[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23102-23110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2658, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2004

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2658) 
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
today.)
  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. Madam Speaker, I want you to know we do not 
intend to use 30 minutes on either side, but we are very proud to bring 
before you today that bill that deals with appropriations for the 
fiscal year 2004.
  The bill, in its total, involves some $368 billion in discretionary 
budget authority; and within those titles there is approximately $98 
billion for military personnel, $116 billion for O&M, $74 billion for 
procurement, $65 billion for R&D, and nearly $16 billion for defense 
health. Within those numbers we have developed a bill that absolutely 
balances the needs of our military while we go forward ensuring that 
America will remain the strongest country in the world for the years to 
come.
  At this point I would like to insert a summary of the conference 
agreement into the Record.

[[Page 23103]]





[[Page 23104]]



[[Page 23105]]



[[Page 23106]]



[[Page 23107]]



[[Page 23108]]

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila).
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for the agreement they have reached on the 
closing of the Navy base in Puerto Rico, Roosevelt Roads.
  My position all the time has been that if that was going to be the 
final decision, the people of Puerto Rico, the community, were entitled 
to all of the benefits and support that usually comes with the closure 
of a base. They have agreed, and I thank them very much.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I must say to my colleague from Puerto Rico that there is language 
within the bill that would require that the Secretary of the Navy close 
Roosevelt Roads. And, frankly, I had designed very simple language that 
would make sure that happened expeditiously and beyond that that there 
be no complications regarding work, environment, et cetera.
  I know the gentleman from Puerto Rico and I have worked very closely 
together; but I want him to know I am very, very concerned about the 
language that is in this bill that is coming out of the conference. The 
language essentially takes us back to the BRACC process. And I am 
afraid, I do not want to be apologizing for this process, but I must 
say there is a need to ring some bells here because the people of 
Puerto Rico could experience the worst of all worlds with this base 
closing earlier than any other base in the BRACC process, but at the 
same time being tied to the BRACC process.
  Indeed, if that is the case, a likely experience I had in my own 
district was where BRACC just does not work, and we could find that 
base sitting fallow for years. We may find ourselves 5 and 10 years 
from now with an empty base with a lock on the gate.
  What was done in the conference, really on the part of people who are 
interested in changing our simple language, has not been healthy for 
this process. So I say to the gentleman that while we have worked 
together, I am very concerned right now with the result of the 
conference report.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Madam Speaker, the only thing I can assure the 
chairman of is that the government of Puerto Rico, the community, is 
already working on a plan to redevelop the base, and that we are going 
to be working very closely with the Federal Government just to be sure 
that what the chairman is afraid might happen will not happen; and, on 
the contrary, that we will follow the best experience in other places 
when a base has been shut down and sooner rather than later becomes a 
center for economic development and job creation. We are working on 
that already, following the chairman's advice.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I must 
say that I had this experience in my own district with similar 
assurances. The BRACC process, legal challenges, and otherwise, this is 
20 years later and that base is just beginning to get on its feet. So I 
am very, very concerned; and I appreciate working with the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time, and I would 
make the usual brief congratulatory comments about the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis). He has done an outstanding job as the chairman, 
along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha). They produced a really good defense bill and we are producing 
this defense bill at a time when the world's attention is not national 
defense.

                              {time}  1115

  One of the things that I want to talk about today has to do with 
those who are providing for our national defense, those soldiers and 
sailors and airmen and Marines and Coast Guardsmen who have been 
deployed to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Liberia, to wherever else the 
Nation decided to send them. Unfortunately, there have been casualties. 
Some have been killed in action, and some have been seriously wounded 
in action. Many Members know my wife and I visit the wounded at Walter 
Reed Hospital and at Bethesda Naval Hospital as often as we can, and 
she more than I.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that the wife of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was instrumental in pointing out to 
me that one young man did not get a Purple Heart, so the Commandant is 
going to present him with a Purple Heart on Thursday, I believe. She is 
out there all the time, and all of us are indebted to the work that she 
does at the hospitals.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those 
comments, and he is exactly right. And the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha) knows that firsthand because he spends considerable time 
visiting the wounded in the hospitals as well.
  One of the things that I learned is when a wounded soldier or troop 
leaves the hospital, despite the fact that person was there because of 
injuries or illness based on the battle, they get a bill for $8.10 a 
day for the food they consumed in the hospital. That is outrageous. I 
could not believe that was the case, and I immediately went back to 
research it, and found yes, that is the law. I could not find anybody 
that knew where that law came from or why it was or anybody that 
believed we should have that law.
  So we introduced a bill to repeal that charge for those who are 
wounded or become ill because of their deployment to the battlefield or 
peacekeeping mission. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member and all of the members of the subcommittee. They have 
agreed to include that bill in this conference report. So when this 
bill is signed by the President next week, hopefully, that terrible law 
that charges a wounded soldier who might have lost a leg or two legs or 
an eye will be repealed. He will not have to pay that $8.10 a day for 
the food consumed in the hospital while recuperating from those wounds.
  Because it is an appropriations bill, it is only a 1-year fix, so we 
must continue to push for the permanent bill which has over 200 
cosponsors as I speak today.
  Again, I think that the subcommittee has done a great job. Maybe it 
is not a lot of money, but it is symbolic, an American soldier wounded 
in action should not have to pay for the food that they eat or consume 
while in the hospital recuperating.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for all of 
his efforts, and in this instance on behalf of the young men and women 
who are wounded, lying in hospitals, who are in many ways being 
unfairly treated, I say congratulations to the gentleman from Florida; 
and congratulations to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and 
all of our fine staff for their fine work.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker and Ranking Member, I rise in 
opposition to this conference report and to the underlying bill. The 
conference report appropriates $368.2 billion for the Defense 
Department for fiscal year 2004, which is $13.1 billion more than in 
last year's bill and the largest overall appropriation in decades. Of 
these funds, the report appropriates $74 billion to weapons 
procurement, which is $31 billion more than the fiscal year 2003 level. 
Furthermore, it appropriates $65.2 billion for research and 
development, $7 billion more than in fiscal

[[Page 23109]]

year 2003; $115.9 billion for operations and maintenance, $1.2 billion 
more than in fiscal year 2003; and $98.5 billion for personnel, which 
is $4.9 billion more than in fiscal year 2003.
  The funds requested in this bill appear wasteful in light of the 
various other emergent needs that we have in our Nation today. 
Blackouts that occurred on August 14, 2003 revealed vulnerabilities in 
our Nation's critical infrastructure that require immediate attention. 
Money spent on munitions and research and development will not serve 
its purpose if there is no power to do so. The August 14, 2003, 
blackouts that affected the Midwest and Northeastern United States and 
eastern Canada caused the loss of 62,000 megawatts of electricity over 
34,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines. Given the heavy 
integration of this system, the breakdown caused a total loss of 
service in a matter of approximately 9 minutes. Our government has been 
on notice for some time of the vulnerabilities that the electrical 
infrastructure has that makes it subject to intermittent blackouts and 
brownouts.
  Unfortunately, we have not yet ascertained the exact cause of the 
blackouts. However, we do know that NERC operates under reliability 
rules that are neither mandatory nor enforceable; hence, no one is 
accountable for the reliability of our electrical system. NERC was 
actually established in response to prior blackouts in the region. It 
can only advise utilities to follow voluntary rules designed to ensure 
the safe operation of the individual systems. During the blackout 
hearings, NERC testified that in 2002, there were more than 500 
planning and operating violations of its voluntary rules, half of which 
were of a character that could have individually caused the blackouts. 
Now, we are in a quandary because homeland security needs necessitate 
the procurement of necessary funds to improve the system. We cannot 
afford to do a piecemeal improvement.
  The President requested $87 billion from Congress to fund his plan to 
rebuild Iraq. It is important that we collaborate fully with respect to 
the House's consideration of this request. Given our express commitment 
to supporting our troops despite our views as to the Administration's 
course of action to date, we must process this request in a manner most 
beneficial to our Nation. With this in mind, I have expressed my 
thoughts as to specific action that should be taken as a precondition 
to our grant of $87 billion. For example, I propose that the requested 
funds be voted on separately by Congress as to the support of our 
troops and the Iraq reconstruction plan. In addition, specific measures 
should be taken to form a multinational coalition to support the United 
States and deployed troops with the help of the United Nations. 
Furthermore, the intelligence and WMD scandals should be properly 
addressed with comprehensive briefings and joint hearings. It is 
apparent that there are a host of very specific local and international 
issues that require relief through appropriations before general and 
unspecified appropriations for defense and counterterrorism measures be 
made.
  Again with respect to H.R. 2658 and the conferences report, the bill 
contemplates large increases for Defense Department counterterrorism 
activities and other related programs to fight unconventional threats, 
including $4.5 billion procurement and development of chemical and 
biological defenses. I see this spending as premature and wasteful 
given our opportunities to enlist financial assistance from a 
multinational coalition to share the burden of fighting this global 
menace of terrorism. Furthermore, funds need to first go to supporting 
our troops and their families before being earmarked for unclear 
measures. With this in mind, I wish to ensure the passage of the 
extension to fiscal year 2004 of the $128 million increased imminent 
danger pay and family separation allowance for our troops in Iraq as 
well as Afghanistan otherwise known as the emergency wartime 
supplemental appropriations bill. Through Congress, these funds were 
provided temporarily in April; however, the appropriation will expire 
on September 30, 2003. We have clear priorities with respect to 
homeland security, international policy, and the fight against 
terrorism. I hope we do not choose to spend prematurely or 
ineffectively at the risk of innocent and brave soldiers and civilians.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2658, the Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report. I am 
proud to vote for this legislation that provides improved health care, 
more quality housing, and a pay raise for the brave men and women of 
the U.S. Armed Forces. I am especially pleased that this legislation 
gives our troops the tools they need to meet the challenges of fighting 
the continuing global war against terrorism and maintaining American 
military superiority and leadership around the world.
  I am proud to report to veterans in my district that this bill also 
includes legislation that I recently cosponsored to stop unfairly 
charging soldiers for the food they eat during their hospitalization. 
Two weeks ago, I visited the Marines and sailors recovering at the 
National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. Some of those young men 
lost limbs or sustained other permanently disabling injuries. Many more 
require sustained intensive care and will have long and arduous path 
toward rehabilitation. I hope that all of them are promptly decorated 
with one of the most distinguished medals that the U.S. Armed Forces 
can bestow upon military personnel--the Purple Heart--for their 
sacrifices and valor.
  Every soldier, Marine, sailor, and airman deserves the best medical 
care this country can provide, but they don't deserve to be billed for 
food and water. It is unconscionable that these heroes owe $8.10 for 
each day they spent in the hospital.
  Madam Speaker, I was proud to cosponsor Chairman Young's legislation 
to correct this injustice. It is the least we can do for our Nation's 
keepers of peace and defenders of freedom. I am pleased to vote for the 
fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations conference report and to 
support our valiant military personnel.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman 
Lewis, Ranking Member Murtha and Members of the Senate Defense 
Appropriations Committee for working with me on the important yet 
difficult issue concerning the closure of Naval Station Roosevelt 
Roads. Under the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, the base 
will close in 6 months, however, closure will take place under the 
procedures provided under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC). 
The changes to the language that was approved in July by the House will 
enable the closure to proceed with necessary guarantees for 
redevelopment of this important facility. Furthermore, the conference 
agreement will provide economic assistance and environmental 
remediation as specified by BRAC.
  Both Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha made clear that with 
the Inner Range of the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (AFWTF) 
closed, the base would be closed under the next BRAC round, scheduled 
for 2005. With the language being enacted this year, this process can 
move forward in an expedited manner and redevelopment of the base can 
proceed. I believe this will provide for more immediate and necessary 
economic development for the region around Ceiba, Puerto Rico. Waiting 
for BRAC 2005 would have drawn this process out and caused unnecessary 
hardship for my constituents.
  Therefore, I am very pleased with this outcome and the partnership I 
have forged with Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha. I look 
forward to working with them both in the future.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, as we debate this appropriations 
bill today, we should recall the words of our President, George W. 
Bush, shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
  He stated: ``America is a nation full of good fortune, with so much 
to be grateful for. But we are not spared from suffering. In every 
generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have 
attacked America, because we are freedom's home and defender.''
  Madam Speaker, the bill we have before us today is our answer to 
those who would attack America. This is a strong legislative product--
one that reflects well on the Committee on Appropriations. I want to 
commend you, Chairman Lewis, Chairman Young and Ranking Members Obey 
and Murtha for your leadership.
  Madam Speaker, as we consider this important legislation, we must 
remain mindful that our young troops are in the field--brave men and 
women fighting a new kind of war, as we speak.
  It is a war fought with new technology in lands and civilizations 
that are very old--Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The first part of the war had Forward Air Controllers riding 
horseback and calling in strikes from laptop computers.
  It was also a war that was fought from our ships stationed 700 miles 
from targets.
  It was a war that utilized B-52's and B-2s and B1Bs for precision 
targeting, and a war that called for our troops to go from cave to cave 
or building to building to seek out the enemy.
  More than ever, today it is a war whose enemy is difficult to 
identify.
  At the same time as our men and women are in action in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and other parts of the world, the leadership of the 
Department of Defense continues its wide-ranging transformation of the 
methods, missions and capabilities of our fighting forces.

[[Page 23110]]

  In this context, America's armed forces have been charged with 
developing the capabilities to fight jointly and with coalition 
partners to secure victory across the full spectrum of warfare while 
continuing the transition to a more flexible, more agile, lighter and 
more lethal force.
  Of course, our goal is to provide a new level of efficiency and 
protection to our warfighter so that they may fight--and win--the new 
kind of wars that will face the United States of America in coming 
years.
  Madam Speaker, we are a peaceful people. But recent months have shown 
the world that we will fight anywhere to defend our national security.
  The men and women of our Armed Forces have made us proud. For them, 
and their families, I urge adoption of the bill and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). 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 407, 
nays 15, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 513]

                               YEAS--407

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--15

     Conyers
     Farr
     Filner
     Jackson (IL)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     McDermott
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Paul
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Stark
     Waters
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (UT)
     Brown, Corrine
     Cummings
     Gephardt
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Kennedy (MN)
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Osborne
     Pastor


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. OWENS and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, WELLER, and DeFAZIO changed 
their 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. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 
513 due to technical difficulties. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yes.''
  Mr. HINIJOSA. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 
No. 513.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 513, 
agreeing to the FY 2004 Defense Appropriations Conference Report, I was 
unavoidably detained, and unable to make the vote. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________