[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8467-8472]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins). Pursuant to House Resolution 
503 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 4205.

                              {time}  1024


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 
2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina (Chairman 
pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, May 7, 2000, amendments

[[Page 8468]]

en bloc printed in House Report 106-621 offered by the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) had been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 10 printed in House 
Report 106-621.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Sanford

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Sanford:
       At the end of title III (page 82, after line 14), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. __. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR LESS-THAN-FAIR-MARKET-VALUE 
                   TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Provisions Repealed.--Sections 381 and 2576a of title 
     10, United States Code, are repealed.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 18 of such title is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 381.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 153 
     of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 2576a.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I think is in the best 
interests of the United States military, and I say that for many 
different reasons. But one of the reasons I would say that is that when 
the American taxpayer buys this helicopter, not this helicopter, but 
the model that it represents, this is a UH-68 Blackhawk Helicopter, is 
it runs somewhere between $8- and $10 million a copy. That is when they 
buy them.
  Now, at the end of the cycle, when the Army is through using them, 
rather than selling the wheels or selling the motor or selling the 
frame or selling the whole thing, it is given away. It is given away to 
other pieces of the Federal Government, it is given away to State or 
local governments. I think that in this era, which has been talked 
about through the course of this debate, of scarce military dollars, 
the military needs every dollar they can have. Rather than continuing 
to give these dollars away, why does the military not keep it?
  The origins ever the program behind giving this helicopter and other 
things away made a lot of sense 50 years ago, because in the wake of 
World War II we had all kinds of things out there. So the idea was let 
us give some of this stuff away.
  What is interesting is by the Department of Defense's own estimates, 
roughly, approximately, $350 million a year gets given away through 
this program. Now, that is, if you assume that this helicopter is worth 
$1. If it is, in fact, worth $10, we are talking about $3.5 billion a 
year that is given away out of the back door of DOD to other agencies, 
State, local or Federal.
  Now, to give you an idea of scale, the Law Enforcement Support 
Program takes 5,000 orders a day. It gives away, as I said, that amount 
of money. Over the last two years, they have given away, given away, 
253 aircraft, including 6 and 7 passenger airplanes, Blackhawks, Hueys, 
MD-500s and Bell Jet Rangers. They have given away 7,800 M-16s, they 
have given away 181 grenade launchers, they have given away 1,161 pair 
of night vision goggles. That is a lot of things, and that is just part 
of the list.
  To give you another idea of scale, the State and Local Law 
Enforcement Equipment Procurement Program sells at reduced prices a 
number of things within the DOD inventory. I went down their Web page. 
If you look on the Web page, you will find things like wristwatches, 
stopwatches, compasses, lubricating oil, commercial automobile oil, 
camping and hiking equipment.
  The point of all that is to say this is not used stuff. It is not 
used, like the helicopter. It is brand new stuff that is still sitting 
in its case. It has market value. It could be sold at an open auction, 
and those dollars could be used by DOD for procurement and they could 
be used for training.
  So I offer this amendment because it stops money from being siphoned 
off from defense. It, secondly, helps to create a clear budget. If we 
are to make good decisions in government, they rest on reality. Budgets 
have to show reality. Unfortunately, current budgets do not. What they 
do is they overstate the cost of defense, and they understate the cost 
of other Federal agencies, and understate the cost of state and local 
government.
  The third reason I offer this amendment is because it is in the best 
interest of the taxpayer. That is why it is supported by the National 
Taxpayers Union, that is why it is supported by Citizens Against 
Government Waste. They do so because if something is given to you, you 
oftentimes treat it very differently than if you have to pay dearly for 
it.
  To give you an idea of the kind of excesses that occur in this 
program, for instance, 60 Minutes did a special about 2 years ago about 
a small rural county in central Florida that, through this program, 
among other things, had been given 23 helicopters, an armored personnel 
carrier, and two C-12 airplanes. As it turned out, that county was 
using it as a revenue source.

                              {time}  1030

  They would keep the stuff for a couple of years and then they would 
sell it on the open market, making hundreds of thousands of dollars for 
that county.
  If it is not used that way, frankly, it is used strangely. I went to 
a county in South Carolina where the chief of police was taking 
helicopter lessons in a helicopter that would run $1,500 an hour. It 
did not cost the county that much because they had been given the 
helicopter, but it did cost the taxpayer that much.
  Another reason I offer this is if it is not used that way, the 
equipment sits idly by. I flew into a small county airport in South 
Carolina surrounded with a number of large Air Force and Navy 
airplanes, and I said to my brother, what is the trouble with these 
airplanes?
  They were given to the county through this Federal program and, as he 
explained it, the county accepted it not because they had any use for 
it, the equipment had been sitting there for years, but because they 
could not afford not to take it since it was given away.
  I think this amendment makes common sense. I would urge its adoption. 
It is about priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that any program that any agency 
of government runs may have some abuses in it, and certainly the 
Committee on Armed Services would like to know where there are abuses 
and to be able to correct them.
  Basically what this amendment does is to repeal two sections of the 
code which have proven extremely useful to law enforcement throughout 
America. One section of the code that would be eliminated is a 
provision which allows local law enforcement agencies to buy equipment 
from the catalog list that is available to the Department of Defense 
and buy it at the prices that the Federal Government or the Department 
of Defense, through their purchasing power, can obtain at lower prices.
  I, frankly, see no reason why we should deprive law enforcement 
agencies of the opportunity to acquire equipment that they need to 
fight crime at the lowest price and to have the Federal Government 
being involved in cooperating and making that possible.
  The second aspect of the amendment would repeal a provision of the 
law that says that the Department of Defense can give to local law 
enforcement agencies surplus equipment that is no longer needed by the 
Department of Defense.

[[Page 8469]]

  This has been a source for a great deal of equipment moving to law 
enforcement agencies, has been very helpful to them, and this provision 
has the strong support of law enforcement agencies and associations 
throughout the country, and certainly the amendment has the resounding 
opposition of those agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bateman) for yielding 2 minutes to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very strongly committed to the proposition that we 
need to rebuild our defenses, that they have been built down way too 
far, and I am sympathetic to the concerns about saving money and doing 
that that the gentleman who offered this amendment proposes.
  I also chair the Subcommittee on Crime in the House and I know that 
the programs he is trying to strike here are vital to the efforts of 
local law enforcement to be able to fight the drug war, to be able to 
do what they have to do in antiterrorism. I have been personally out in 
the field in numerous jurisdictions looking at things where the surplus 
properties were properties purchased because of the buying program that 
allows the volume to be purchased the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bateman) talked about that are in full use.
  Principally, they are helicopters that they are acquiring in the 
excess surplus program so they can fly around and deal with the issue 
of locating marijuana growing areas or finding the bad guys or 
whatever.
  The oil that the gentleman referred to is used to be able to have the 
oil for the airplanes for the most part. Maybe occasionally it is oil 
for their vehicles that they would not otherwise be able to do.
  Sadly but truthfully, local law enforcement does not have the kind of 
resources allocated to it from the counties and the local government or 
the States that are required to be able to have this larger item, the 
helicopters in particular, and if they had to go out and buy that from 
scratch there simply would not be the kind of protection to the 
citizenry we need in law enforcement in the local communities. There 
would not be the helicopters flying around at night that many people 
see helping to deter crime and locating these narcotraffickers and 
others that are out there.
  So I have to reluctantly, severely, oppose this amendment. Counties 
like Hernando and Lake in Florida, in particular, I think have recently 
acquired such products as this. Bulletproof vests, helmets, computers, 
other critically items when they are in surplus, should go to the local 
law enforcement community first.
  I think they should go the right way at a lower cost or at no cost in 
certain cases, such as the helicopters, where they are in excess and we 
need them for the protection of our folks.
  So I strongly oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
no on it.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining minute of the time 
to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to say that the National 
Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police, the Airborne Law Enforcement Association all oppose the Sanford 
amendment, but I would also remind him that Charleston County is the 
beneficiary of this. They have received a helicopter, as has Greenville 
County, South Carolina; as has Lexington County, South Carolina; as has 
Saluda County; as has the South Carolina Law Enforcement Divisions.
  Actually, this is a very good program. The taxpayers paid for these 
things. It makes sense that our underfunded cities and counties should 
be able to use them before some foreign country gets them. That is why 
we changed the law about 8 years ago to give the American taxpayer 
preference for these things. We should leave the law as it is.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would not dispute any of the things 
about this program of having great value to local law enforcement. The 
simple question I would ask is one of priorities.
  It is one that I am trying to teach my young boys, and that is right 
now given what we have talked about in this debate, which is the 
scarcity of dollars in the Department of Defense, we simply have to set 
priorities. We cannot do both, and that is why I think these dollars 
ought to be retained within DOD.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are 
talking about surplus equipment. The military has made the decision to 
surplus these things. I am not telling them to surplus it. Once they 
make that decision, the question is then should the American taxpayers 
get the benefit through their counties, through their cities, or should 
someone else?
  The gentleman would deprive them of those benefits. I think that is a 
bad idea.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, my concern with this amendment is quite 
simple: while well intentioned, I think it undermines our efforts in 
the war on drugs. This amendment would end the ability of State law 
enforcement agencies to purchase equipment needed specifically for the 
war on drugs and the fight against terrorism. While the phrase ``war on 
drugs'' tends to bring to mind images of jungles in Latin America, the 
reality is that it is fought everyday on our streets, in our 
schoolyards and playgrounds. Vivid proof of this came a few years ago 
in my southwest Florida district--the regional office of the Drug 
Enforcement Agency was blown up by individuals involved in drug 
trafficking. Allowing the Defense Department to sell appropriate 
surplus equipment to law enforcement agencies ensures they have the 
tools they need to counter this very real threat. I encourage my 
colleagues to reject the Sanford amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Sanford Amendment to H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2001. This amendment proposes to eliminate an important 
element of a federal cooperative purchasing program which allows state 
and local police departments to purchase supplies and services at 
superdiscounted federal prices.
  In 1997, I worked with police departments in my own congressional 
district to promote participation in cooperative purchasing. Twelve of 
my district's sixteen police chiefs attended a workshop that I 
sponsored on the cooperative purchasing process. I sponsored this 
workshop because I view cooperative purchasing as an invaluable 
resource for police departments seeking to maximize their operations 
budgets. The ability to purchase supplies and services at 
superdiscounted federal prices makes for better equipped and more 
efficient police forces.
  The elimination of cooperative purchasing would clearly be contrary 
to the interests of the tax payers not just in my own district, but 
across the country. Created in 1994, as a provision in the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), cooperative purchasing takes 
advantage of the federal government's purchasing power. As a large 
consumer of all kinds of goods and services, the federal government's 
procurement agency--the General Services Administration (GSA)--
negotiates superdiscounted prices with the suppliers of these goods and 
services. Cooperative purchasing simply allows state and local police 
departments to purchase surplus items directly from the federal 
government at these superdiscounted prices. The result is millions and 
millions of dollars in savings for our nation's taxpayers. To eliminate 
cooperative purchasing would be to eliminate these savings.
  Cooperative purchasing has allowed state and local police departments 
around the nation to make meaningful cuts in their supply budgets. Some 
police departments have been able to cut their supply costs by 10 
percent. Should we vote to eliminate cooperative purchasing, the 
American tax payer will be forced to pay a premium in order to properly 
equip the men and women who keep our nation's neighborhoods safe. The 
elimination of cooperative purchasing powers would represent yet 
another instance of special interests being promoted over the public 
interest.
  I urge my fellow Members of Congress to vote against the Sanford 
Amendment.

[[Page 8470]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) will be postponed.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) for a colloquy.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment at the desk regarding 
section 2813 that I was going to offer, but after working with the 
Committee on Armed Services I have decided not to offer it.
  My concern with section 2813 was the possibility that it could alter 
current law with respect to the military's ability to control utilities 
distribution facilities located on military bases.
  The committee-adopted bill appeared to eliminate the Department of 
Defense's discretion to award privatization contracts based on 
competitive merit and instead shift the discretion to the State 
regulatory bodies.
  I feared that the State regulatory authorities would have the 
opportunity to veto the Department of Defense's procurement decisions 
and direct DOD to award contracts to local incumbent utilities instead, 
thus opening the door for an unprecedented relinquishment of Federal 
contracting authority.
  I also had concerns that this language might overly restrict the list 
of eligible bidders. The purpose of my amendment was to ensure that the 
Federal Government receives the maximum number of bids for those 
privatized facilities with a corresponding maximum amount of revenue to 
the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment at the desk that I was going to 
offer, but after working with the Committee on Armed Services I decided 
not to offer it.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy, if I might, about section 
2813, with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado for a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to enter into a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  Mr. LARGENT. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley).
  The gentleman from Colorado has been very gracious in agreeing to 
work with the interested Members, including members of the Committee on 
Commerce, on this provision as the bill proceeds through the 
legislative process. I am concerned that this provision, which allows 
for the privatization of utility systems on military bases as it is 
currently drafted, is overly broad in requiring compliance not only 
with State laws but also with State rulings and policies.
  It is unclear to me how someone would comply with a State policy, and 
there is the strong possibility that some State agencies could use that 
language to develop policies that are not consistent with State law. I 
hope we can work together to fix this problem.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), 
I have committed to work with him to make sure that the language is not 
overly broad. We do not intend for it to be overly broad. We do not 
intend for it to create inconsistencies with State law and regulation. 
I am happy to work with the gentleman on that.
  Mr. LARGENT. I also am concerned that the provision only mentions 
State law and does not mention Federal law, and I hope that the 
provision can be modified to make it clear that purchasers of these 
systems have to comply with relevant Federal law, such as the Federal 
Power Act, as well as State law.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I agree, and I would not want that unintended consequence 
either.
  Mr. LARGENT. Finally, as the gentleman knows, we are very close to 
passing a bill to increase competition in the electric utility 
industry. I and several members of the Committee on Commerce are 
concerned that this language would have the unintended consequence of 
increasing the monopoly power of incumbent utilities in these areas. I 
hope the gentleman will work with concerned Members to make sure that 
these provisions are not used in a manner contrary to what we are 
trying to do with electricity restructuring legislation.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I will work with the gentleman and other interested 
Members to make sure that we do not inadvertently put in place policies 
that may be contrary to what might be accomplished with the 
comprehensive electrical utility restructuring legislation.
  I want to reiterate to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) that 
it is the intent of the provision to level the playing field in the 
acquisition and maintenance of military utility infrastructure.
  Section 2813 would require DOD's privatization initiative in this 
area to be conducted consistent with the Competition in Contracting 
Act. Moreover, we would require any awardee to conform to State 
regulations solely for the terms of that specific contract so that the 
same standards apply to infrastructure on both sides of the fence and 
that all parties to the competition for the contract are judged by the 
same standards.
  I agree that competition will get the best result for DOD and for the 
taxpayer.
  Mr. LARGENT. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with me 
on this issue, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the intent of the Largent 
amendment.
  The existing utility privatization statute is unclear and needs the 
clarification we added in Committee with bi-partisan support.
  The Committee language ensures fair competition and helps guarantee 
the reliability of energy distribution to our military bases.
  The amendment would create unregulated monopolies with unprecedented 
bargaining power that could hold bases and taxpayers hostage in 
contract renegotiations.
  Default, abandonment or early termination by the unregulated entities 
could imperil reliability and impose huge costs on our bases.
  The amendment would upset the process of utility deregulation; no 
state has deregulated distribution services.
  As approved in Committee, unregulated utilities could still compete. 
They would simply be expected to comply with the same health, safety, 
reliability, and system standards which apply to every other energy 
distribution system in that state.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and maintain the 
carefully drafted language approved by the Armed Services Committee.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 2 by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); amendment No. 3 by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier); amendment No. 4 by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther); amendment No. 20 by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); amendment No. 13 by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns); and amendment No. 10 by the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page 8471]]

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       At the end of subtitle A of title X (page 302, after line 
     11), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1006. ONE PERCENT REDUCTION IN FUNDING.

       The total amount obligated from amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to authorizations of appropriations in this Act may 
     not exceed the amount equal to the sum of such authorizations 
     reduced by one percent. In carrying out reductions required 
     by the preceding sentence, no reduction may be made from 
     amounts appropriated for operation and maintenance or from 
     amounts appropriated for military personnel.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 88, 
noes 331, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 194]

                                AYES--88

     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Clay
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--331

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Campbell
     Fattah
     Fossella
     Hoyer
     Kaptur
     Leach
     Markey
     Meek (FL)
     Mollohan
     Salmon
     Slaughter
     Stupak
     Udall (NM)
     Young (AK)

                             {time}   1105

  Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. BEREUTER, GORDON, DAVIS of Virginia and Ms. 
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. SHAYS, PAYNE, ENGEL, CONYERS and OBERSTAR changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 194 I was unable 
to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 503, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a 
minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by 
electronic device may be taken on each additional amendment on which 
the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Dreier

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Dreier:
       At the end of title XII (page 338, after line 13), add the 
     following:

     SEC. 1205. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE 
                   LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.

       (a) Layover Period for New Performance Levels.--Section 
     1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. app. 2404 note)is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (d), by striking 
     ``180'' and inserting ``60''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Calculation of 60-Day Period.--The 60-day period 
     referred to in subsection (d) shall be calculated by 
     excluding the days on which either House of Congress is not 
     in session because of an adjournment of the Congress sine 
     die.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any new composite theoretical performance 
     level established for purposes of section 1211(a) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 that 
     is submitted by the President pursuant to section 1211(d) of 
     that Act on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415, 
noes 8, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 195]

                               AYES--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia

[[Page 8472]]


     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--8

     Ganske
     Green (WI)
     Hayworth
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Payne
     Rothman
     Taylor (MS)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton
     Campbell
     Hoyer
     Kaptur
     Leach
     Meek (FL)
     Mollohan
     Salmon
     Stupak
     Udall (NM)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1113

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 195, I was unable 
to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________