen. Robert G. Torricelli's spokeswoman, Debra
DeShong, took exception to the Frelinghuysen document.
New Jersey military bases have no bigger advocate than Sen.
Torricelli,'' she said, adding that the senator was
``disappointed that Congressman Frelinghuysen has chosen to
politicize our state's defense projects and our efforts to
protect our priorities.''
Frelinghuysen's spokesman, Mark Broadhurst, said that the
congressman wasn't trying to politicize anything.
``To say that he was disappointed with the final numbers
this year, that would be an accurate statement,'' Broadhurst
said.
``But in no way is the congressman trying to point any
fingers,'' he said, adding that Frelinghuysen is telling the
Senate ``we have to do better.''
Picatinny Arsenal spokesman Pete Rowland said he was
pleased with the congressman's efforts.
``I think that it goes without saying (Frelinghuysen) has
displayed a real strong support for military installations
not only in his district but in the state of New Jersey and
military services at large,'' he said. ``And this is another
example of his personal support, as well as that of the other
members of the New Jersey congressional delegation.''
Picatinny Arsenal covers about 6,500 acres with 1,000
buildings. It employs approximately 3,500 people designing
new weapons and munitions for the military.
____
[From the Star Ledger, Dec. 20, 2001]
Millions Expected for Area's Transit and Security
(By J. Scott Orr)
Washington.--House and Senate negotiators have agreed on a
Pentagon spending bill that includes hundreds of million of
dollars for law enforcement and transportation aid to New
Jersey in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Included is close to $300 million to improve commuter
access to New York City from New Jersey and more than $50
million for the State Police and the Newark and Jersey City
police departments to help tighten security.
``These important security and transportation initiatives
are critical to the safety and well-being of New Jersey
residents,'' said Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist.),
the state's senior member of the House Appropriations
Committee.
``Through no choice of its own, New Jersey has become one
of the front lines in the war on terrorism, and it is
absolutely crucial that the state receives the resources it
needs to provide the strongest security possible,'' added
Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), who fought for the New
Jersey money in the Senate.
While they joined in applauding the transportation and
security funding, Frelinghuysen and Torricelli were divided
over another part of the bill that sets funding levels for
New Jersey's military installations, including Picatinny
Arsenal, Fort Monmouth, McGuire Air Force Base and Fort Dix.
The bases would receive more than $650 million under the
bill.
Without mentioning Torricelli or Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.),
Frelinghuysen charged that the Senate failed to support more
than $25 million in additional funding for programs at the
bases, including more than $20 million at Picatinny.
Frelinghuysen had complained privately that the money for
the transportation and security projects, championed in the
Senate by Torricelli and Corzine, could jeopardize funding
levels for other military programs in the state.
Speaking through a spokesperson, Torricelli said he was
``disappointed'' that Frelinghuysen would blame the Senate
for ``shortcomings that resulted from the work of the
committee on which he serves.''
The transportation and security funding is part of $20
billion in anti-terror and reconstruction funding included in
the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
The agreement still requires final approval by the House
and the Senate, but its backers said there is little doubt it
will be approved quickly, possibly today.
[[Page H10932]]
The transportation funding includes:
$100 million to expand ferry service for PATH commuters
between New Jersey and Manhattan.
$100 million in capital investment funding to accelerate
improvements under way by the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey to improve PATH and NJ Transit systems.
$100 million for Amtrak to enhance safety and security of
its rail tunnels under the East and Hudson rivers.
$93.3 million to improve security at all U.S. seaports,
including the Port of New York and New Jersey, and along the
Delaware River in New Jersey.
``The enhancement of the metropolitan area's transportation
infrastructure is central to the region's ability to recover
economically from both the attacks on the World Trade Center
and the economic situation we are currently facing,''
Torricelli said.
The transportation funding--usually not included in an
appropriations package for the Department of Defense--was put
in to help New Jersey and New York recover from the
destruction of the World Trade Center, which sat atop a vital
PATH station.
The loss of the World Trade Center station forced some
67,000 daily commuters to seek alternative routes to
Manhattan. The station is expected to be out of service at
least until mid-2003.
The aging Amtrak Hudson River rail tunnels are slated for a
$1 billion rehabilitation in addition to the $100 million in
the Pentagon bill, which will go for immediate improvements
to protect them against terrorist attack.
For police, the bill would provide:
$30 million to replace the New Jersey State Police Radio
System tower, lost in the attacks on the World Trade Center.
$10.7 million for modernization of the Jersey City Police
Department's communications system.
$10 million for law enforcement purposes and security
equipment updates in Newark.
``This funding will help ensure that our men and women of
the State Police continue to have the tools and resources
necessary to protect our state and its citizens,''
Frelinghuysen said.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the appropriators
on reporting our a fine defense bill overall. However, I need to put in
the record my objections to the inclusions of a provision related to
the Homestake mine in South Dakota. I made the same comments when the
language passed as a free-standing measure, S. 1389.
I'm afraid I must oppose the Homestake language, despite the
strenuous efforts made to improve it by both Mr. Thune and the House
leadership. As a Member of Congress, I'm afraid that this language
could still unnecessary saddle taxpayers with costly and unprecedented
environmental responsibilities. And as Chairman of the House Science
Committee, I'm concerned that it may distort the priorities of the
National Science Foundation for years to come.
This provision sets up dangerous and unprecedented situation in which
the federal government will be financially responsible for activities
it did not undertake at a piece of property it does not control. That
flies in the face of common sense and fiduciary responsibility.
Under this language, the federal government will be responsible for
any environmental liability connected with the portions of the
Homestake mine that are conveyed to South Dakota--even if they
originated while the mine was privately operated. And while the mine
will be owned by South Dakota, the state will have no financial
responsibility for it; that will rest solely with the federal taxpayer.
It's lucky that South Dakota doesn't have any bridges to sell us.
In S. 1389 as originally introduced the federal government did not
even have any real ability to have problems at the mine cleaned up
before it was transferred. Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Thune, that
situation has been improved.
I would urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which will
hire a contractor to review the mine, not to accept any contractor with
which it is not completely satisfied. The unfortunate fact that the
contractor must be selected ``jointly'' by Homestake, South Dakota and
EPA should not be allowed to pressure EPA into hiring a contractor that
will not fully protect the federal taxpayer. And the requirement that
EPA consult with Homestake and the State over the nature of the
contract with the independent entity'' must not be interpreted to give
Homestake or the State any veto over the content of that contract.
But EPA should consult with the National Science Foundation (NSF)
throughout the environmental review process, as NSF is the federal
agency that will have continuing responsibility if a laboratory is
established at the mine.
Importantly, the bill now allows the EPA Administrator to reject the
final report of he contractor if it identifies conditions that would
make the federal assumption of liability ``contrary to the public
interest.'' I believe this allow the federal government to reject the
transfer of the mine if it would cost too much to remedy existing
environmental problems. This is vital since Homestake's contribution to
pre-transfer remediation could well turn out to be nothing, given the
language in this bill.
The bill says nothing about which federal agency would be responsible
for overseeing or financing any pre-transfer remediation. This is a
major, conspicuous, and I assume, purposeful gap in the legislation.
I certainly would hope that these costs--which should not have been
federalized in the first place--are not borne by the National Science
Foundation, a small agency with important tasks that do not include
environmental remediation.
But this bill raises many other concerns related to the National
Science Foundation. All the activities under this bill are contingent
on NSF approval of an underground laboratory at the Homestake mine.
While such a laboratory certainly has scientific merit, it may not be
a high priority compared to other NSF programs and projects, especially
given that construction of other neutrino detectors is either under
consideration or underway.
This bill must not be used to pressure NSF to change or circumvent
its traditional, careful selection procedures. Normally, a project of
this magnitude would require several years of review. NSF would have to
determine its relative priority among other Major Research Equipment
proposals. And NSF would have to ensure that proper management is in
place. Those procedures must be followed in this case. Indeed, this is
even more important in the case of Homestake because any mismanagement
could result in both environmental harm and substantial liability for
the federal government.
I would also urge the National Science Foundation (NSF) not to make a
decision on whether to award a grant to the underground laboratory
until the report to EPA has been prepared. This is essential even
though NSF will have to have an Environmental Impact Statement prepared
about the conversion of the mine into a laboratory.
NSF should not be committing federal resources to a project until it
knows how much the project will cost the federal taxpayer and which
agencies will be responsible for shouldering that burden.
The federal assumption of liability will already pose unfortunate
costs for NSF. The laboratory is to pay into an Environment and Project
Trust Fund, and some if not all of that money will come from NSF.
NSF must be an active participant in determining how much needs to be
contributed to the trust fund, especially since it may end up being the
only contributor to that fund. And NSF must have a role in determining
the final disposition of the fund. The bill is silent on what is to
become of the fund if a laboratory is started and then closed. All that
is clear is that the federal government gets saddled with the costs of
closing the mine. But which agency is responsible for that undertaking?
And what will happen to any leftover funds? NSF should have an active
role in deciding that.
The Homestake language bill poses enormous, unnecessary and
unprecedented risks for the federal taxpayer. It is, in a phrase, a
sweetheart deal for the Canadian company that owns Homestake and for
the State of South Dakota. It could threaten the stability of the
National Science Foundation, a premier science agency whose processes
have been viewed as a model of objectivity and careful review.
I should point out that the federal government is already paying
Homestake $10 million in this fiscal year to keep the mine open because
it might become a laboratory. If that continues through the period of
NSF decision-making the federal government could easily sink as much as
$50 million into a mine that it may never use.
I will work to ensure that NSF itself is not saddled with those
unnecessary costs, which could be spent on worthy grants to
researchers.
The Science Committee will be following this matter extremely closely
to ensure that the environmental review is rigorous and protects the
public interest. We will watch closely to ensure that the laboratory is
being reviewed in the same manner as every other NSF project and does
not distort the agency's processes or priorities or weigh it down with
unsustainable costs. The risks of proceeding with this bill are clear;
we will work to see that they are never realized.
Mr. Speaker, I am attaching an exchange of letters with the National
Science Foundation that will further highlight the risks inherent in
proceeding in this unorthodox manner.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
Dr. Rita Colwell,
Director, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
Dear Dr. Colwell: As you know, the Senate recently passed
S. 1389, the ``Homestake Conveyance Act of 2001.'' This bill
has serious implications for the National Science Foundation
(NSF).
[[Page H10933]]
With that in mind, we want to be sure that NSF is
considering the likely consequences should S. 1389 be
enacted. Therefore, I am writing to request that you submit
to the House Science Committee the following items by no
later than December 15:
(1) A plan for how NSF would absorb the expected costs of
an underground laboratory at Homestake beginning in Fiscal
Year 2003, with special attention to the impact on other
projects in the Major Research Equipment account.
(2) A plan for how NSF would ensure that the laboratory was
properly managed, even if a project were awarded in calendar
2002.
(3) A plan for how NSF would interact with the
Environmental Protection Agency and the State of South Dakota
to ensure that the mine is in proper condition for the
establishment of a laboratory and to determine amounts NSF
grantees would have to pay into the Environment and Project
Trust Fund established under the bill.
The enactment of S. 1389 could complicate NSF's situation
for years to come both directly and through the precedents
the bill may set. We want to work together with you, starting
immediately, to limit any problems this measure may cause.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman.
____
National Science Foundation,
Arlington, VA December 14, 2001.
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter regarding S. 1389, the
``Homestake Conveyance Act of 2001' and its possible
implications for the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The following responds to your requests:
(1) A plan for how NSF would absorb the expected costs of
an underground laboratory at Homestake beginning in Fiscal
Year 2003, with special attention to the impact on other
projects in the Major Research Equipment account.
NSF has not identified funds to support the conversion of
the Homestake mine into an underground research laboratory.
Unless the President requests and Congress appropriates
additional monies for the lab, its establishment would force
us to reconsider the priorities within the Research and
Related Activities appropriation or reevaluate the funding
profiles and timelines of existing MRE projects.
(1) A plan for how NSF would ensure that the laboratory was
properly managed, even if a project were awarded in calendar
2002.
An applicant for a grant of this magnitude must submit a
management plan for NSF's review prior to any funding
decision by the Foundation. That plan must cover all phases
of the project including the planning process, construction
or acquisition, integration and test, commissioning, and
maintenance and operations. The management plan sets forth
the management structure and designates the key personnel who
are to be responsible for implementing the award. This
proposed management plan then becomes the basis for NSF's
review of the adequacy of management for the project.
The technical and managerial complexity of the proposed lab
suggests that NSF would utilize a Cooperative Agreement as
the funding instrument. The particular terms of a Cooperative
Agreement covering the lab would be established prior to
NSF's funding of the proposal. That Cooperative Agreement
would specify the extent to which NSF would advise, review,
approve or otherwise be involved with project activities. To
the extent NSF does not reserve or share responsibility for
certain aspects of the project, all such responsibilities
remain with the recipient.
(3) A plan for how NSF would interact with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of South
Dakota to ensure that the mine is in proper condition for the
establishment of a laboratory and to determine amounts NSF
grantees would have to pay into the Environment and Project
Trust Fund established under the bill.
NSF would interact in good faith with the EPA and the State
of South Dakota to ensure that the mine is in satisfactory
condition for the establishment of a laboratory.
Additionally, assessment of the proposal before us will
presumably require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The findings of that EIS would very much inform our
evaluation of the proposal.
We share your concern about the mandatory contribution to
the Fund required of each project conducted in the lab. Our
review of each proposal for science in the lab would include
a careful analysis of (1) the projected costs of removing
from the mine or laboratory equipment or other materials
related to a proposed project, and (2) the projected cost of
claims that could arise out of or in connection with a
proposed project. Meaningful analysis of both factors would
require close cooperation with the lab's Scientific Advisory
Board, the State of South Dakota, and the EPA. These costs
will factor into our evaluation of each proposal.
I appreciate the opportunity to work with you in assessing
the possible impact of this legislation on the National
Science Foundation.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the submission of this report from the
standpoint of the President's program.
Sincerely,
Rita r. Colwell,
Director.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the House
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for the extraordinary job they have
done in bringing this Conference Report to the Floor. Never before in
most of our lifetimes has the security of our Nation been more
paramount than it is at this moment. All the Members in this body,
indeed, every American, owe a great debt of gratitude to Chairman Lewis
of California and the Ranking Member, Congressman Murtha of
Pennsylvania along with their hard working staff. They have ensured
that the men and women in uniform receive the pay increases that they
deserve and the modern equipment that they need to defend our homeland
and other freedom-loving people in harm's way.
I was pleased to see in the Committee Report an initiative to
accelerate and enhance the United States' intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance capabilities through a program called the Multi-
Sensor Command and Control Aircraft or MC2A, a concept strongly
advocated by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Such an aircraft will
advance the capabilities of AWACS and Joint STARS air and ground
surveillance radars and will serve as the airborne integrator for a
large variety of battlefield information systems. This aircraft will be
the cornerstone of our military's transformation to network centric
warfare.
However, due to overall budget constraints, the MC2A program was not
funded. While this is a disappointment to the Air Force and to the
warfighters that would readily benefit from this revolutionary
capability, I strongly encourage the Air Force, along with their
industry partners, to continue to find ways to bring this program
forward. I look forward to working with this Committee next year to
accelerate the MC2A program providing our forces dominance over the
information battlefield.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, sections 901 and 903 of the
division B of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002, give the Sergeant
at Arms of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House
of Representatives identical authority to acquire buildings and
facilities in order to respond to emergencies. The phrase
``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' was included in these
sections to clarify that provisions of law which would otherwise
prohibit these individuals from acquiring buildings and facilities,
such as section 3736 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 14), would not
interfere with this authority. It was not the intent of the conferees
or the Congress for this phrase to be construed more broadly to waive
the application of other provisions of law which may apply to these
kind of activities, such as the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Indeed, subsection (d) of each of these sections permits any portion
of the costs incurred by the Sergeant at Arms or Chief Administrative
Officer in acquiring buildings and facilities under this authority
during a fiscal year to be covered by funds which are appropriated to
the Architect of the Capitol during the fiscal year and transferred to
the Sergeant at Arms or Chief Administrative Officer. It would be
unnecessary for Congress to permit this kind of transfer if the
Sergeant at Arms and Chief Administrative Officer were permitted to
carry out the underlying acquisitions without using appropriated funds,
since that would eliminate the need for these costs to be covered with
other appropriated funds in the first place.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 408,
nays 6, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 510]
YEAS--408
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
[[Page H10934]]
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
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, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--6
Conyers
Filner
Jackson (IL)
Lee
Paul
Petri
NOT VOTING--20
Baker
Barcia
Clay
Clement
Cubin
Cummings
Dingell
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Luther
Markey
Meek (FL)
Spratt
Stark
Waters
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
{time} 1056
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. OBERSTAR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I was late arriving this morning, and I
missed rollcall vote 510, final passage of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed the vote on
H.R. 3338 Defense Appropriations Conference Report. Had I been present
I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________