[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.''

                          ____________________