Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Nuclear Saftey Bill
H.R. 5275. A bill to provide for the external regulation of nuclear safety and occupational safety and health at nonmilitary energy laboratories owned or operated by the Department of Energy; to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Note: Full text of H.R. 5275 is not yet available but will be included in the next Congressional Update.

3A) Border Search Authority for WMD
CONFERENCE REPORT ON SEC. 344 OF TRADE ACT OF 2002--BORDER SEARCH AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN CONTRABAND IN OUTBOUND MAIL.

 Present law
Although Customs currently searches all inbound mail, and although it searches outbound mail sent via private carriers, outbound mail carried by the Postal Service is not subject to search.

[Page: H5925]

House amendment
H.R. 3009 as amended and passed by the House would enable Customs officers to search outbound U.S. mail for unreported monetary instruments, weapons of mass destruction, firearms, and other contraband used by terrorists. However, reading of mail would not be authorized absent Customs officers obtaining a search warrant or consent.

Senate amendment
The Senate Amendment is the same as the House Amendment with respect to mail weighing in excess of 16 ounces. However, under the Senate Amendment, the Customs Service would be required to obtain a warrant in order to search mail weighing 16 ounces or less. The Senate Amendment also requires the Secretary of State to determine whether it is consistent with international law and U.S. treaty obligations for the Customs Service to search mail transiting the United States between two foreign countries. The Customs Service would be authorized to search such mail only after the Secretary of State determined that such measures are consistent with international law and U.S. treaty obligations.

Conference agreement
The House recedes to the Senate.

3B) Use of Force Against Iraq
Calling for Congress to consider and vote on a resolution for the use of force by the United States Armed Forces against Iraq before such force is deployed.

JULY 26, 2002

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. FILNER, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. FARR of California, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. MCKINNEY, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. SHIMKUS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

Calling for Congress to consider and vote on a resolution for the use of force by the United States Armed Forces against Iraq before such force is deployed.

Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections;

Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities;

Whereas in his January 29, 2002 `State of the Union' address the President characterized Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an `axis of evil';

Whereas the Secretary of State distinguished Iraq from Iran and North Korea in his testimony before the Senate Budget Committee on February 12, 2002, stating that `for several years now [it has been] a policy of the United States government that a regime change would be in the best interest of the region, [and] the best interest of the Iraqi people';

Whereas in his February 12, 2002 testimony, the Secretary of State specifically stated, `With respect to Iran and with respect to North Korea, there is no plan to start a war with these nations', raising the implication that the United States had a plan to start a war with Iraq;

Whereas there have been repeated reports in the news media on U.S. plans to use force against Iraq and statements by the President and the Vice President on the intention of the United States to use force against Iraq:

(1) The New York Times, February 16, 2002, quoting Vice President Cheney saying, `The President is determined to press on and stop Iraq . . . from continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction' and intends to use `the means at our disposal--including military, diplomatic and intelligence to address these concerns';

(2) New York Times on July 9, 2002, quoting President Bush on Iraq: `It's the stated policy of this government to have regime change and it hasn't changed. And we'll use all tools at our disposal to do so.'

Whereas Congress has the exclusive authority to declare war under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution;

Whereas the President has authority under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, which authorizes him to take military action in an emergency when Congress does not have time to deliberate and decide on a declaration of war or the equivalent authorization for the use of force;

Whereas, within the past half century, Presidents have unilaterally initiated military actions in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, and Kosovo;

Whereas President George H.W. Bush, although initially stating publicly that he did not need congressional action, ultimately requested authorization from Congress, which was granted in January 1991, to use force against Iraq under circumstances similar to the present situation;

Whereas there is adequate time for the Congress to deliberate and decide on the authorization to initiate military action against Iraq;

Whereas if Congress takes no action in the current situation where there is adequate time to deliberate and decide, there will be a significant further, if not virtually complete, erosion of congressional authority under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution; and

Whereas this resolution takes no position on whether such authorization should or should not be granted by Congress: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress consider and vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force by the United States Armed Forces against Iraq before such force is deployed against Iraq.

5A) Homeland Security Act of 2002, Turner Amendment
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 22 printed in House Report 107-615.

AMENDMENT NO. 22 OFFERED BY MR. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Turner:

Strike subtitle F of title VII and insert the following:

SEC. 751. RISK SHARING AND INDEMNIFICATION.

(a) DEFINITIONS.--Section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

``(16) The term `anti-terrorism technology and services' means any product, equipment, service or device, including information technology, system integration and any other kind of services (including support services) related to technology, designed, developed, modified or procured for the purpose of preventing, detecting, identifying, or otherwise deterring acts of terrorism.

``(17) The term `act of terrorism,' means the calculated attack or threat of attack against persons, property or infrastructure to inculcate fear, intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the pursuit of political, religious or ideological grounds.

``(18) The term `insurance carrier' means any corporation, association, society, order, firm, company, mutual, partnership, individual, aggregation of individuals, or any other legal entity that provides commercial property and casualty insurance. Such term includes any affiliates of a commercial insurance carrier.

``(19) The term `liability insurance' means insurance for legal liabilities incurred by the insured resulting from--

``(A) loss of or damage to property of others;

``(B) ensuing loss of income or extra expense incurred because of loss of or damage to property of others;

``(C) bodily injury (including death) to persons other than the insured or its employees; or

``(D) loss resulting from debt or default of another.

``(20) The term `homeland security procurement' means any procurement of anti-terrorism technology and services, as determined by the head of the agency, procured for the purpose of preventing, detecting, or otherwise deterring acts of terrorism.

``(21) The term `information technology'--

``(A) means any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information;

``(B) includes computers, ancillary equipment, software, firmware, and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources; and

``(C) does not include any equipment that is acquired by a Federal contractor incidental to a Federal contract.''.

(b) FEDERAL RISK SHARING AND INDEMNIFICATION.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act is further amended by adding at the end the following new sections:

``SEC. 40. FEDERAL RISK SHARING AND INDEMNIFICATION.

``(a) When conducting a homeland security procurement the head of an agency may include in a contract an indemnification provision specified in subsection (e) if the head of the agency determines in writing that it is in the best interest of the Government to do so and determines that--

``(1) the anti-terrorism technology and services are needed to protect critical infrastructure services or facilities;

``(2) the anti-terrorism technology and services would be effective in facilitating the defense against acts of terrorism; and

``(3) the supplier of the anti-terrorism technology is unable to secure insurance coverage adequate to make the anti-terrorism technology and services available to the Government.

``(b) The head of the agency may exercise the authority in this section only if authorized by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to do so.

``(c) In order to be eligible for an indemnification provision specified in this section, any entity that provides anti-terrorism technology and services to an agency identified in this Act shall obtain liability insurance of

[Page: H5830]

such types and in such amounts, to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the agency, to satisfy otherwise compensable third party claims resulting from an act of terrorism when anti-terrorism technologies and services have been deployed in defense against acts of terrorism.

``(d) An indemnification provision included in a contract under the authority of this section shall be without regard to other provisions of law relating to the making, performance, amendment or modification of contracts.

``(e)(1) The indemnification provision to be included in a contract under the authority of this section shall indemnify, in whole or in part, the contractor for liability, including reasonable expenses of litigation and settlement, that is not covered by the insurance required under subsection (c), for:

``(A) Claims by third persons, including employees of the contractor, for death, personal injury, or loss of, damage to, or loss of use of property, or economic losses resulting from an act of terrorism;

``(B) Loss of, damage to, or loss of use of property of the Government; and

``(C) Claims arising (i) from indemnification agreements between the contractor and a subcontractor or subcontractors, or (ii) from such arrangements and further indemnification arrangements between subcontractors at any tier, provided that all such arrangements were entered into pursuant to the terms of this section.

``(2) Liabilities arising out of the contractor's willful misconduct or lack of good faith shall not be entitled to indemnification under the authority of this section.

``(f) An indemnification provision included in a contract under the authority of this section shall be negotiated and signed by the agency contracting officer and an authorized representative of the contractor and approved by the head of the agency prior to the commencement of performance of the contract.

``(g) The authority conferred by this section shall be limited to the following agencies:

``(1) The Department of Homeland Security;

``(2) The Department of Agriculture;

``(3) The Department of Commerce;

``(4) The Department of Defense;

``(5) The Department of Energy;

``(6) The Department of Health and Human Services;

``(7) The Department of the Interior;

``(8) The Department of Justice;

``(9) The Department of State;

``(10) The Department of the Treasury;

``(11) The Department of Transportation;

``(12) The Federal Emergency Management Agency;

``(13) The Federal Reserve System;

``(14) The General Services Administration;

``(15) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

``(16) The Tennessee Valley Authority;

``(17) The U.S. Postal Service;

``(18) The Central Intelligence Agency;

``(19) The Architect of the Capitol; and

``(20) Any other agency designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security that engages in homeland security contracting activities.

``(h) If any suit or action is filed or any claim is made against the contractor for any losses to third parties arising out of an act of terrorism when its anti-terrorism technologies and services have been deployed such that the cost and expense of the losses may be indemnified by the United States under this section, the contractor shall--

``(1) immediately notify the Secretary and promptly furnish copies of all pertinent papers received;

``(2) authorize United States Government representatives to collaborate with counsel for the contractor's insurance carrier in settling or defending the claim when the amount of the liability claimed may exceed the amount of insurance coverage; and

``(3) authorize United States Government representatives to settle or defend the claim and to represent the contractor in or to take charge of any litigation, if required by the United States Government, when the liability is not insured.

The contractor may, at its own expense, be associated with the United States Government representatives in any such claim or litigation.''.

(c) STATE AND LOCAL RISK SHARING AND INDEMNIFICATION.--(1) The Secretary may, upon the application of a State or local government, provide for indemnification of contractors who provide anti-terrorism technologies and services to State or local governments if the Secretary determines in writing that--

(A) it is in the best interest of the Government to do so;

(B) the State or local government is unable to provide the required indemnification; and

(C) the anti-terrorism technology and services are needed to protect critical infrastructure services or facilities, would be effective in facilitating the defense against acts of terrorism, and would not be reasonably available absent indemnification.

(2) The Secretary may exercise the authority in this subsection only if authorized by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to do so.

(3) In order to be eligible for indemnification, any entity that provides anti-terrorism technology and services to a State or local government shall obtain liability insurance of such types and in such amounts to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the Secretary, to satisfy otherwise compensable third party claims resulting from an act of terrorism when anti-terrorism technologies and services have been deployed in defense against acts of terrorism.

(4) The indemnification provided under the authority of this subsection shall indemnify, in whole or in part, the contractor for liability, including reasonable expenses of litigation and settlement, that is not covered by the insurance required under paragraph (3) for--

(A) claims by third persons, including employees of the contractor, for death, personal injury, or loss of, damage to, or loss of use of property, or economic losses resulting from an act of terrorism;

(B) loss of, damage to, or loss of use of property of the Government; and

(C) claims arising--

(i) from indemnification agreements between the contractor and a subcontractor or subcontractors; or

(ii) from such arrangements and further indemnification arrangements between subcontractors at any tier, provided that all such arrangements were entered into pursuant to the terms of this subsection.

Liabilities arising out of the contractor's willful misconduct or lack of good faith shall not be entitled to indemnification under the authority of this subsection.

(5) If any suit or action is filed or any claim is made against the contractor for any losses to third parties arising out of an act of terrorism when its anti-terrorism technologies and services have been deployed such that the cost and expense of the losses may be indemnified by the United States under this subsection, the contractor shall--

(A) immediately notify the Secretary and promptly furnish copies of all pertinent papers received;

(B) authorize United States Government representatives to collaborate with counsel for the contractor's insurance carrier in settling or defending the claim when the amount of the liability claimed may exceed the amount of insurance coverage; and

(C) authorize United States Government representatives to settle or defend the claim and to represent the contractor in or to take charge of any litigation, if required by the United States Government, when the liability is not insured.

The contractor may, at its own expense, be associated with the United States Government representatives in any such claim or litigation.

(6) In this subsection, the definitions in paragraphs (16) through (21) of section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act shall apply.

(c) IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be amended to ensure consistency between the Federal Acquisition Regulation and this section.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 1/2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we are offering here on the floor today is the language that was approved by the Committee on Government Reform that was sent to the special panel. In the Committee on Government Reform it was adopted without opposition, with bipartisan support.

The amendment is very important because it allows the timely deployment of advanced technology in the fight against terrorism, while at the same time preserving the legal rights and remedies that are available to the victims of any terrorist incident.

The amendment extends to the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies that purchase anti-terrorism technologies a common practice of indemnity that has been around for a long, long time at the Department of Defense. In fact, this authority has existed since 1958 when President Eisenhower issued an executive order under law which allowed indemnity to be granted by the Secretary of Defense to certain of our defense contractors.

The concept of indemnity is not only one that has been with us for a while, but has been used most recently by President Bush when he granted the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to give indemnity to the manufacturers of Cipro after the anthrax scare.

The language that we offer today came to the attention of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy of the Committee on Government Reform and to me as the ranking member. It was brought to our attention by Federal contractors, a coalition including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and the Information Technology Association of America.

Our language, which was adopted by the committee, allows discretion in the

[Page: H5831]

Secretary of Homeland Security to grant in whole or in part indemnity against potential liabilities.

[Time: 14:15]

It requires that the companies carry insurance up to the amount that they reasonably can.

This legislation is modeled, as I said, after existing law and practice; and as they say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' So we are again offering today our language, which we believe is fiscally responsible, which is understandable, and which is supported in a bipartisan way. The language that we have in our amendment protects the Federal Treasury.

It has been suggested by those who support the alternative language that is in the bill that somehow we open the doors of the Treasury if we grant indemnity. Our language makes it very clear that the indemnity offered by the Secretary can be limited, limited in amount, limited in scope. And once the Secretary makes the decision to grant indemnity, it must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget.

We believe this is a much superior way to get technology deployed in a rapid manner, which is what this amendment is all about. The alternative language in the bill is going to slow down the process. It requires an FDA-type approval procedure that would allow the director of Homeland Security to examine the equipment and then certify it. We think that is the wrong approach, and we will urge adoption of our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished majority leader for his fine work on this piece of legislation and congratulate him on it.

We have a good bill here, my colleagues; and we are about to just blow a hole so wide in the budget we have not seen nothing. In fact, we asked CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, to score this amendment because we wanted to at least be able to nail down a ballpark figure of what this would cost. And even CBO, who has been known from time to time to guess and predict, and sometimes guess incorrectly even, will not even hazard a guess of what this bill costs. In fact, what they tell us in the letter is that they know it is going to cost something, but they have no idea how much.

And why is that? Because none of us can predict the future. But we can predict one thing, and that is that Congress will respond. To just fully indemnify and throw in this blanket blank check into this bill, without recognizing the perspective and the understanding of where we have been this year, would be, I believe, irresponsible.

Let us just review this year. Even before passing the supplemental, we increased homeland security funding this year, already almost by 45 percent in 2001 and 65 percent in 2002. Forty billion dollars, my colleagues, we, in a bipartisan way, spent in response in two supplementals for reconstruction and for the war; $8.4 billion in economic assistance to the aviation industry; almost $200 million in immediate assistance to victims of terrorism; and our 2003 budget included a $35 billion increase for defense to fully fund the President's request.

Just this week, we passed an additional bill for $10 billion in addition to that $35 billion. Just yesterday, we sent to the President a second supplemental where we provided $28.9 billion in emergency funding, $13 billion of which went to defense and $11 billion went to the other agencies. In addition, we provided roughly $75 billion of economic stimulus to help recover from the shock.

Indemnification? I do not know what my colleagues are worried about here. We will respond. But to give a blank check and to put the taxpayers on the hook with absolutely no check from the House of Representatives, with no oversight, with no accountability, and with no understanding of what this will do to the budget, is the wrong thing to do to this very responsible bill.

This bill fits within our budget. Do not pass this amendment or it busts every budget anyone has ever contemplated.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Why do I rise in support of the amendment? Well, first of all, before coming to Congress, I worked for the insurance industry at the home office of the INA Cigna Corporation. I spent 18 years working on issues involving reinsurance and liability concerns for the American people.

I understand where we do not have enough market capability where the government has to come in, and we in fact are doing that. This legislation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) offers is modeled after indemnification laws for the nuclear power industry and the commercial space launch industry, and they have operated successfully for decades. This is modeled after that.

The second reason I come to the floor on this issue, and by the way the letter we sent out was signed by 23 Republican colleagues on this very issue not more than several weeks ago, was I worked very closely with this group. This is the NBC Working Group. This group is made up of all the companies in America that produce cutting-edge chemical, nuclear and biological technologies. In fact, I have hosted them twice on Capitol Hill in the Rayburn Building, where Members have had a chance to see technology associated with detection systems, with systems that are being designed on the cutting edge to assist us in the war on terrorism.

They have a major concern, Mr. Chairman. They have a major concern relative to the ability of these kinds of companies to still continue to do the cutting-edge research necessary to give us the products that we need to have. This legislation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) offers, I think, is a fair compromise. It gives us an ability to protect them while still protecting the taxpayer. In fact, I think there is in fact a cap in here that can be set by the administration. So the administration has the final determination.

As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement for defense, my job is to work with our defense industrial base to make sure we are being given the cutting-edge technology to fight the war on terrorism. Working closely with these industry groups, working closely with the NBC Working Group, I am convinced that we need to have this kind of a modern approach. And so I rise in support of this legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Turner amendment.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. DeLAY. Let me first, Mr. Chairman, say that those that are on the cutting edge of technology and wanting to provide it are protected in the base text of the bill by limiting their liability and banning punitive damages, just like we have done in the Transportation Safety Administration and other instances.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is an unacceptable demand that America needs to know about right now. Some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the country are attempting to pass off legal liability for their products onto average Americans. These defense contractors are trying to feed the taxpaying public to the crocodiles of the plaintiff's bar.

American taxpayers should not be asked to absorb the devastating financial consequences that would flow from creating an enormous new unfunded liability. Taxpayers should not be footing the bill for a gigantic new windfall for trial lawyers. Even now, the plaintiff's bar is eagerly anticipating new ways to exploit the new terrorist attack through litigation against the companies that are developing terror-fighting tools.

What is even more outrageous is that multibillion dollar defense contractors

[Page: H5832]

have the nerve to come to Congress, hat in hand, to demand that taxpayers foot this bill. If these defense contractors bear the responsibility for the failure of their technology, then they should be held responsible. And if these contractors are being unfairly sued and being penalized only because they contributed to the anti-terrorism effort in this country, then these lawsuits need to be stopped. And that is exactly what our base text ensures. We defang frivolous lawsuits that do nothing but line the pockets of trial lawyers.

What we need is broad-base litigation reform. What we do not need are multibillion dollar defense contractors making American taxpayers responsible for the quality of their technology. This would truly be a case of corporate welfare. It is ironic that Members of the minority, who routinely malign Republicans as the party of corporate America, are so willing to subject taxpayers to a bottomless pit of unfunded liability to protect these corporations.

Clearly, supporters of this amendment place a far greater weight on the wishes of their trial lawyer friends than they do to the dangers created for fiscal discipline and the American taxpayers. I ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the Turner amendment.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Turner amendment.

This amendment provides a reasonable balance between the protections needed by the liability insurance market and the access to compensation needed by the public and certain industries, such as the airlines. The Turner amendment uses language which has received strong support from both sides of the aisle, language that was contained in the bill reported by the Committee on Government Reform. It provides a sensible alternative to the bill, and particularly to the Army amendment we just debated.

H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act, only requires sellers to carry liability insurance to the extent that it is reasonably available from private sources at prices and terms that will not unreasonably distort the sales prices of sellers' antiterrorism technologies. That simply means that if a company cannot obtain insurance that is reasonably priced, it does not need to have any insurance whatsoever and victims cannot recover one penny for their injuries.

Amazingly, the Army amendment is even worse. It would give total immunity from lawsuits for any kind of wrongdoing, including willful and malicious corporate misconduct. This is true so long as the designs for the antiterrorism products and services have been approved by the Homeland Security Department. The only exception is if the seller acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct prior to that approval. The seller is free to deceive the public or continue to market a product subsequently determined to be dangerous or defective.

Even worse, the Army amendment protects corporate wrongdoers against all other kinds of lawsuits, so a buyer cannot sue the corporation for breach of warranty, breach of contract, public nuisance, or anything else. In other words, the corporation's protection allows it to make products that do not even work. The Army amendment protects the corporation against lawsuits by the injured victims and against lawsuits by the airlines or other groups who purchase the product.

We do not need to be giving blanket immunity to all corporations. Too many companies are acting in ways that are contrary to the public interest, and too many of our constituents are suffering as a result. We should not pass such a Draconian amendment. What we should do is support the Turner amendment. This amendment maintains a cap on the liability of corporations, recognizing the importance of doing so in order to stabilize the liability insurance market. That stability makes it easier for corporations to obtain capital to develop technologies.

The Turner amendment also includes an indemnity clause, such as the one used by the Department of Defense. This will enable victims to receive compensation from the government for costs that exceed the corporate liability cap. This is a good, balanced approach to the real problems we are facing as a Nation. Let us protect companies and compensate victims. Support the Turner amendment.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the distinguished conference chairman and a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the Turner amendment is fiscally irresponsible because it hands over the keys of the United States Treasury to trial lawyers. It would have the American taxpayer, not corporations, but American taxpayers pay nearly infinite damages caused by terrorists. We need the safety act provisions to ensure that Americans get the protections they deserve against future terrorists.

[Time: 14:30]

The fatally flawed tort system in America and the unbounded threat of liability are blocking the deployment of anti-terrorism technologies that can protect the American people. I want to give one illustration of where this really comes into play and give Members some idea of the lack of common sense that the Turner amendment would tear down.

The insidious dynamic that prevails under current law works as follows: A company might produce a smallpox detection device and deploy 100 of them. Terrorists strike, and 99 of the devices might work saving millions of lives. One device may not work and several thousand people might die. Lawsuits will follow. The potentially infinite liability to which the lawsuits currently expose the company will prevent the company from being able to deploy any of the 100 smallpox detection devices in the first place. The 99 that worked will be pulled off the market which, if that happens, would put millions of Americans at risk. It would expose them. That is the tragic consequence the SAFETY Act is designed to protect.

The SAFETY Act provisions place reasonable and sensible limits on lawsuits so America's leading technology companies will be able to deploy solutions to defeat terrorists.

What the Turner amendment does, it actually takes the liability away or takes the safety features away from the people that go to the malls, that go to the stadiums, the water treatment facilities, they will not be able to have access to these technologies that protect us, that protect our families, that protects this Nation. It just makes no sense.

It is time for Congress to stand up to the trial lawyers yet again and say no, especially now that we are at war against terrorists who will stop at nothing to harm innocent Americans. We saw it on September 11. We saw it on April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City. This is about protecting American life, it is not about limitless lawsuits. Vote ``no'' on the Turner amendment.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very basic. What it does is it takes blanket immunity which is added to this bill and replaces it with selective indemnity. The bill as it stands would exonerate contractors who provide all kinds of equipment, gear and protective devices, undertaking the most serious sort of responsibility from any liability whatsoever for the products they provide. Any. Just across the board, blanket immunity.

Instead it would say let us go back to the model of an old law called Public Law 85-804 and allow on a case-by-case basis, not a priori, but case-by-case indemnification to be provided to these contractors so they would have protection if they were sued in certain cases under certain circumstances. It makes far more sense than to try and sit here in judgment on all kinds of liability situations which we cannot even begin to foresee, much less render final judgment on.

85-804 has been on the books for as long as anyone around here can remember. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation almost went bankrupt in 1971. It

[Page: H5833]

was the authority of 85-804, the extraordinary authority of that law that had been carried forward for at least 60 years that allowed us to put Lockheed back on its feet. It is the largest contractor today.

That is basically what we are saying here today. Let us use the extraordinary authority given agency heads which has been used sparingly, to negotiate these agreements selectively case by case as opposed to doing this across the board. What we are doing here with this amendment is replacing something that is novel and new, untried and vast, with something that has proven to work. It is that basic, that le, an t is why we should adopt this amendment.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, we keep hearing reference to the word responsibility. We must have responsibility, and the SAFETY Act, the provision included in the en bloc amendment, the manager's amendment, makes the wrong-doers responsible. This indemnification amendment makes the taxpayers responsible. Responsibility is very important, but we cannot make the taxpayers of this country responsible for everything that goes wrong. We do not even know how much this will cost. Proponents did not even ask for a cost estimate. All we know is that the Congressional Budget Office tells us that it will cost a lot over a period of 5 years. We should find out how much this will cost before we proceed by adopting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the SAFETY Act does not provide immunity from lawsuits, it simply provides that products approved by the Federal Government for use in homeland security, and deployed in cooperation with customers other than the Federal Government in order to save lives, should be allowed the benefit of the existing government contractor defense. We already know that this works. It is already in law.

Under these provisions, any person or entity who engages in criminal or terrorist acts, including corporate crimes such as consumer fraud and government contract fraud, they are denied the protections. They do not get them.

The Democrats cannot have it both ways. The SAFETY Act that is in the manager's amendment is the fastest and the most efficient way to deploy anti-terrorism technologies, much-needed technologies that will save lives, and it does it without extending any immunity and it does it without leaving the American taxpayers holding the bag.

The Turner provision will do just that. It will leave the American taxpayers holding the bag. We get that assignment all too often, Mr. Chairman. Allow the reasonable insurance coverage to kick in, provide for very limited tort reform, and we have the answer. We can go forward.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Turner amendment, which is a reasoned, bipartisan alternative to an irresponsible liability provision in the bill. There currently exists a myriad of new and undeployed technologies which are needed now to protect America from the threat of nuclear, biological, chemical and other terrorist threats.

However, under current law, many of the technologies may never be deployed because they cannot be insured under our current legal liability structure. Section 753 of the bill addresses this problem, but it is extremely misguided and irresponsible. Under the bill, victims who are injured cannot sue for personal injuries because the corporate wrong-doer enjoys total immunity from lawsuits by any kind of wrongdoing, including willful and malicious corporate misconduct under the so-called government contractor defense.

Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. It is unAmerican. It is overkill. It is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Turner amendment is narrowly tailored to address this issue. It allows the new Department of Homeland Security and other agencies that are responsible for homeland security the discretion to indemnify providers of anti-terrorist technology from liability above and beyond the coverage that they are able to obtain in the private marketplace. This approach is modeled after successful indemnification laws which are targeted and fiscally responsible.

Mr. Chairman, the Turner amendment gives America the technologies that we need to remain secure while guaranteeing the victims' rights that they deserve and are entitled to under the law. It is the right thing to do, and I strongly urge Members to support it.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the concept of contractor indemnification, which is core to the term, is not a new plan. It has been around since the 1950s under Public Law 85-804. And so Members understand, less than $100 million has been paid out over the course of 45 years because the discretion that the agencies have in exercising that, and also because under this, it would also be subject to OMB approval.

In order to get protection under either the Turner plan or the Armey plan, the contractor has to acquire insurance to fully protect to the extent the risk is not covered by insurance. And if supplier technology engages in willful misconduct or displays a lack of good faith, neither plan saves it. The solutions proposed differ, but I think each represents a viable solution to the dilemma faced by the Nation.

Our committee liked the indemnification plan because it was written into current law. The Armey plan, though, has been the policy of the House as we have moved legislation forward. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for working with us on this language in the committee. I appreciate what the gentleman has done on this.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to express my sympathies for my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), whose amendment this was when we were in committee and in rules. Now all of a sudden, something happened on the way to the floor. I just express to the gentleman, maybe I can find out in the cloakroom what happened that caused this sudden change of heart and the support of the Turner amendment.

Here we go again. We have unprecedented corporate immunity in subtitle F of the homeland security bill. I am going to tell the other side of the aisle they were going to lose votes on final passage by continuing to immunize these corporations against liability.

First it was the airport security group, and some of the lousiest contractors in the business are now going to get immunized. Here we are going to give companies corporate immunity that will not be able to be penalized by injuries.

Mr. Chairman, what is this? This is not a tort liability bill. This is a homeland security department that we are trying to create. All of this foolishness is not doing the other side of the aisle any good. Extending this product liability immunity to anti-terrorist products is a bad idea, and I hope that we will reject this amendment; and, if necessary, reject the whole bill.

[Time: 14:45]

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Turner amendment.

The Turner amendment is narrowly targeted and fiscally responsible. The Republican majority's immunity provisions in the bill are the ultimate anti-corporate responsibility provisions and living proof that the leadership is not serious about increasing corporate accountability.

[Page: H5834]

The Turner amendment addresses one of the challenges that we have experienced in New York after September 11 where one of the biggest problems we have is the lack of available insurance. It is stifling our economy. Commerce cannot go forward without insurance, and I hope Congress will act quickly on antiterrorism insurance.

Similarly, we have very talented private sector industries developing cutting-edge technologies to make our homeland secure. But without sufficient insurance coverage and liability, these technologies simply will not be offered. And without a safety net for catastrophe, businesses simply will not do antiterrorism business.

What this amendment does is that it indemnifies providers of antiterrorism technology, which we desperately need, only after they have obtained all the insurance that they can from the private market and above that insurance they are indemnified for additional liability.

I might say that they must also get the approval of the Secretary of Homeland Security and of OMB. So I urge my colleagues to support the Turner amendment. It merely gives companies that will do business with the new Department of Homeland Security the same protections, the same indemnity protections to companies that work with other agencies like the Department of Defense.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Turner amendment.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished attorney and Member of this body, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the leader for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his very strong work in creating the legislation that will allow homeland security to be consolidated in one department of our government and also on his work to make sure that we can effectively make sure that our country is indeed secure.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. Advanced technology companies are developing technologies that can help detect and prevent acts of terrorism. However, these companies are effectively prohibited from making these technologies widely available because they would be subjected to unlimited liability and uninsurable risks.

As we sadly learned from the tragic events of September 11, our terrorist enemies will not limit their attacks to government targets. In choosing their targets, terrorists make no distinction between military personnel and civilian men, women and children. Therefore, it is imperative that our local shopping malls, ball fields, schools and office buildings be protected from terrorist attack. One way to do that is to untie the hands of technology companies and allow them to provide the best technologies available to the private sector without fear that they will be put out of business for doing so.

The provisions in the bill help ensure that effective antiterrorism technologies that meet very stringent safety and effectiveness requirements are deployed and requires that companies selling such devices obtain the maximum amount of liability insurance possible. It also ensures that victims are compensated for demonstrable injuries as equitably as possible.

Opponents argue that the bill provisions provide for immunity to corporations who willfully sell defective products. But they are simply wrong. Nothing in these provisions provide immunity from lawsuits. Further, any person or company who engages in criminal or terrorist acts, including corporate crime such as consumer fraud and government contract fraud, is denied the protections of the act. In addition, under the act, if a company engages in any fraud or willful misconduct in submitting information on product safety to the Secretary of Homeland Security, it will be denied the opportunity to even assert the government contractor defense.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the current provisions of the bill so that Americans may be protected by the best technologies available without sticking American taxpayers with the bill in the case of catastrophe caused by terrorists.

Oppose this amendment and support the legislation.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. DOGGETT. How very disappointing this afternoon that the leadership has chosen to reject a successful bipartisan initiative by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) that has already been endorsed by a number of major corporations. It seems to me that public safety should be the first, the last, and the only goal of this Homeland Security bill. Yet with this last-minute legal loophole that has been tacked onto the bill, the goal is clearly to rid corporations of responsibility for the harm their products cause.

If the wrongdoer does not bear the responsibility, then who will bear the responsibility? Well, the decision the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has made is to place all of the responsibility for wrongdoing on the victim. This is basically a ``blame the victim,'' ``let-the-victim-bear-the-full-cost-of-the-wrongdoer'' approach. And the timing is so strange not only the last-minute way in which it was slipped in after the Committee on Government Reform approved the bipartisan, moderate approach, but strange timing that in a year when so many retirees, so many workers, so many investors are paying the very painful cost of corporate irresponsibility, that this Congress would say, ``let us have a little more unaccountability.''

The Reserve Officers Association, certainly no group that has been involved in any of these high-profile debates over tort issues, has stated its unqualified opposition to the special exemption that this legislation provides, noting that even unscrupulous government contractors guilty of willful misconduct will be let off the hook when they provide anti-terrorism technology to our American troops.

This is not a debate about liability limits. It is a debate about corporate accountability limits, a debate about corporate responsibility limits. And I do not think we ought to limit that responsibility, particularly at this time in American history. Clearly, there are no limits to the willingness of this leadership to provide backdoor favors to their friends. Protecting Americans working at home and fighting abroad means holding corporations responsible for their misdeeds. That is what we need to do, instead of blaming the victim, instead of saying that it will be the soldiers, the fathers, the mothers, the children and other innocents, all the victims, that must pay the price for corporate misconduct. We need to make a firm statement in favor of a reasonable, bipartisan approach that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) advances.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Today, our Nation faces a new threat and a new enemy. And while the terrorists we fight have new ways of attack, we have much greater new abilities to defend this great Nation.

America has always been the arsenal of democracy, and we remain so. And the new tools we possess are the technologies that spring from the ingenuity of the American mind. We have seen those technologies deployed in the Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and now those new technologies help protect us here at home.

In order to encourage the private sector to use its ingenuity to develop these defensive capabilities, they must have the ability to protect themselves from excessive exposure and liability. There is a mechanism in existing law that provides indemnity on a case-by-case basis for those under contract with the Department of Defense. And as demonstrated by the extraordinary work of the Department of Defense, this targeted immunity works.

The Turner amendment, based on a bipartisan agreement attested to by those who have contracted with the Department of Defense, restores this targeted indemnity. The opposition says that what has worked for the Department of Defense is not enough. They want blanket indemnity. They want an indemnity so broad it threatens to remove some of the vital and powerful incentives for technology

[Page: H5835]

makers to make sure they get it right. This goes too far.

We want to incentivize the development of new technologies that work, that meet their promise, that live up to their expectation, that protect this country and all who serve it. The Turner amendment will do this. Nothing more and nothing less.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Turner amendment, and I ask a question today on this very important debate: Are we fighting terrorism, or are we fighting the American people? Nothing in the Turner amendment will thwart the intent of the Department of Homeland Security to save lives and to prevent terrorism.

The Turner amendment will, in effect, encourage innovative devices and technology to be presented to the government. It will not, on the other hand, provide the corporate escape that the manager's amendment gives to this particular bill by inserting immunity provisions in the bill for Corporations that have technology that might harm us if it fails. What the Turner amendment does is say use your innovative devices, use your innovative technology and we will indentify you, with restrictions. Those restrictions will be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the OMB Director. What more can you ask for? Are we here to save lives? Are we here to help the American people? Are we here to fight terrorism? Or are we here to stuff money into corporate America's pocketbook?

Support the Turner amendment.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank, first, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his efforts with me in crafting this language. We both worked with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and the Information Technology Association to come forward with this language that we reported out of the Committee on Government Reform unanimously without opposition. The gentleman from Virginia and I brought the amendment to the attention of the Committee on Rules. And I am very grateful we had the opportunity, Mr. Leader, to offer the amendment.

I must say that it is somewhat surprising to hear the criticism from the other side today of what is existing law. The Department of Defense grants indemnity to companies that launch missiles because of the concern of those corporations about business risk. I was quite surprised to hear the provision criticized, because it has been in the law since 1958 and was first implemented by President Eisenhower and most recently used by President Bush when he authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to indemnify the manufacturers of Cipro who would not provide that to our government unless we did so.

Our amendment follows existing law, existing practice and, most importantly, does not take anyone's legal rights away from them. I would urge the House to join with us in supporting this bipartisan amendment. Twenty Democrats and 21 Republicans wrote a letter to the special panel asking them to include our language in the bill. We enjoy bipartisan support. We believe it is the right way to deal with a very serious problem. And we will be able, under our amendment, to get the technology out there and in place much quicker than the approach that is in the bill which requires an FDA-type review process for every piece of equipment and will take years to implement the technology we need to fight terrorism.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal about the bipartisan support of this amendment. Irony of ironies, where there is bipartisan support there can be bipartisan rejection.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, this amendment had an interesting experience in the committee of jurisdiction, one of the 12 standing committees that worked on this bill. When it was proposed on the eve of the night markup of this bill in that committee, it was opposed by the ranking Democrat on the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who said, and I quote, ``It really is opening up the Treasury of the United States to a lot of companies that might have exercised due care. And, more importantly, when companies are indemnified, even if they are negligent, there is not the incentive to avoid being negligent.''

[Time: 15:00]

This approach to the problem was contemplated in the other body and, indeed, in this case the ranking minority member, a Republican member in the other body, intended to offer this amendment in the other body's markup just yesterday and was dissuaded from doing so by the majority members, the Democrats of the committee, who thought it imposed too big a burden on the Treasury of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, so I have to rely on other legal experts like, for example, the Supreme Court. In this debate it has been argued that when a government contractor has a defense, it is an immunity. I only point out to the minority that the Supreme Court has said a defense is not an immunity. Always going back to the legal questions that baffle us so such as what the meaning of the word ``is'' is, but in this case the meaning of the word ``defense'' is not immunity.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that what we are trying to do was well described by several people. We are trying to encourage that practical American genius to bring its product to the defense of America. What this base language that would be set aside by this amendment does do is provide a consolidation of claims in Federal court to stop venue-shopping. It has a requirement that noneconomic damages be awarded only in proportion to a party's percentage of fault. It has a ban on punitive damage. It takes a sort of simple practical American notion that if someone is a victim, they should not be treated as if they were a perpetrator. A rather novel idea, I am sure, in some circles but quite well understood by most Americans.

The underlying language says offsets are awarded based on receipt of collateral source benefits providing compensation for the same injuries; no double-dipping. This is something that I have in other contexts referred to as the Daschle provision, having been enacted in law pursuant to the innovation of the distinguished Democrat majority leader in the other body. The underlying language has a defense modeled on government's contractor defense that applies following sales of qualified antiterrorism technologies in the private sector, and it caps liability and insurance.

This has been enacted in this body before. This is not some Johnny-come-lately notion new to this body. It was part of the Aviation Security Act. It was part of the Air Stabilization Act. It was part of the Terrorism Risk Insurance bill, and it part of the Class Action Reform bill passed in this body in this year.

What we do not do in the underlying language that would be set aside by this amendment is put a cap on attorneys' fees, provide any immunity for anybody anywhere at any time, or exempt criminals from coverage.

Mr. Chairman, I do not ask much, but I do ask for accuracy in debate. There has been far too little of it. I ask the body to reject this amendment and uphold the underlying language.

• [Begin Insert]

   

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I fully support the amendment offered by the Gentleman from Texas [Mr. TURNER]. This amendment balances the need to encourage responsible development of new homeland defense technologies and products with the need to maintain a system that holds wrongdoers responsible for their misconduct.

His amendment would allow under appropriate circumstances the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide indemnification to the manufacturers of anti-terrorism products, much like the Secretary of Defense today can provide indemnification to companies making products critical to our national defense.

Under this approach, any victims of product failure would still be able to receive full compensation. They would not be left to suffer alone.

Companies do not get a free ride: they must take out the maximum level of insurance possible, and they can get the indemnity coverage only after they convince the Department of Homeland Security and the White House's Office of Management and Budget that they qualify for indemnification.

[Page: H5836]

At the same time, the many companies which make the products and develop the technologies we need also won't be asked to take inordinate risks. The Turner Amendment would provide them the incentives to invest aggressively in homeland defense technologies without upsetting the entire system of checks and balances within our civil justice system.

Just earlier this week, we celebrated the passage of legislation to hold corporate executives accountable for misconduct. Shockingly, the majority now tries to exempt those same companies from any responsibility for the products they make.

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Turner Amendment that seeks to add back the indemnification provisions that the Government Reform Committee had recommended for inclusion in the bill. The Turner Amendment does not require any indemnification by the Federal government. It simply permits such indemnification when the head of a Federal agency and the head of the new Office of Homeland Security deem it in the public interest to do so.

The blanket corporate immunity in Subtitle F of the bill is not in the public interest. Our goal is to achieve homeland security, not reflexively broaden corporate protection from negligence.

The Turner Amendment is a very responsible, narrow and targeted means to deal with this problem. It would allow Federal agencies to indemnity contractors for anti-terrorist technology after they've purchased as much private insurance as they can get. The Secretary of Homeland Security could also indemnify contractors on behalf of state and local governments on the same terms.

There are high-tech companies across the country that are developing cutting-edge technology to help prevent terrorist attacks. But in some cases, they can't sell them because they can't get enough insurance. The risks of liability from a major terrorist attack are so great that insurance companies can't afford to insure these products. So let's help high-tech companies by offering them indemnification where the private insurance market is unable or unwilling to insure them in those limited, special circumstances where the head of a federal agency deems it in the best interests of the government to provide such indemnification.

Support the Turner Amendment.

• [End Insert]

   

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, following this 15-minute vote, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the vote, if ordered, on: Amendment No. 20 by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and amendment No. 21 by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).

This will be a 15-minute vote followed by two 5-minute votes.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, noes 215, not voting 5, as follows:

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Allen

Andrews

Baca

Baird

Baldacci

Baldwin

Barcia

Barrett

Becerra

Bentsen

Berkley

Berman

Berry

Bishop

Blagojevich

Blumenauer

Bonior

Borski

Boswell

Boucher

Boyd

Brady (PA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Capps

Capuano

Cardin

Carson (IN)

Carson (OK)

Clay

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Condit

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Cramer

Crowley

Cummings

Davis (CA)

Davis (FL)

Davis (IL)

DeFazio

DeGette

Delahunt

DeLauro

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Doggett

Dooley

Doyle

Edwards

Engel

Eshoo

Etheridge

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Filner

Ford

Frank

Frost

Gephardt

Gilman

Gonzalez

Gordon

Green (TX)

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hill

Hilliard

Hinchey

Hinojosa

Hoeffel

Holden

Holt

Honda

Hooley

Horn

Hoyer

Inslee

Israel

Jackson (IL)

Jackson-Lee (TX)

Jefferson

John

Johnson (IL)

Johnson, E. B.

Jones (OH)

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (RI)

Kildee

Kilpatrick

Kind (WI)

Kleczka

Kucinich

LaFalce

Lampson

Langevin

Lantos

Larsen (WA)

Larson (CT)

Lee

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lipinski

Lofgren

Lowey

Lucas (KY)

Luther

Lynch

Maloney (CT)

Maloney (NY)

Markey

Mascara

Matheson

Matsui

McCarthy (MO)

McCarthy (NY)

McCollum

McDermott

McGovern

McIntyre

McKinney

McNulty

Meek (FL)

Meeks (NY)

Menendez

Millender-McDonald

Miller, George

Mink

Mollohan

Moore

Moran (VA)

Morella

Murtha

Nadler

Napolitano

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Owens

Pallone

Pascrell

Pastor

Payne

Pelosi

Peterson (MN)

Phelps

Pomeroy

Price (NC)

Rahall

Rangel

Reyes

Rivers

Rodriguez

Roemer

Ross

Rothman

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanchez

Sanders

Sandlin

Sawyer

Schakowsky

Schiff

Scott

Serrano

Sherman

Shows

Skelton

Slaughter

Smith (WA)

Snyder

Solis

Spratt

Stark

Stenholm

Strickland

Stupak

Tanner

Tauscher

Taylor (MS)

Thompson (CA)

Thompson (MS)

Thurman

Tierney

Towns

Turner

Udall (CO)

Udall (NM)

Velazquez

Visclosky

Waters

Watson (CA)

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Weiner

Weldon (PA)

Wexler

Woolsey

Wu

Wynn

Aderholt

Akin

Armey

Bachus

Baker

Ballenger

Barr

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bereuter

Biggert

Bilirakis

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Boozman

Brady (TX)

Brown (SC)

Bryant

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Cannon

Cantor

Capito

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Coble

Collins

Cooksey

Cox

Crane

Crenshaw

Cubin

Culberson

Davis, Jo Ann

Davis, Tom

Deal

DeLay

DeMint

Diaz-Balart

Doolittle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Everett

Ferguson

Flake

Fletcher

Foley

Forbes

Fossella

Frelinghuysen

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Gibbons

Gillmor

Goode

Goodlatte

Goss

Graham

Granger

Graves

Green (WI)

Greenwood

Grucci

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hansen

Hart

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hostettler

Houghton

Hulshof

Hunter

Hyde

Isakson

Issa

Istook

Jenkins

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, Sam

Jones (NC)

Keller

Kelly

Kennedy (MN)

Kerns

King (NY)

Kingston

Kirk

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Latham

LaTourette

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Linder

LoBiondo

Lucas (OK)

Manzullo

McCrery

McHugh

McInnis

McKeon

Mica

Miller, Dan

Miller, Gary

Miller, Jeff

Moran (KS)

Myrick

Nethercutt

Ney

Northup

Norwood

Nussle

Osborne

Ose

Otter

Oxley

Paul

Pence

Peterson (PA)

Petri

Pickering

Pitts

Platts

Pombo

Portman

Pryce (OH)

Putnam

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Rehberg

Reynolds

Riley

Rogers (KY)

Rogers (MI)

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Roukema

Royce

Ryan (WI)

Ryun (KS)

Saxton

Schaffer

Schrock

Sensenbrenner

Sessions

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Sherwood

Shimkus

Shuster

Simmons

Simpson

Skeen

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Souder

Stearns

Stump

Sullivan

Sununu

Sweeney

Tancredo

Tauzin

Taylor (NC)

Terry

Thomas

Thornberry

Thune

Tiahrt

Tiberi

Toomey

Upton

Vitter

Walden

Walsh

Wamp

Watkins (OK)

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weller

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson (NM)

Wilson (SC)

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Blunt

Combest

Cunningham

Gilchrest

Meehan

[Time: 15:37]

Messrs. GALLEGLY, HERGER, TOOMEY, HEFLEY, PETERSON of Pennsylvania, GUTKNECHT, HUNTER, ROHRABACHER, EHRLICH, and GRAHAM, Mrs. BONO, and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

Messrs. BERRY, DINGELL, and DELAHUNT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.