[Pages H5974-H5979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2559, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 298 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 298

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2559) making appropriations for military
construction, family housing, and base realignment and
closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bills shall be dispensed with. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto the
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Last night, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for
H.R. 2559, the Fiscal Year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations
Act.
The United States military is clearly the best in the world. The
young men and women in our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast
Guard are thoroughly dedicated and patriotic professionals, the best
our Nation has to offer. We are asking a lot from our military today.
Our personnel on active duty know that they may well be deployed
overseas and, perhaps, on dangerous missions. So we want to provide
them a quality of life for themselves and their families that will
allow them to serve, knowing that their families will be taken care of
with good housing and good health care.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2559 recognizes the dedication and commitment of
our troops by providing for their most basic needs: improved military
facilities, including the previously mentioned housing and medical
facilities.

{time} 1500

Mr. Speaker, we must honor the most basic commitments we have made to
the men and women of our Armed Services. We must ensure a reasonable
quality of life to recruit and retain the best and brightest for
America's fighting forces. Most importantly, we must do it all,
everything in our power to ensure a strong, able, dedicated American
military so this Nation will be ever vigilant, ever prepared, so much
more important now than it has been in the past.
This bill provides nearly $1.2 billion for barracks, and $176 million
for hospitals and medical facilities for our troops and their families.
It also provides $2.7 billion to operate and maintain existing housing
units, and $1.2 billion for new housing units, much, much needed.
Military families also have a tremendous need for quality child care,
especially single parents and families in which one or both parents may
face lengthy deployment. To help meet this need, the bill provides $16
million for child development centers. H.R. 2559 is more than just a
signal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that this Nation
recognizes their services and their sacrifice. It is a means by which
we meet our commitment to providing

[[Page H5975]]

them a decent quality of life so as to sustain the commitment and
professionalism of America's all voluntary armed services and the
families that support them.
While our men and women in uniform have swiftly dispatched our
enemies abroad, they face increasingly complex personal and
professional challenges here at home. We must do more to take care of
those who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedoms,
and for the families who support them in their efforts. And I am really
glad we are getting this done before we head home for the July 4th work
break.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support
the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the rule under consideration for H.R. 2559, the Fiscal
Year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations Act, is an open rule. It
provides for one hour of general debate, waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill, allows for germane amendments and
provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the work of
the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) of the Subcommittee on
Military Construction along with the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for continuing
the tradition of bipartisan action on this bill and for doing the best
with a terrible allocation.
Mr. Speaker, I have a terrible feeling of deja vu. Almost exactly 1
year ago, on June 27 of 2002, I stood on this House floor as the
minority manager of the rule on the fiscal year 2003 military
construction bill. Along with the then-chairman, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), we all bemoaned the inadequacy of that bill.
We all pledged to do better next year and called upon President Bush to
increase the budget for desperately needed military construction,
housing, base realignment and base closure.
Well, 1 year later none of that has happened. In fact, this year is
even worse. If last year's appropriations bill was inadequate, this one
is woefully inadequate, to quote the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman
Knollenberg). In fact, the fiscal year 2004 bill is $1.5 billion less
than last year's bill. Let me repeat that. This bill is $1.5 billion
less than the fiscal year 2003 funding levels. It is even $41 million
less than the chairman's request.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues what in the world are we
doing? How can we stand on this House floor day after day, week after
week and declare how much we support our uniformed men and women when
the funding provided for family housing in this bill is $270 million
less than last year? How can we stand on the floor of this House day
after day, week after week and say that we are engaged in a long-term
struggle against a global enemy when funding for military construction
in this bill is $1 billion less than last year?

Mr. Speaker, poor facility conditions are not only unsafe, they
hamper readiness and decrease troop retention. According to the
Pentagon, 180,000 of the 300,000 units of military housing are
substandard. According to the Pentagon, 68 percent of the Department's
facilities have deficiencies so serious that they might impede mission
readiness or they are so deteriorated that they cannot support mission
requirements. The current reductions in funding for construction in
these facility categories means that the rate at which buildings are
renovated or replaced has just increased from 83 years to 150 years.
This is a national scandal. And let us be clear, this bill is not
only about new housing, it is about the operation and maintenance of
existing family housing. One of the few increases in family housing in
this bill is for the Army. It receives an $81 million increase.
Unfortunately, funding for the operation and maintenance of existing
Army family housing is cut by $63 million, allowing more and more
current housing units to deteriorate and fall into substandard
condition. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing that since the events of September 11 we
live in a changed world. I keep on hearing how much we appreciate our
Armed Forces, how much we appreciate their sacrifice and service. Then
why do we keep cutting and cutting and cutting the military
construction appropriations bill? We obviously do not appreciate them
enough to give them decent housing. We obviously do not admire them
enough to give them quality facilities. Are we going to be on the floor
of this House next year expressing our disappointment over how
inadequate the military construction appropriations bill is again?
Now, I have been told that we should just wait until the 2005 round
of base closings, then we will see some modest increases for housing at
the bases that survive the next round of closures. That is as cynical a
rationalization as I have ever heard. Do we honestly believe that
inadequate housing and facilities exist only on bases likely to be
closed down?
Mr. Speaker, this crisis in funding for family housing and military
construction is nationwide. It exists at nearly every single base and
installation across the land and overseas, and it affects every branch
of our Armed Forces. And if base closure is somehow magically supposed
to balance the ledgers, then why are we in such a housing and
construction crisis right now?
It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker, and there is a remedy.
The ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), tried to provide an extra $958 million above
the allocation level for military construction and housing. His
solution is not hard to accept. This House would simply scale back 5
percent of the scheduled tax cut for people with adjusted gross incomes
of over $1 million for 1 year. This would mean that the tax refund for
these individuals would be reduced from about $88,000 to $83,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent census, there are more
than 280 million people in the United States. This modest change in the
tax cut would affect about 200,000 individuals, or less than one-tenth
of 1 percent of all taxpayers. Such a small adjustment, however, would
provide nearly a billion dollars to help ensure that more than 1.4
million men and women who serve our country on active duty have decent
housing and workplaces for themselves and their families. But the
Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations rejected the gentleman
from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) proposal, and last night the Republicans on
the Committee on Rules refused to allow the gentleman from Wisconsin's
(Mr. Obey) amendment to even be debated and voted on in this House.
So we are faced with the results of what happens when we rob our
Nation of the most basic revenue needed to adequately fund our Nation's
priorities. We rob our valiant military personnel of decent homes and
facilities. We rob our veterans of their basic benefits. We cut back
funding for schools and child care for military families. And we are
faced with passing this woefully inadequate bill, a bill I believe that
for all the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman
Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards), can only be viewed as a shameful scandal on the part of this
House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it would be so nice if the force of our
rhetoric is matched by the force of our deeds. That certainly is not
the case with this bill.
Just a few months ago this House passed this resolution and it said,

[[Page H5976]]

among other things, ``Resolved by the House of Representatives, the
Senate concurring, that the Congress express the unequivocal support
and appreciation of the Nation to the members of the United States
Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom who are carrying out
their missions with excellence, patriotism and bravery and also to
their families.''
Well, the sad news, unfortunately, is that the check is not in the
mail. We have given them a resolution but we are short-sheeting them in
terms of things that military families need in order to make their life
better. I do not understand why we are doing that. This bill shows the
House's ``support and appreciation'' by providing $1.5 billion less
than we appropriated last year to provide the military with decent
housing and work places.
The bill also thanks the military supposedly by cutting the
President's own request for the Pentagon by $180 million. This is for
hangers, offices, fitness centers and teaching facilities that even OMB
and the administration said the military needed. But this bill cuts
them out.
Many Members of this House have seen the problems for themselves. The
Pentagon itself rates the readiness of most military facilities as
marginal or worse. Over 225,000 service members and their families
cannot get decent barracks or decent housing. This bill is not up to
the job and we all know why. It is not the fault of the subcommittee
chairman. It is the fault of every single Member of this House who
voted for the budget resolution which said that the only priorities for
this year was going to be tax cuts. And as you know, the lion's share
of the tax cuts went into the pockets of the most wealthy 1 percent of
people in this country.
So as a result of that decision by the Republican leadership to put
tax cuts as the primary goal of this Congress, the budget resolution,
for instance, that was passed is on track to cut $28 billion from
veterans benefits. There would be, under the White House budget, $200
million in cuts to impact aid to the school districts that educate the
children of military families. As many as 230,000 military families
have been cut out of the low income child tax provision.
We are taking millionaires off the tax roll, but we are not giving
the people who need the help the most anything but table scraps on the
tax side.
The defense bill, which was marked up this morning in full committee,
will cut raises for the most junior enlisted and officer personnel from
the 4.1 percent they have been expecting to just 2 percent. I want to
see how many of you who have cried about the fact that you have Army
personnel on food stamps, I want to see how many of you vote to cut
that. I want to watch that.
A realistic budget resolution has been beyond the reach of the
Congress, and this is the result as we are seeing today. Now, I want to
be able to offer an amendment to correct the problem. My amendment
would reinstate the $160 million in cuts from the President's budget. I
would like to restore all of them. I think the White House is right. We
need them. I would also add $480 million for family housing. That would
help at least 2,500 military families. That would be a useful first
step in replacing the 134,000 inadequate units that service members and
their families are forced to live in today.
Finally, the amendment would provide $318 million for new barracks
that would help 5,300 single service members into decent housing. The
Pentagon says we need over 83,000 units, so even this amendment goes
just an inch. My amendment is an opportunity to restore the projects
the President said were needed, to help about 8,000 service members and
their families, and it would help Congress to keep its promise to the
troops.
Now, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has indicated, I would pay
for it by changing the tax package that was just passed by this
Congress. What I would say is that for persons with adjusted gross
incomes of more than $1 million, instead of their getting the $88,000
tax cut they will get next year, we would cut that to $83,000. That is
hardly starvation wages. Now, these are not just millionaires. These
are people with adjusted gross incomes of more than $1 million each
year, about 200,000 people in this society. And I bet if you asked
them, they would say they would happily take that reduction in order to
provide a real improvement in the quality of life for our troops.

{time} 1515

We are saying let them keep 95 percent of their tax cut but use that
$5,000 difference to give people who are putting their lives on the
line for this country better living conditions.
I do not know if you saw the article in the ``Army Times'' June 30,
2003. Mr. Speaker, I will insert this article in the Record immediately
after my remarks.
I would also like to read you two paragraphs from a news story today
out of The New York Times. It reads as follows: ``The 400 wealthiest
taxpayers who accounted for more than 1 percent of all income in the
United States in the year 2000 more than doubled their share from 8
years earlier, but their tax burden plummeted over that same period of
time.''
The article then goes on to say why, and then it says that ``had
President Bush's latest tax cuts been in effect in 2000, the average
tax bill for the top 400 earners in the country would have been about
$30.4 million, a savings of $8.3 million, or more than a fifth.''
Now, when we are in tough times, we have to ask, in my judgment, who
needs help the most. I think that decent military housing ought to come
before $88,000 tax cuts for the most comfortable people in this
society. We are not saying cut them out. We are simply saying shave
them back by 5 percent.
Our problem is, we will not even be able to offer this amendment on
the floor today because the Committee on Rules said, ``No way, baby.''
So that means that once again, the Republican majority is able to hide
behind its budget resolution which did not specify where the cuts would
come from in order to pay for the tax cuts.
We have a serious problem in this House. The budget process is
supposed to force the Congress to make choices, to recognize trade-
offs, and explicitly make those choices in full view of the country.
Instead, the budget process is being used in conjunction with the rules
out of the Committee on Rules to deny the public the understanding of
what the costs are from those tax cuts. So they get to think that they
are cost-free.
They do not know, for instance, that they will cost the public an
extra $27 billion in interest payments next year. If we could take just
$10 billion of that extra interest payment, we could take care of the
shortcomings in education, in health care, in military housing, and
every other appropriation bill that comes before us. That is what we
would do if we had any sense of common sense. That is what we would do
if we had any sense of justice.
I urge you to vote against the previous question on the rule so that
we can offer the amendment that I have just described.

[From the Army Times, June 30, 2003]

Nothing but Lip Service

In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-
controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly
deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap--and
getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime
treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-
benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by
Congress are wasteful and unnecessary--including a modest
proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of
troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when
Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a
day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it
wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly
imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation
allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in
combat zones.
Then there's military tax relief--or the lack thereof. As
Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of
tax cuts, they can't seem to find time to make progress on
minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military
homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training
and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
Incredibly, one of those tax provisions--easing residency
rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains
exemptions when selling a home--has been a homeless orphan in
the corridors of power for more than five years now.
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush's proposed
2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for
some ranks, he also proposed capping raises

[[Page H5977]]

for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average
raise of 4.1 percent.
The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea,
and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and
higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the
bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be
hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
All of which brings us to the latest indignity--Bush's $9.2
billion military construction request for 2004, which was set
a full $1.5 billion below this year's budget on the
expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent
years, would add funding as it drafted the construction
appropriations bill.
But Bush's tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004
federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on
across the board.
The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military
construction panel accepted Bush's proposed $1.5 billion cut,
it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41
million next year.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House
Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion
of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush's construction budget. He
proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for
the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a
year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive
$83,500.
The Republican majority on the construction appropriations
panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making
progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that
needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other
facilities is bleak at best.
Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be
viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal
if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling
pattern that eventually will hurt morale--especially if the
current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked
and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed
a resolution in March pledging ``unequivocal support'' to
service members and their families, puts it this way:
``American military men and women don't deserve to be saluted
with our words and insulted by our actions.''
Translation: Money talks--and we all know what walks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has worked very hard on this
bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay), the majority leader of this House, said that in time of
war nothing is more important than tax cuts. Well, this bill proves it.
Because of the tax cuts, including dividend tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans, because of the $88,000 tax cut that every American on
average making over $1 million a year will receive, we now bring a bill
to this House that should be an embarrassment to the Members of
Congress who stood on this floor and said we should honor our
servicemen and -women.
I noted the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) a few
minutes ago said this bill is more than a signal to our servicemen and
-women. Well, I agree. It is a flashing red light. It says that while
we honor you with our words, we cut your quality of life programs with
our deeds and with our votes. Yes, it is more than a signal. This bill
is a slap in the face to every serviceman and -woman, every military
child in America who this year and in years past has made tremendous
sacrifices, including the sacrifice of life, to defend our country and
our way of life.
The dollar figures in this bill are not the fault of the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the great chairman of this
subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member. He did the very best
any human could do to fairly put together the highest list of
priorities given the woefully inadequate funding in this bill; but let
us tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, like it is. They deserve the
truth and so do our servicemen and -women.
What this Republican leadership in Congress this year has said is
that it is more important to give a person making more than $1 million
dollar a year an $88,000 tax cut rather than an $83,000 tax cut. It is
more important to do that than it is to provide adequate housing and
day care and health clinics and training ranges for our brave
servicemen and -women, many of whom are serving in Iraq today.
Let us be clear. What this House leadership is saying is that while
we salute our troops as they get on the airplane to fly to Iraq or
Afghanistan and risk their lives for us, we are handing them a slip
saying the administration wants to cut their children's education
funding and the IMPACT aid program; and on the very night of March 21
when we voted to salute our troops in Iraq, 8 minutes later the House
Republican majority voted to cut those troops' future veterans benefits
by $28 billion. There is a clear record here; and, yes, it is a clear
signal to our servicemen and -women.
It is that we are going to cut your benefits, your housing, your
children's education, your day care clinics, your health facilities in
order to pay for the promise of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay),
who said that in time of war, nothing is more important than tax cuts.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the 44,000 Army soldiers that I
have the privilege to represent at Fort Hood in Texas will not get
anything or very little at all out of those tax cuts, while the
millionaires will average, not the millionaires but the people making
over $1 million a year will average more than $88,000 in tax cuts.
How serious is the housing problem for our servicemen and -women?
Maybe they already have quality housing. Perhaps there is some Member
of this House or some member of the public, Mr. Speaker, that has not
visited our military installations recently. Maybe they think they live
in the lap of luxury. Let me present the facts.
The fact is that there are 83,000 servicemen and -women living in
inadequate barracks that do not even meet the lowest Department of
Defense standards. The truth is that there are 128,860 military
families, people that on this floor just a few minutes ago were called
professional, the best, clearly dedicated, 128,000 of those families
are now living in housing that does not meet very low DOD standards.
By the way, just for the record, let me point out what is defined as
meeting the quality standard required by the Department of Defense. In
the Navy that means that $15,000 could fix up your house where it could
meet those lowest minimum DOD standards and you are living in adequate
housing. Forget the fact that you may never get that $15,000 to fix
your leaky roof or to fix the washer and dryer that are not working or
to repair the damage to the structure of the house. If $15,000 would
fix it, even if you never get that money to fix that house, you are
living in adequate housing.
The truth is, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina said, we ask a
lot from our servicemen and -women; and I stand in this House today to
say that this bill, despite the tremendous, valiant efforts of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) who did the best anybody
could with the amount of money given to him, this bill is a slap in the
face to our servicemen and -women; and just as the ``Army Times'' in
its editorial recently said that our soldiers are in effect getting
tired of lip service from Congress, this bill salutes them by insulting
them.
It defines our rhetoric of appreciation with the reality of a $1.5
billion cut in important programs that would have meant a better
quality of life, better training so that many of our troops might come
home safely to the hugs of their families rather than in body bags.
What this House is saying, despite all the intentions that one might
have, good or bad, what this House is saying with our votes is that we
value more an $88,000 tax cut for millionaires, those making more than
$1 million, more than them getting an $83,000 tax cut, we value that
more than treating with respect our servicemen and -women.
We should oppose this rule, support the Obey amendment, and back up
our rhetoric with our actions.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I will close for our side.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their eloquent
and powerful words and for reminding us all how we are not living up to
our promise to our uniformed men and women, and it is something that
every single Member in this House should listen to very carefully; and
we now have an opportunity to be able to do something about that.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a recorded vote on the previous question,
and I will urge Members to vote ``no'' on the

[[Page H5978]]

previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer
an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Obey amendment to
restore funding for military construction programs. This amendment was
submitted to the Committee on Rules and rejected by the Republican
majority.
The bill provides $9.2 billion for military construction spending.
That is $41 million below the level requested by the President, and
$1.5 billion less than last year. As we have said over and over, even
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee, called the bill woefully underfunded.
This amendment will help restore some of these desperately needed
additional funds. It will provide an additional $958 million above the
subcommittee's allocation. This would be offset by reducing the 2004
tax cut for 200,000 millionaires from $88,000 to $83,000. That is it.
Mr. Speaker, whether or not Members are Republicans or Democrats,
they should be extremely concerned, in fact outraged, about the lack of
adequate funding for the programs that help our men and women in the
military. The Obey amendment would help fix that and do so with no
additional cost to the deficit.
Our rhetoric is simply not enough, Mr. Speaker. If we want to honor
our uniformed men and women then we should not be cutting their
benefits and their programs. We should be providing them what they
need.
So I will urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on
the previous question. Let me emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not
stop the House from taking up the military construction appropriations
bill. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering
the Obey amendment to help restore funding for this important
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The material previously referred to by the gentleman from
Massachusetts is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 298--Rule on H.R. 2559 Fiscal Year 2004
Military Construction Appropriations

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of
Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
``Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
On page 2, line 13, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$1,726,660,000;
On page 3, line 13, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Navy'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$1,311,907,000;
On page 4, line 5, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and
insert $968,509,000;
On page 4, line 21, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Defense-Wide'', delete the dollar amount and
insert $872,110,000;
On page 5, line 20, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Army National Guard, delete the dollar amount
and insert $231,860,000;
On page 6, line 3, under the heading ``Military
Construction Air National Guard'', delete the dollar amount
and insert $95,605,000;
On page 7, line 19, under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$601,191,000;
On page 8, line 13, under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'', delete the dollar
amount and insert $288,193,000;
And on page 9, line 6, under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and
insert $841,065,000.
At the end of the bill, add the following:
Section . In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross
income tax excess of $1,000,000 for the tax year beginning in
2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of
the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
shall be reduced by five percent.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 200, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 324]

YEAS--220

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NAYS--200

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)

[[Page H5979]]

Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--14

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cubin
Dooley (CA)
Evans
Gephardt
Herger
Jefferson
Lewis (CA)
McInnis
Paul
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Watson
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members
are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1551

Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________