Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 88 (Thursday, June 27, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 88 (Thursday, June 27, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4136-H4143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5011, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 462 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 462

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. 5011) making appropriations for military
construction, family housing, and base realignment and
closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. 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 of 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 to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. House Resolution 421 is laid on the table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). 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), and I believe this is the first time we have done a rule
together, welcome, 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.
On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for
the Military Construction Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2003.
H.R. 5011 recognizes the dedication and commitment of our troops by
providing for their most basic needs, improved military facilities,
including housing and medical.
Mr. Speaker, we must honor the most basic commitments we have made to
the men and women of our Armed Forces. We must ensure reasonable
quality of life to recruit and retain the best and the brightest to
America's fighting forces. Most importantly, we must do all in our
power to ensure a strong, able, dedicated American military, so that
this Nation will be ever vigilant and ever prepared.
H.R. 5011 provides nearly $1.2 billion for barracks and $151 million
for hospital and medical facilities for troops and their families. It
also provides $2.9 billion to operate and maintain existing housing
units and $1.3 billion for new housing units.
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 deployments. To help meet this need, the bill provides $18
million for child development centers.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and an open rule for consideration of the
fiscal year 2003 military construction appropriations bill. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a fair and open rule for H.R. 5011,
the military construction appropriations for fiscal year 2003. The rule
provides for 1 hour of general debate, waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill, allows for all germane amendments to
be offered with priority accorded to those preprinted in the
Congressional Record, and provides for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
This is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
I would like to express my appreciation for the work of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Military Construction, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the Committee on Appropriations chairman, and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for continuing the
tradition of strong bipartisan support in the drafting of the military
construction appropriations bill.
This is a very difficult year for the Committee on Appropriations,
and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for bringing to this House a very fine
bill, given the limited amount of funds allocated for military
construction needs.
Mr. Speaker, the President's fiscal year 2003 request for military
construction was $1.6 billion, or 15 percent below the fiscal year 2002
enacted levels. However, included in the defense emergency response
fund as part of the defense appropriations bill was approximately $594
million worth of military construction projects. These projects were
subsequently transferred over to the jurisdiction of the military
construction request, resulting in the bill before us today. This
combined request for military construction, therefore, now contains
$542 million more than the President requested but still remains $522
million below last year's enacted levels.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent upon all of us, the
administration and Congress alike, to ensure that our forces have
appropriate operational and training facilities, maintenance and
production facilities, and research and development facilities. Yet
each of these categories face significant reductions in funding in this
bill.
According to the Pentagon, 68 percent of the Department's facilities
have serious deficiencies that 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 mean that the rates at which buildings are renovated or
replaced has just increased from 83 years to 150 years.
Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing that we are engaged in a long-term
struggle against a global enemy. So I find it difficult to believe that
while we can find the funds to increase the defense budget by $48
billion, we cannot find the funds to bring our operational facilities
up to standard.
Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that our uniformed men and women and
their families deserve decent housing and accommodations, both here at
home and abroad. We need to ensure that all personnel in all branches
of service have a quality place to live and work, both at home and
abroad; and I commend the committee for continuing to provide increased
funding for dormitories in overseas construction; but again, through no
fault of the committee, the funding provided does not come near to
meeting the need. According to the Department of Defense, 180,000 of
the 300,000 units of military housing are substandard. Mr. Speaker,
this is a national scandal.
We also need to ensure that security is improved around all our
military bases, installations and other sites both in the United
States, its territories and abroad. I know that this is a

[[Page H4137]]

matter of deep concern for both the chairman and the ranking member. In
last year's emergency supplemental in response to September 11 and in
this bill, we have made progress in this area; but again, much more
needs to be done and done quickly.
This is not the first time that this committee has lamented the
shortfalls in funding for basic military construction priorities, but
we now live in a changed world, Mr. Speaker. Poor facility conditions
are not only unsafe, they hamper readiness and decrease troop
retention. The events of September 11 require both the administration
and the Congress to provide significantly greater funds for these
purposes.
Clearly, the President's request for fiscal year 2003 was inadequate.
Clearly, the committee has done as fine a job as anyone could in
bringing forward a bill worthy of bipartisan support; but clearly, this
Congress, in a bipartisan manner, must bring this urgent matter to the
attention of the White House so that the next budget does not continue
to ignore these significant national security needs. I know I speak for
all my colleagues when I pledge that I will be happy to work with the
chairman and the ranking member on any such initiative.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule and this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time,
and I would like to first congratulate her on her very strong
commitment to our Nation's military and also for her ascension to the
chairmanship of the very important Republican Study Committee, which is
an entity within the Republican Conference that spends a great deal of
time focused on the national security of the United States of America,
and I believe she will provide stellar leadership there.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important measure. I had a lengthy
conversation this morning with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha), the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Defense,
Committee on Appropriations; and we were talking about our Nation's
military forces, and we were reminded of the fact that we have an all-
volunteer Army, all-volunteer military. And in light of that, it is
very important for the United States Congress to provide the resources
that will ensure that we attract the most capable individuals to serve
in the military. It seems to me that one of the most important things
for us to do is to make sure that in the area of military construction
that we do just that.
I would like to join in congratulating my good friends, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and
the leadership of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their
strong leadership and dedication to this shared goal.
I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) comment
about the fact that we continue to pursue this in a bipartisan way, and
it is good to see this bipartisan sense here in this institution as we
look at this important issue.
The numbers were outlined very well by our colleague from North
Carolina. One issue that was not mentioned was the fact that there are
resources in here to deal specifically with counterterrorism, and I saw
that there is roughly $582 million to deal specifically with that
question, to ensure that as we proceed with military construction, that
the safety and security of the men and women in uniform, as well as
those families of theirs, are addressed.
So I believe that we have got a good measure here that is going to be
brought forth under an open amendment process that will allow for the
consideration of different ideas; but the fact that we have come
together with strong agreement from both Democrats and Republicans is I
think a great testimony to the success of the work of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who is the ranking Democrat on the
Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to support this open rule for the
consideration of the military construction appropriations bill. Because
of the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman
of this subcommittee, the underlying bill is a good bill developed in a
bipartisan way, as he has always done in the years that he and I have
served together in the positions of Chair and ranking member,
respectively, of the committee; and I urge the Members to support this
rule.

{time} 1630

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and
neighbor, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule, but first let me
pay particular tribute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), chairman and ranking member,
who have a keen awareness of the need for the best of military housing
and also an aggressive posture towards pursuing and solving the
problems that we have faced in the past, and I appreciate their support
for that.
I rise in strong support of the rule that will allow for
consideration of H.R. 5011, the Military Construction Appropriations
bill for 2003. This bill provides over $10 billion for military
construction projects. Providing adequate housing and facilities for
our men and women in uniform enables them to better do their job.
Having safe and secure housing allows servicemen and women to know that
their families are out of harm's way while they are deployed or serving
our country overseas. This assurance is a key component of our Nation's
military readiness, and today we take steps to further improve and also
to modernize the housing and facilities for our military families.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a significant component of the
MILCON Appropriations bill which will help all soldiers at Fort Bragg,
North Carolina. Since I came to Congress, I have been working to secure
funds for the Soldier Support Center at Fort Bragg. This center, to be
named in honor of General Hugh Shelton, currently recovering from a
spinal cord injury, will provide a one-stop in-and-out-processing
facility for soldiers at Fort Bragg. Today we take the first step in
providing the first half of the funding for this important resource for
the epicenter of the universe, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to providing funds for MILCON, I would also
like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the innovative
projects to leverage private capital that individual services are
currently pursuing. At Fort Bragg in my district in North Carolina, the
Army is getting under way with a project called Residential Community
Initiative, or RCI. Through RCI, the Army has decided upon a private
contractor to build several thousand homes on post and to renovate
many, many others. This contractor was awarded a 50-year, multi-million
dollar contract and will be responsible for the homes for the next 50
years. I am hopeful that this will create both improved housing for our
soldiers and their families but also generate many economic
opportunities for the greater Fayetteville community. This innovative
way to use private capital to fix some of our most serious family
housing problems will provide the best housing for our soldier, the
best value for the taxpayer, and maximum benefit for our community.
The tragic events of September 11, 2001, have thrust our Nation's
military into the spotlight and called to duty the brave men and women
of the U.S. Armed Forces. Once again, U.S. citizens are rallying behind
them in strong support of the harrowing mission that they have been
called upon to perform. Our U.S. Congress has the duty and the

[[Page H4138]]

opportunity to pass the Military Construction Appropriations bill for
2003. Please join me in supporting this rule that enables us to provide
the necessary facilities and security for these brave men and women who
are protecting us and our country and our freedom. We are ever
grateful.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time, and I want to
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I take this time to congratulate the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) on a
very fine Military Construction bill. I particularly want to thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for his help in regards to a facility
at the Naval Academy, that he has been very helpful in the new ethics
center that will be constructed at the United States Naval Academy.
Eight years ago a private fund-raising group began working with the
Naval Academy and the Academy's Foundation to build a new ethics center
and Jewish Chapel in Annapolis. While the Jewish Chapel facility will
be entirely funded and endowed privately, the subcommittee's action
reflects the fact that a significant portion of this new center will be
used for an ethics center and a general Academy classroom, office, and
common space.
Mr. Speaker, this will be a tremendous addition to the Naval Academy
in Annapolis. It would not have been possible without the help of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). I really want to take this time to
thank him for his efforts on this behalf.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have
remaining on this side, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina has 21\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) has 23 minutes.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time on this very important
rule on this very important bill. As she has pointed out, this is an
open rule; and I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that since I
became chairman of this committee, I have never, ever asked for
anything other than an open rule so that Members would have an
opportunity to be part of the appropriations process. So this is an
open rule as we always ask for on all bills.
I had asked the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), I wanted to
make a few comments not only on the rule but on the bill, the defense
bill that we moved earlier today under the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) and the bill we moved this afternoon under the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver), ranking minority member, both very good bills. We had made
a commitment to move the defense bill first. We have now done that. We
now will be moving the Military Construction bill.
We are keeping our commitment on schedule, and so I wanted to take
just a few minutes, besides mentioning the open rule, to mention the
fact that this bill goes directly to the quality of life for America's
men and women who serve in uniform. A lot of the money in this bill
goes for housing for those who serve in the military.
I would suggest to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that if they ever have
an extra couple of hours, they might want to visit some military bases
and look firsthand at some of the housing and where our troops are
quartered; and I think they would come back here demanding even more
money than this bill provides to provide decent housing for the
military in those cases where the housing really is not all that good.
I think if one of us took our kids to a college or a university and
we saw housing like some of our military live in, we would put them
back in the car and take them back home. We would not let them live
like we are requiring some of our military to live. So this bill goes a
long way towards solving that problem.
But I must point out that there is a much longer way to go. There is
still a lot of work that needs to be done.
I want to compliment again the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for
the good work in producing this bill in a bipartisan fashion, along
with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). They have done a
really good job. I do not think there is any controversy to this bill
whatsoever, and it should move quickly.
I just want to point out also that, on the defense bill that I did
not speak on earlier today, trying to save time, that the staff and the
chairman and the ranking member and the members of that subcommittee
worked long, hard hours, days, nights. Oftentimes we hear that about
the staff. But in the case of the chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), he was here on weekends, late at night; and he
was here every step of the way. That is why the bill he produced, along
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), was such a good
bill. It was really well-thought-out, and it does a good job for our
Nation's defense.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be supportive of this rule; and I am
very proud to be supportive of this good bill that adds considerably to
the quality of life for our men and women who serve in our uniform.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. She
has done an outstanding job on this good rule; and she has an
interesting closing comment, I think, which I support enthusiastically
when she makes it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
yielding me this time to speak on this bill.
I, too, would like to express my appreciation to the chairman, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver), and to our good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr), who have been focusing on one aspect of the military
construction budget which deals with the problem of unexploded
ordnance, the bombs and shells and military toxins, that have been left
over and littered across the landscape, really, of these 206 facilities
across the country.
The subcommittee, for the first time as near as I can tell in
history, focused on this issue. They brought people together from the
various services, looked at the context of the problem, talked to the
experts; and, for the first time, we are having an inventory of this
problem. We are at a time when there are a number of bases around the
country, it is no secret, that probably should be closed. There are a
lot of reasons why we are not going ahead with that process.
One of the reasons, candidly, is that people are concerned about what
they get stuck with when they are over. I think of what has happened
with Fort Ord. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars and 11 years of
work, we have not yet been able to quite put all those pieces together
and finish the job.
What this subcommittee has done here today is the culmination of work
that is going to make a difference not just cleaning up these sites,
long overdue, it is going to help reorder the process within the
Department of Defense so that, at a time when we are giving
unprecedented sums of money to the Department of Defense, we will be
able to take a little bit of it to be able to make sure that we are not
leaving hazards for communities to deal with for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, one of the more important things is that not only are we
going to be focusing the attention within the Department of Defense,
but the technology that will be developed as we learn to do a better
job cleaning up after ourselves is going to make a difference for the
other over 2,000 sites across the country, in every State, in most of
the congressional districts, that are represented here in this body. We
are going to learn to do a better job.
Last but not least, it is going to have international implications.
Because, sadly, Mr. Speaker, every single day we have children around
the world who are killed from unexploded ordnance, the

[[Page H4139]]

legacy of what has happened in Africa, in the Balkans, and in Southeast
Asia. With the help of the subcommittee in focusing on doing a better
job, we are going to learn how to clean up that toxic legacy. It is
going to make a difference not just with the men and women we have on
our military bases, not just for the communities that are going to
inherit lands that they can put in more productive uses, but I think it
will make a difference for the quality of life for millions of people
around the world.
My only concern is that it looks like there is a little less money
than we had last year. At the rate we are going, it is going to take us
in the neighborhood of 100 years or more to clean up after ourselves. I
am hopeful in the course of the process, as we go through the
conferencing, there may be a possibility of putting the money behind it
that is necessary.
It is not going to get any cheaper to clean up after ourselves. The
liability and the problems are only going to grow over time. And,
ironically, the more money we spend to do it right, it will drive down
the unit cost, it is going to return the land to productive uses, and
it will make the ultimate cleanup cheaper.
I appreciate deeply what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) have done and the committee
has done, as well as the work of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr). I am hopeful this body will get behind it to give the rest of
the push that is needed to make sure we do the job right on the part of
our military service and people around the world.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Dan Miller).
Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule
and for the basic bill behind it, the military construction bill.
I happen to serve on the Subcommittee on Military Construction, and
it is a pleasure to serve with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson),
chairing that committee for the past 4 years, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), also. It is a bipartisan committee and a
bipartisan bill.
My congressional district in Florida, beautiful area in southwest
Florida, does not have any military facilities and does not really have
any major military contractors, so I approach this bill not from my
particular district but what is right for this country and right for
our soldiers and what will keep the military strong and prepared, as it
was for the events that developed after September 11.
I know that Chairman Hobson in the past 4 years has been working hard
to improve the quality of life. The key to being prepared, as we needed
to be starting in September of last year, is to have a strong military
but also a military that is committed and prepared to go into action at
any time; and key to that is the quality of life. That is something
that we have been working on now for a number of years.
In my congressional district, we have lots of retired military
people, a lot of veterans. A lot of them are World War II generation,
or the Korean War generation, even World War I generation. But it is a
different military today with the volunteer military. People do not
live in the barracks with a hundred other soldiers. Nowadays, we need
to have facilities for people to volunteer to be in the military and to
be willing to stay and to serve, whether it is at Fort Bragg in North
Carolina or in Naples or in Korea, or wherever we have our soldiers
stationed around the world.
Quality of life is really critical in this job. As a businessman,
before I came to the Congress, one of the things I learned is you need
to keep your employees happy. You want to avoid a turnover in your
employees. You want to have employees stay and not move on because of
the cost of training people. If you can keep an employee for a number
of years and keep that employee happy and contented, they will do a
good job. And that is exactly what we need to do in the military, is to
attract the good people and to provide an environment so that they feel
proud and they are satisfied in their job.

{time} 1645

So in the past few years, we have had success. Several years ago I
went with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) to Naples. We saw where
10,000 sailors are based in Naples, Italy, and the Sixth Fleet works
out of there.
The facilities were in a volcano. We had to move our facilities to
take our sailors out of this area. The facilities were almost World War
II era. The fact is, they were not very good accommodations. It was
cramped quarters. When sailors came ashore, they had to go back to the
ship at night.
Over the past few years, we have been able to create the basic
enlisted man's quarters. So instead of the sailors coming ashore and
having to go to the ship at night and sleep in bunks, they were able to
stay overnight in facilities with two people to a room.
We spent a lot of money on child development centers. We have them
throughout the country at military facilities because we want to allow
the families to be able to stay there with their children.
In Sicily, I saw facilities where instead of a barracks with 50
people in it, we had semi-private rooms like college dormitories. When
I was in college, we had bathrooms down the hallway, but it is a
different world today.
We have to provide facilities that will allow the military to be
happy and their families satisfied in accommodations that are safe.
Their children can go to a day care program, elementary and middle and
secondary schools. That is what this bill is about, is providing the
facilities for the quality of life.
It is also things like runways, the command and control centers. We
do not see them because they are top secret, but we need to have places
where our admirals and generals can control things that are going on in
Afghanistan. I commend the chairman for putting together a very good
bipartisan bill. I hope Members will support the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Freylinghuysen).
Mr. FREYLINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
this rule and the 2003 MILCON appropriations bill. I thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member and their staff
for their hard work. We know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) to be
a driven man on this issue. And working with the ranking member, one
thing we do know on the Committee on Appropriations is that both of
those gentlemen, their staff and members of that subcommittee, have
personally flown around this world and Nation visiting these Naval, Air
and Army bases to see the working and living conditions of the people
who put their lives on the line, of whom we are most appreciative.
They know, as all Members of Congress should know, that nearly 70
percent of the young people in the military today are in uniform or
married, and their needs are great. This committee and the Chair and
ranking member have been true advocates for decent and affordable
housing for those in the military who cannot often afford decent
housing. They have been in the forefront of supporting them.
They have also been in the forefront of promoting the expansion of
day care centers so that those who are in the military, the men and
women, can be on the front lines and make sure that their children are
provided for in a very safe and clean environment with professionals
looking after their youngsters.
In addition, this is a committee that has worked hard to consolidate
military operations around the world here domestically, as well as in
foreign installations. Through that, they have lowered the maintenance
and operating costs of military bases and saved the taxpayers an
incredible amount of money.
Mr. Speaker, part of the job of this subcommittee, and while I do not
serve on it, is their recognition that we need in this day and age
after September to recognize the absolute safety and security of our
military personnel, and in many cases they are living in housing
arrangements in precarious situations, and this committee has worked
very hard to address that need.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and
the

[[Page H4140]]

ranking member for including funding in this and previous bills to
complete the construction of the high-energy propellant facility at
Picatinny Arsenal in my congressional district in New Jersey. This
facility is needed to support the development of future weapons
systems, include propellants, propellant charges and igniters, as well
as support the development of new manufacturing technologies in a
timely and cost-effective manner.
It is through this committee that this armament center known as
Picatinny Arsenal, which provides 90 percent of the Army's lethality,
has been able to put together a unified software engineering center
bringing all of these talented men and women under one roof as well as
upgrade something as basic as the electrical system of the base which
had not been updated since World War II.
This committee's mission is important. It looks after the needs of
our soldiers. This rule and this bill need our full support.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking
member, for the outstanding job they have done in crafting this bill.
I have enjoyed serving on the Subcommittee on Military Construction
and the Subcommittee on Defense; and I feel very proud of the fact that
today these two bills are going to pass the House overwhelmingly, and
it is because of the good work of not only these two subcommittees, but
the good work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the staff. We have
outstanding staff on the Committee on Appropriations, particularly on
military construction and defense. They should be commended for their
good work. They work very effectively with the Members.
Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what has been said here. This is a bill
that directly affects quality of life. In my area in the State of
Washington, we have Fort Lewis where Army transformation is occurring.
In this bill, there is a new barracks facility replaced at Fort Lewis.
Also a new barracks facility at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and
many other items of great importance.
Over the years, I have always believed if we keep these bases modern
and updated and give the sailors and the civilian workers a quality
place to work, it will certainly help us with retention of both our
military personnel and our good civilian workers.
I wanted to rise and strongly urge passage of the rule and passage of
this bill. This is a good bill which has been worked out on a purely
bipartisan basis. I too commend the chairman and the ranking member for
their diligence in going all over the world to look at these facilities
and to be able to give the members of the committee their best advice
on what needs to be done at these facilities.
We have to remember, we still have kids in Korea. I have been there
many times. We have worked hard to fix those facilities; but there is
still work to be done at these bases around the world, and we need to
continue to do it.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of this
committee to speak in favor of the rule. But in doing so, I think it is
necessary to point out for the record that the leadership of this
committee, it is exceptional. It is truly bipartisan. It is led by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). The committee is not just a numbers
committee. This committee is changing the definition of what is often
said about men and women in uniform about their quality of life.
We have dumped the old military style of designing and deciding what
should be the appropriate size for a military living room or a military
kitchen. We have turned this process into what all other communities
do, and that is building to community standards.
The housing that we are building for the military now could win
architectural awards, and the people who live in them are absolutely
delighted that they can live in some of the prettiest homes in America,
which are really built for community standards, where there is child
care, where they can walk to work, if possible, and all of the other
concepts that cities around this Nation are looking towards. We are
letting the military lead the way, and it is being done by the
leadership of this committee.
I stand here today in support of the rule and in support of the bill,
but also in support of the attitude or the direction which this
committee is taking to make sure that the quality of life for the
military is an exemplary life for how all Americans can live, and that
we do not in the future drive by military housing and military bases
and say, oh, look at the way government builds its stuff. This is the
kind of building and architecture that we are going to be proud of, and
they are going to be proud to live in it. And if the welfare and morale
of the men and women who are fighting for our country is upheld, I
think their soldiering will be a lot better.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, all morning we have been extolling our patriotic values;
but as our uniformed men and women know so well, there is a significant
gap between our rhetoric and our actions. This House can no longer
ignore the long-standing needs to repair, renovate, replace and build
the operational facilities and housing needs necessary for a modern
military charged with protecting the United States from the scourge of
global terrorism.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support H.R. 5011, and
I call upon the administration to provide sufficient funding in the
future to address these significant national security priorities.
As I said in the beginning, I want to commend all those involved in
coming up with the bill. My only regret is the necessary funding that I
think our uniformed men and women deserve, and what the American people
expect us to provide to them, is not here; and hopefully we can work on
that in the coming budget cycle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of
inquiring of the gentlewoman if she might explain the parliamentary
procedure, this mystery motion, that the gentlewoman is about to offer
as an addition to the rule that we are now talking about, military
construction, which we are all in favor of. But I keep hearing rumors
that we might suddenly be faced with a parliamentary situation where we
are talking about increasing the debt ceiling. I yield to the
gentlewoman for the purpose of explaining thoroughly to the body since
there might not be any time to debate this.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, this is Senate 2578 to amend title 31 of
the United States Code, and this is at the end of the resolution
without an intervention of any point of order we would consider this;
and this title 31 of the United States Code is to increase the public
debt limit, and it would be considered as a bill as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to
final passage without intervening motion except for 1 hour of debate on
the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and one motion to
commit, and this has been shared with the minority.

{time} 1700

Mr. STENHOLM. If I understood, this would be another one of the rules
that provides for no debate and no discussion, no amendments. Debate
for 1 hour, but no amendments.
Mrs. MYRICK. No, it provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. STENHOLM. I misspoke. But if Members on this side would have an

[[Page H4141]]

amendment of which we believe would be a better way to proceed
regarding increasing the debt limit, which many of us are prepared to
give the President what he has asked for as a clean debt ceiling
increase, but we have a little different idea about how that ought to
be done. But I understand the gentlewoman's rule that will be coming
will again preclude Members on the minority side from having an
opportunity to amend; is that correct?
Mrs. MYRICK. This is providing a straight up and down vote.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would just like to
clarify this. Over the last several weeks, we have had many of my
friends on the other side of the aisle join with us in saying it is
very important for us to as quickly as possible take action to increase
the debt ceiling. The procedure which has just been outlined by my
friend from Charlotte would in fact allow for the full hour of
consideration and the Members of the minority will have an opportunity
to offer a motion to recommit.
Mr. STENHOLM. But no amendment.
Mr. DREIER. No, there would not be an amendment. This would be a
standard procedure as would have come forth from the Committee on Ways
and Means. So I think it is a very appropriate one. And I think that we
should try and move just as expeditiously as possible on this.
Mr. STENHOLM. Looking at the rule, it says that there will be 1 hour
of debate and one motion to commit. Commit to what?
Mrs. MYRICK. It is to commit it back to committee.
Mr. STENHOLM. So it is not a motion to recommit?
Mrs. MYRICK. It is to commit it back to the Senate, because the House
would be acting on the Senate bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Then just about the time I think that I have seen every
most unusual political circumstance on this floor, we get another one
that is real interesting in this regard. But if I understand the
gentleman from California correctly, this provides for a clean increase
of $450 billion in the debt ceiling, so all who vote for this are
voting to borrow an additional $450 billion clean. It is not going to
be added to the military construction. It is a simple take-up of the
Senate bill; and if 218 Members vote to borrow that money, it is clean.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield, I think that my friend is
among those who has advocated an increase in the debt ceiling. I may be
wrong on that.
Mr. STENHOLM. No, the gentleman is correct; but not in the manner in
which the gentleman is proposing.
Mr. DREIER. Let me say, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
that this is the second manner in which we have proposed this. We have
already passed language out of here that would allow for conferees in
the supplemental appropriations bill to consider increasing the debt
ceiling, and now we have come up with a second procedure. People have
said that they want to have this done just as quickly as possible. I do
not know if it would be possible for us to put into place a procedure
that would satisfy my friend, but we share the same goal.
Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I think you are getting very close
to satisfying me.
Mr. DREIER. Great. That is reassuring.
Mr. STENHOLM. But I would say to the gentleman that I would feel a
whole lot better about the procedure if you allowed the Moore-Spratt
bill as a substitute amendment so that we might have a true expression;
and then after we have had that true expression, then I certainly would
intend to join with the majority in seeing that we do not bring our
country to the edge of default. My problem is with the procedure, but
it sounds to me like you are getting there.
Mr. DREIER. If my friend will yield further, I just want to express
my appreciation for his understanding of our desire to find a procedure
around which we can just as quickly as possible do something that we
both want to do and that is ensure that we do not see a default and go
ahead and have us pay our bills.
Mr. STENHOLM. With all due respect, I understand why you are doing
what you are doing. I continue to be extremely disappointed in the lack
of consideration for minority views in this body. The last time I got
into this exchange, I was reminded that at one time I was in the
majority. And I would remind my friends on that side when we were in
the majority I often sided with you on fairness. This again is not a
fair rule, but I understand the rule of majority; and I appreciate the
time and clarification because, as I understand it, we were about to
vote on this with no debate, no discussion, there was going to be a lot
of confusion regarding this; but now I think more people will have a
little better understanding of the confusion.
Mr. DREIER. I appreciate my friend's kind words.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would urge that Members who are trying to follow what is going on
right here on the floor right now to vote ``no'' on the previous
question on the amendment and resolution so that we have an opportunity
to be able to amend the rule and be able to bring up the Spratt-Moore-
Stenholm alternative on the debt limit so we could actually have a
debate and we can do this right.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Myrick:
At the end of the resolution add the following:
Sec. 3. That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall
be in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the bill (S. 2578) to amend title 31 of
the United States Code to increase the public debt limit. The
bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; and (2) one motion to commit.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In conclusion, this is a good rule and it is a very good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). 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.
There will be 5-minute votes on the amendment and on the resolution
after this vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 210, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 274]

YEAS--221

[[Page H4142]]

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)
Morella
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
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)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--210

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
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
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
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
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
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--3

Engel
Roukema
Traficant

{time} 1732

Mr. HONDA, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, and
Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Akin changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. McGOVERN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, are Members to understand that voting
``yes'' on this amendment is a vote to bring up the $450 billion debt
limit increase passed by the Senate, but under a rule that does not
allow for a House Democratic alternative or any amendments and that
does not allow the House to debate the return to fiscal responsibility?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the amendment.
The interpretation of the amendment is for each and every Member of
this body to decide.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 211, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 275]

AYES--219

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
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
Moran (KS)
Morella
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
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)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--211

[[Page H4143]]

Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
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
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--4

Engel
Fossella
Roukema
Traficant

{time} 1743

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 269,
nays 160, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 276]

YEAS--269

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--160

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--5

Baca
Engel
Fattah
Roukema
Traficant

{time} 1756

Messrs. ISRAEL, LUTHER and MENENDEZ and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PASTOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________