[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 103 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6660-H6675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1900
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to House Resolution 732
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 4837.
{time} 1900
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4837) making appropriations for military construction,
family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July
20, 2004, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4837
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated for military
construction, family housing, and base realignment and
closure functions administered by the Department of Defense,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes, namely:
Military Construction, Army
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as
currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army
Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for
the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and
operation of facilities in support of the functions of the
Commander in Chief, $1,862,854,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $140,554,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, architect and engineer services, and host nation
support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of
Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary
for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate of
the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps
as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal
services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$1,081,042,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $93,284,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air Force
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Air
Force as currently authorized by law, $797,865,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $165,367,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the
[[Page H6661]]
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, installations,
facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the military
departments), as currently authorized by law, $718,837,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such
appropriations of the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as the Secretary may
designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation
or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $63,482,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate of
the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Army National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$394,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $74,982,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$180,533,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $20,433,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter
1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $116,521,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $13,413,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate of the determination and
the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Naval Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the reserve components of the Navy and
Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10,
United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization
Acts, $30,955,000, to remain available until September 30,
2009: Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $1,653,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by
chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $111,725,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $8,612,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate of the determination and
the reasons therefor.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
For the United States share of the cost of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for
the acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of
title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction
Authorization Acts, $165,800,000, to remain available until
expended.
Family Housing Construction, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$636,099,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation
and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, $926,507,000.
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement,
addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized
by law, $139,107,000, to remain available until September 30,
2009.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment,
leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges,
and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $696,304,000.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$846,959,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing,
minor construction, principal and interest charges, and
insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $854,666,000.
Family Housing Construction, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for construction, including
acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension, and
alteration, as authorized by law, $49,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing,
and minor construction, as authorized by law, $49,575,000.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, for
family housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to section
2883 of title 10, United States Code, providing alternative
means of acquiring and improving military family housing and
supporting facilities.
Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses of construction, not otherwise provided for,
necessary for the destruction of the United States stockpile
of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with
the provisions of section 1412 of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the
destruction of other chemical warfare materials that are not
in the chemical weapon stockpile, as currently authorized by
law, $81,886,000, to remain available until September 30,
2009: Provided, That such amounts of this appropriation as
may be determined by the Secretary of Defense may be
transferred to such appropriations of the Department of
Defense available for military construction as the Secretary
may designate, to be merged with and to be available for the
same purposes, and for the same time period, as the
appropriation to which transferred.
Base Realignment and Closure Account
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687
note), $246,116,000, to remain available until expended.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee
contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed
$25,000, to be performed within the United
[[Page H6662]]
States, except Alaska, without the specific approval in
writing of the Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons
therefor.
Sec. 102. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction shall be available for hire of passenger
motor vehicles.
Sec. 103. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction may be used for advances to the Federal
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for the
construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of
title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized
therein are certified as important to the national defense by
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to begin construction of new bases in the United
States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in
excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army
Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value
by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney
General or his designee; (3) where the estimated value is
less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise determined by the
Secretary of Defense to be in the public interest.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2) provide for site
preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family housing,
except housing for which funds have been made available in
annual Military Construction Appropriations Acts.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this Act for
minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate any
activity from one base or installation to another, without
prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate.
Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the procurement of steel for any construction
project or activity for which American steel producers,
fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the
opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during
the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property
taxes in any foreign nation.
Sec. 110. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to initiate a new installation overseas without prior
notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and Senate.
Sec. 111. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated for architect and engineer contracts estimated
by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects to be
accomplished in Japan, in any NATO member country, or in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea, unless such contracts
are awarded to United States firms or United States firms in
joint venture with host nation firms.
Sec. 112. None of the funds made available in this Act for
military construction in the United States territories and
possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea, may be used to award any
contract estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to
a foreign contractor: Provided, That this section shall not
be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest
responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor
exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a
foreign contractor by greater than 20 percent: Provided
further, That this section shall not apply to contract awards
for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the
lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a
Marshallese contractor.
Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the
appropriate committees of Congress, including the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate,
of the plans and scope of any proposed military exercise
involving United States personnel 30 days prior to its
occurring, if amounts expended for construction, either
temporary or permanent, are anticipated to exceed $100,000.
Sec. 114. Not more than 20 percent of the funds made
available in this Act which are limited for obligation during
the current fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2
months of the fiscal year.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction in prior years shall be available for
construction authorized for each such military department by
the authorizations enacted into law during the current
session of Congress.
Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing
projects that are being completed with funds otherwise
expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision,
inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those
projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated to a military department or defense agency
for the construction of military projects may be obligated
for a military construction project or contract, or for any
portion of such a project or contract, at any time before the
end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal year for which
funds for such project were appropriated if the funds
obligated for such project: (1) are obligated from funds
available for military construction projects; and (2) do not
exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus any
amount by which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 118. During the 5-year period after appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military
construction and family housing operation and maintenance and
construction have expired for obligation, upon a
determination that such appropriations will not be necessary
for the liquidation of obligations or for making authorized
adjustments to such appropriations for obligations incurred
during the period of availability of such appropriations,
unobligated balances of such appropriations may be
transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'' to be merged with and
to be available for the same time period and for the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 119. The Secretary of Defense is to provide the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate with an annual report by February 15, containing
details of the specific actions proposed to be taken by the
Department of Defense during the current fiscal year to
encourage other member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Japan, Korea, and United States allies
bordering the Arabian Sea to assume a greater share of the
common defense burden of such nations and the United States.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 120. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, proceeds deposited to
the Department of Defense Base Closure Account established by
section 207(a)(1) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526)
pursuant to section 207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be
transferred to the account established by section 2906(a)(1)
of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10
U.S.C. 2687 note), to be merged with, and to be available for
the same purposes and the same time period as that account.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 121. Subject to 30 days prior notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate, such additional amounts as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to the Department
of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund from amounts
appropriated for construction in ``Family Housing'' accounts,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same period of time as amounts appropriated
directly to the Fund: Provided, That appropriations made
available to the Fund shall be available to cover the costs,
as defined in section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the
Department of Defense pursuant to the provisions of
subchapter IV of chapter 169, title 10, United States Code,
pertaining to alternative means of acquiring and improving
military family housing and supporting facilities.
Sec. 122. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated for Partnership for Peace Programs in the New
Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
Sec. 123. (a) Not later than 60 days before issuing any
solicitation for a contract with the private sector for
military family housing the Secretary of the military
department concerned shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate and
the Committees on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and Senate the notice described in subsection
(b).
(b)(1) A notice referred to in subsection (a) is a notice
of any guarantee (including the making of mortgage or rental
payments) proposed to be made by the Secretary to the private
party under the contract involved in the event of--
(A) the closure or realignment of the installation for
which housing is provided under the contract;
(B) a reduction in force of units stationed at such
installation; or
(C) the extended deployment overseas of units stationed at
such installation.
(2) Each notice under this subsection shall specify the
nature of the guarantee involved and assess the extent and
likelihood, if any, of the liability of the Federal
Government with respect to the guarantee.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 124. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be
transferred from the account established by section
2906(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund established by
section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to pay for expenses
associated with the Homeowners Assistance Program. Any
amounts transferred shall be merged with and be available for
the same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to
which transferred.
Sec. 125. Notwithstanding this or any other provision of
law, funds made available in this Act for operation and
maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source
of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing
units, including general or flag officer quarters: Provided,
That not more
[[Page H6663]]
than $20,000 per unit may be spent annually for the
maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer
quarters without 30 days advance notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate and Committees on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and Senate, except that an after-the-fact
notification shall be submitted if the limitation is exceeded
solely due to costs associated with environmental remediation
that could not be reasonably anticipated at the time of the
budget submission: Provided further, That the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) is to report annually to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate all operations and maintenance expenditures for
each individual general or flag officer quarters for the
prior fiscal year.
Sec. 126. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 127. None of the funds made available in this Act
under the heading ``North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program'', and no funds appropriated for
any fiscal year before fiscal year 2005 for that program that
remain available for obligation, may be obligated or expended
for the conduct of studies of missile defense.
Sec. 128. Whenever the Secretary of Defense or any other
official of the Department of Defense is requested by the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
to respond to a question or inquiry submitted by the chairman
or another member of that subcommittee pursuant to a
subcommittee hearing or other activity, the Secretary (or
other official) shall respond to the request, in writing,
within 21 days of the date on which the request is
transmitted to the Secretary (or other official).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 22, line 2 be
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring Members back up to
date on what has happened on the legislation which we started
considering yesterday.
This bill funds military construction, which includes a lot of
quality of life programs for our military men and women and their
families. The funding level is $10 billion, and I am disappointed that
the actual funding level is only a 1.6 percent increase over military
construction last year, which after inflation is actually a real cut in
military construction funding during a time of war.
I think that is inexcusable given our war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This bill appropriates $489 million below what we actually spent for
military construction 2 years ago before the Iraqi war even began. And
even worse, it is $900 million below what President Bush said would be
needed this year, just 12 months ago when he made that prediction.
Despite the fact that we are actually increasing military
construction, not even enough funds to make up for inflation, we have
39,000 Army families living in inadequate housing, 34,000 Army barracks
are inadequate, 70 percent of Army facilities are C-3 or C-4, which
means they are mission impaired, 16,000 Navy and Marine Corps families
live in inadequate housing, 31,000 Air Force families live in
inadequate housing.
Given this inadequate allocation to address the real priority of
military housing and construction and quality of life programs, I
commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). He has worked in
a thorough and fair manner to take what is a wholly inadequate amount
of funding for military construction and to spend that money as wisely
and fairly and as carefully as possible, and I salute him in that
effort.
The best thing about this bill, at least in this moment, is it
prevents a looming crisis in military housing construction. That crisis
is, if we do not allow an amendment passed by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) in this bill to stay in this bill, this
November we are going to put a freeze immediately on 24,000 new
military homes throughout the United States, and that will delay by
another year homes for another 26,000 military families next year.
So we are going to basically either freeze or delay new housing for
50,000 military families across 22 States, even recognizing some of
those families have loved ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To recap further, unfortunately yesterday the House leadership
strong-armed an atrocious rule through this House, a rule that I
consider to be a slap in the face of every military family in America,
a rule that took 20 to 25 minutes of extra arm twisting so it could
pass by one vote. That rule, pushed by the Speaker and the majority
leader, will allow one Member out of 435 in this House in the next few
moments to basically kill our effort to resolve the military housing
crisis, and every Member of the House who voted on that rule knew
exactly what was going to happen when they voted for it.
I find it unbelievable that the same House leadership that just 2
months ago on the day that the Armed Services bill put a cap on this
bill at the same level that will force this crisis, on that very same
day the House leadership supported a $69 billion tax cut that will give
Members of Congress a tax cut.
So here we are, the leadership is pushing tax cuts for Members of
Congress, they can find time to rename dozens of post offices, they can
find the money to push the $69 billion tax cut, but when it comes to
protecting a promise of better housing for our military men and women
and their families, the House leadership sadly and unfairly said, no,
we cannot do that.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his statements and for
his effort this year. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has gone
all out working with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) to
craft a solution here. I have supported his efforts and I have Fort
Lewis, Washington, McChord Air Force Base, in fact, in Fort Lewis we
have one of the RCI, the Residential Construction Initiatives. It has
worked better than any project for housing in the history of the
country. And that is why this is so destructive. And we are not talking
about spending additional military construction dollars.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Edwards was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. All we are saying is we are going to raise a limit by $500
million so that these transactions can occur in a public-private
partnership.
This is what we have always heard from the majority party is the
right way to go, these public-private partnerships. Down in Fort Hood
this is a great success.
Mr. EDWARDS. Six thousand new Army homes.
Mr. DICKS. I went out with General Soriano, the Commanding Officer at
I CORPS. We went out and walked through these brand new houses being
built under the Residential Construction Initiative. The wives of the
sergeants were telling us this is the greatest thing that has ever
happened in the Army.
I have been out there when these deployments occur, and one of the
things the spouses say and one of the things the members of the
services say when they are deployed is they worry about their family,
they worry about the housing, they worry about health care, they worry
about what is going to happen to their families while they are gone. I
know from my years of experience, 26 years on the Subcommittee on
Defense, 18 years on this subcommittee, that quality of life and having
this new housing and getting it done in a timely way is crucial.
That is why the objection to this by the majority party to me is so
unexplainable, because one thing we have always been good about in this
[[Page H6664]]
House is on a bipartisan basis rising above limitations, things of that
nature, to get the job done for the men and women who are serving, and
especially now when we are in a time of war, especially now when the
services are stressed in a most difficult way, and with all these
deployments. We are over-deployed.
We saw what the GAO said today. There is not enough money out there
to properly deal with the problems we have got. So to pile this last
thing on, this poke in the eye of the military families by not raising
this limit, to me is one of the worst things that has happened in my 28
years in the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has
expired.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his eloquent
comments and his leadership and strong support for better quality
housing for our families.
I want to summarize where we are. Basically, the same House
leadership that said just 2 months ago on the same day we refused to
increase the cap so 50,000 new military families over the next 2 years
could get new housing, in the same day they push through a $69 billion
tax cut that is going to give me a $2,000 tax break.
We could afford the tax break for Members of Congress but we could
not afford to take care of our promise of better housing for military
families.
Now, the gentleman talked about a poke in the eye. The final poke in
the eye is this is not the only bad news that the servicemen and women
and veterans are going to hear today, because the same leadership that
could support the tax cuts for Members of Congress could not find a way
to improve housing and fund that program for military families, the
most important effective housing improvement program for our military
in our Nation's history. Guess what, in the Committee on Appropriations
today we voted out a veterans' health care appropriations bill that
basically, well, let me tell you what the National Commander of
Disabled American Veterans says about it.
``To the veterans of this Nation it is incomprehensive that our
government cannot afford to fund their medical care and benefits
programs at a time it can afford generous tax cuts costing hundreds of
billions of dollars more.''
The American Legion, the DAV, the VFW all went on to say that the
leadership-pushed veterans' health care bill today is going to cut,
after inflation, real veterans' health care services by $1.3 billion.
Now with the action of the leadership yesterday on the rule and one
Member of the House today, we will say to 50,000 military families, we
will break our promise to you of better housing.
I think that is a terrible message for us to send our military
families. While we go on a month long recess and vacation they are
sitting there looking at veterans' health care cuts and frozen
programs.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I want to say here is a situation
where this does not cost extra money. All we are talking about is
raising the limit. The Office of Management and Budget is for this. The
Secretary of Defense is for this. The service Secretaries are for this.
The Chiefs of Staff of each of the services are for this. I mean, the
President is for this. And it would seem to me with all of that support
and with the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who has
been a tremendous leader on this, why is it that we cannot get this
done? Why is it that we cannot take care of these people?
To me this is unexplainable.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Let me put a face on these people.
We are talking about 1,194 military families at Elmendorf Air Force
Base in Alaska will next year have their housing delayed. In New York
at Fort Drum, 2,272 military families, many of whom had loved ones that
had already served in Iraq, will have their housing program this year
frozen. In Florida, Eglin and Hurlburt Air Force Bases 2,739 military
families will have their housing promises broken. In Virginia 1,268
families at Langley. In Texas, Sheppard Air Force Base 1,288 families.
This is one more broken promise to our military families at a time
when they are making incredible sacrifices to our country.
What it does, we talked about a 1.6 percent increase for military
construction in this bill, but the truth is that once this objection is
raised then that will not allow us to even spend that meager amount of
funding for our housing program. So we could end up with an actual cut
not only in veterans' health care during a time of war this year, we
could end up with an actual cut in military construction during a time
of war. That is unconscionable coming from a leadership that said we
could afford to give Members of Congress a tax cut just 2 months ago.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
I want to have a colloquy between myself and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite you to engage in a brief
colloquy with me on an issue regarding Fort Hunter Liggett in
California.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to discuss Fort Hunter Liggett with
the gentleman.
Mr. FARR. As the gentleman knows, Fort Hunter Liggett is today
surrounded by U.S. Forest Service property.
{time} 1915
In fact, prior to becoming a military base, most of the land was in
the possession of the Forest Service, and another huge tract of land
next door was owned by the famed Hearst family.
During the 1995 BRAC round, Fort Hunter Liggett was realigned and the
cantonment area was excessed to the National Park Service. This means
virtually all the functional buildings to support troop activities were
given away, but all the land was retained by the military and put under
the control of the Army Reserve.
The National Park Service, in preparation for accepting the
cantonment area, studied its options with regard to management of this
new property. In its report just released last month, the National Park
Service labeled the land of Fort Hunter Liggett as ``relatively
unchanged landscape'' from the time of the California's missionaries;
as having ``no equivalent'' in terms of protected, undisturbed habitat;
and as a ``rarity'' in its ``representation of cultural and natural
history.''
However, because of the type of BRAC action at Fort Hunter Liggett,
the land is not available to the Park Service and the Department of the
Interior has indicated its reluctance to add such a huge tract of land
to its inventory.
I guess, Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is that Fort Hunter
Liggett, as active a military base as it is, still is a unique natural
resource to our country; and it would be a shame to lose that resource
should the base ever find itself nonessential to the military mission
of our country.
While the Park Service, at this point anyway, seems disinclined to
pursue further ownership of lands at Fort Hunter Liggett, the Forest
Service is very interested.
Of course, no one is talking about giving anyone any land at Fort
Hunter Liggett right now. It is a very active base, and I expect that
it will merit strong support within the BRAC process for keeping it
open and functioning.
But, Mr. Chairman, I wish to inquire if the gentleman is aware that
the version of the Military Construction bill that is working its way
through the other body does, in fact, contain the language addressing
the issue of future land status at Fort Hunter Liggett.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would reply to the gentleman that,
[[Page H6665]]
yes, I am aware of this language and that it tracks with the
gentleman's desire to see the land preserved and conserved for future
open, natural space by giving the U.S. Forest Service the right of
first refusal for Fort Hunter Liggett lands at such time as the Army
deems them surplus.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response and
his observation that I do desire to keep Fort Hunter Liggett as a
natural resource if and when the military finds it is no longer
essential to its mission; and I emphasize again to the chairman, only
if and when the land is no longer essential to its military mission. I
have no desire to close Fort Hunter Liggett as long as the Army finds
it critical to its mission.
The chairman knows that I hoped to attach to the House bill we are
debating right now language similar to that inserted on the other side,
but in the interest of the House rules and jurisdictional matters, I
chose not to.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield again, I
am aware of the gentleman's deep interest in this issue and appreciate
his flexibility in finding ways to address this issue.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask one further question of the
chairman. I would ask that the gentleman would work with me during the
conference on this issue to retain language we all find agreeable that
will keep the Forest Service as first in line to get Fort Hunter
Liggett when and if it is excessed.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield,
I assure the gentleman that I will be more than happy to work with him
in conference on this issue.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership and
cooperation and friendship.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on this matter, but I
am a little disconcerted about discussions that would suggest that
anybody on either side of the aisle is interested in some way or
another of placing a limit on the opportunity for our men and women who
are serving us across the country by way of their housing or by way of
their potential for income.
I did not speak extensively on the earlier bill, but within that bill
we had funding, full funding for a pay adjustment for our troops. I
believe that everybody here who knows this subject knows that the
authorizing committee just the other day moved a separate bill that
would lift the lid in terms of the housing challenges we are talking
about.
It is not the intention of the Members of this House in any way,
shape or form to do anything but support our troops. Indeed, the last
bill that passed the House had a $25 billion amendment as a part of its
package that reflects our effort to make sure that money upon the time
that bill is signed is readily available to fight the war overseas, as
well as to make sure that we are doing what is necessary to care for
the families, the men and women who make up the strength of this
Nation.
I must say that my colleague from the Committee on Appropriations
knows full well that on both sides of the aisle we are committed to
serving our troops. This is not a partisan question by any matter or
means. It is very dangerous to our national security when people try to
carry this to partisan levels, and so that is the only reason I am
speaking today is because the House has worked beautifully in this
connection. It was a bit disconcerting for me at least to hear what I
considered to be rhetoric rather than substance.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I worked for 6
months on a bipartisan basis, talking to everyone from the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget;
and the chairman of the authorizing committee to try to solve this in a
bipartisan manner behind the scenes. At every step of the way for 6
months people said, well, it will get done, it will get done.
The problem is, we are about to take our August recess and it is not
done.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman suggested
that we are about to take the August recess; and thereby, I suppose,
people are on vacation. I do not know about the gentleman, but I intend
to go home and work and communicate to my constituents all of that
which we are doing for the men and women who are serving us in this
country. I mean, it is very, very important that we not suddenly decide
this may be an issue whereby I can impact or give the impression that
maybe one side is more holy than the other in terms of what we are
trying to do for our troops. It is just the reverse. We have done our
work well because we do so in an almost nonpartisan manner.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope as the gentleman is preparing to leave our
body as my classmate and my dear friend, I hope that we will have a lot
of time in the future to discuss the positive of this kind of
discussion. In turn, all of us know that we serve our troops best when
we take partisanship out of it.
Indeed, today, I am very proud of my colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for the work he has done here; and I hope
we can move forward from this point and discuss his bill in terms of
the real values that have been contributed here. So congratulations to
my colleague, and I appreciate him giving me this time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that no two people in this House
have worked harder to keep partisanship or any other illegitimate
consideration out of this issue than have the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). They have
proceeded in tandem to try to produce concrete, as opposed to
theoretical, results for the military families in this country who are
deserving of a decent place to live.
But what we are being faced with is this: my mentor in this House,
when I first came, was Dick Bolling from Missouri who for many years
served this House in spectacular fashion on the Committee on Rules, and
he often told me that the greatest enemy to true legislative progress
was what he called ``dung hill politics.'' By that he meant Members
being more interested in preserving the jurisdiction of their committee
or the narrow interest that was associated with a committee or
subcommittee, rather than focusing on the broader interests of the
American people who we are supposed to serve.
It seems to me that this discussion tonight is an example of what
Dick Bolling was worried about because what we have going here, as I
said yesterday, is a charade.
The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Texas have brought
to the floor a bill which provides concrete assurances that at least
24,000 more military families will receive decent housing; but
apparently the Committee on the Budget is unhappy, at least the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget is unhappy, with the way the
committee has gone about this; and so he intends, as I understand it,
shortly to exercise a point of order which will strike from this bill
the Congress' ability to deliver that housing to those military
families.
In order to create an impression that these families are not being
hurt, it appears that what the House will now hide behind is a motion
taken yesterday to try to increase the authorization for this program,
which would have the result, if the bill was enacted into law, of
accomplishing the very same thing that is being accomplished by this
bill. The problem is the way this Congress works, there is absolutely
no assurance that a freestanding, independent authorization bill will
go anywhere in the other body; and that is why, if you want to preserve
that housing for those members, it is essential to keep this language
in this bill.
That is what the gentleman from Michigan has been trying to do. That
is what the gentleman from Texas has been trying to do on a bipartisan
basis, and we ought to be supporting that effort rather than finding
technicalities as reasons to deep-six the very fine work that they have
attempted to do.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H6666]]
First, let me respond to the gentleman from California's (Mr. Lewis)
comments that both parties, every Member cares about our troops. I
absolutely agree with that. In fact, let me repeat the statement I made
on the floor yesterday on this subject, and I quote myself, ``Every one
of us, Democrat and Republican alike, genuinely respects the service
and sacrifice of our troops and their families. No one should doubt
that fact, but I strongly believe our budget priorities should better
reflect that respect.''
Those were my comments. Let me talk about partisanship.
It was the Republican leadership that shoved through a rule last
night or on the floor yesterday that was done on a partisan basis. In
fact, it was so partisan they had to leave the vote open an extra 20,
25 minutes to, on a partisan basis, force Republicans or convince
Republicans to vote against their own interests in their own districts
to support a rule that is allowing 50,000 military family housing to be
put at risk.
Secondly, the Committee on the Budget, as I last recall, and I am a
member of that committee, put together its budget on a partisan basis.
That is where the partisanship came in, if it came in at all.
But to totally put to bed any idea that this is a partisan issue, I
have letters.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Edwards, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force Association sent a letter to
the chairman of the Committee on Rules asking them to not pass the rule
that they did.
The Association of the U.S. Army, a letter signed by General Gordon
Sullivan, former chief of staff for the Army, put in there that
``RCI,'' the Army's housing program, ``has a tremendous positive impact
on quality of life for our soldiers.
``I would ask that you work to ensure the amendment'' to protect
housing ``is protected by the Rules Committee and reaches the House
floor.''
The Military Officers Association of America asks that the House
leadership not shove through a partisan rule that would be unfair to
military families.
So did the National Military Family Association.
I do not think any of our colleagues would suggest that the
Association of the U.S. Army and the Military Officers Association of
America and these other military organizations are acting out of a
partisan basis. This does not have anything to do with partisanship. It
has to do with standing up for fairness for military families who are
making an incredible sacrifice for the American family during a time of
war; and in doing so, I will not hesitate to stand up to the Republican
leadership of this House which shoved through a rule that is going to
allow this housing to be put at risk, and I will not hesitate to stand
up to any Democrats who would hesitate in fully supporting military
housing.
{time} 1930
We all support our troops, but we have an opportunity by passing this
bill without a point of order to do something tangible about it. Good
intentions, goodwill do not provide better housing for 50,000 military
families. Passing this bill, as we passed it out of committee in a
bipartisan fashion, that is the way to make a difference for military
families who are so deserving of this support.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of amendments at the desk that I will
not offer in favor of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). The reason I offered those amendments is
the Pentagon has a day care facility located on its campus that has
capacity for over 200 children. After September 11, 2001, parents of
those children were assured they would not have to be relocated. Now
they are told without any real warning that they have 60 days to
vacate. This is nearly 3 years after the attack on the Pentagon.
In Northern Virginia, there is a waiting list of 12 to 18 months at
most of the day care facilities, so we offered an amendment to try to
speed up the process of building a new day care facility at nearby Fort
Myer. That is what this colloquy concerns because it is beyond me why
the Pentagon would tell the parents that they have only 60 days to
vacate.
They say they have information that the Pentagon might be more likely
to be a target between now and Election Day. If that is the case, they
need to evacuate them immediately. There is some suspicion as to the
purpose, but I do not want to engage in that speculation. I want to do
what we can as a legislative body to ensure there is an alternative
site because I think most parents would agree that if they had an
opportunity to sit down and talk with the decisionmakers at the
Pentagon that it makes sense to begin to relocate the children.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg), I understand that the Pentagon, in response to the recent
decision to close the day care facility at the Pentagon, has offered to
expand and accelerate the planning and construction of the new day care
facility at Fort Myer, but at the earliest will be able to start
construction in October 2005; is that correct?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. It is my
understanding that the Army has accelerated this project and will be in
a position to award a contract in October 2005.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, does the Army have an updated
estimate on how much this project will cost and when this project will
be completed?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The Army estimates the project will cost
approximately $17 million. I do not know how long it will take to
complete the facility, but the actions taken so far suggest to me that
they will move it forward in an expeditious fashion.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my concern is there may be a
lack of coordination between the Army and the Washington Headquarters
Services at the Department on how to proceed with the design, planning
and construction of the new day care facility. To the gentleman's
knowledge, is the Army working with the Washington Headquarters Service
on moving forward with this timetable of October 2005?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the
Washington Headquarters Service is working with the Army to move this
project forward and is prepared to provide the additional funding
needed to expand the original project scope at Fort Myer to accommodate
the children the gentleman speaks of from the Pentagon facility.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope I can work closely
with the gentleman from Michigan on ensuring that the Pentagon work
quickly toward providing a completed alternative day care facility at
Fort Myer as soon as possible. I would hope that in the meantime the
Department dedicates all means necessary to find immediate interim
solutions for the parents of the more than 100 children at the Pentagon
today who are still without adequate child care options.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to work with the
gentleman to ensure the Department proceeds with this project as soon
as possible. I just want to say I appreciate the discussions we have
had and the gentleman's interest in bringing a resolution to this that
will satisfy all of us. I commend the gentleman for this.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
assistance on this matter. My present concern remains how best to
encourage the Pentagon to focus on providing interim day care service.
I look forward to working with you to see if there is any assistance we
could provide for interim solutions.
I want to recognize the fact that the gentleman from Northern
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf),
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
[[Page H6667]]
State, Justice, both of whom have constituents in this situation, as I
do, and they have also worked very diligently on this. We appreciate
the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 129. Section 2883(g)(1) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``$850,000,000'' and inserting
``$1,350,000,000''. The amendment made by this section shall
not be subject to scoring for purposes of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Point of Order
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against section
129 of the bill because it violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which
prohibits legislative language that directly amends existing law.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the gentleman makes the
point of order. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on this point
of order.
I understand the gentleman is reserving a point of order because the
provision in question is legislation, and therefore prohibited on an
appropriations bill under clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the
House. However, I would like to point out to the gentleman the reason
why this provision is in the bill.
As the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services stated earlier,
this provision is supported by the authorizing committee and it is not
in a defense authorization bill because of an objection by the
Committee on the Budget. So with the support of the authorizing
committee, the Committee on Appropriations voted to include this
provision in the military construction bill, and thus made a value
judgment to address military families' lives and welfare.
Now I believe the gentleman agrees with this policy because yesterday
he introduced a bill and it passed almost unanimously. However, that
bill may not go anywhere and I do not think that we should be playing
with people's livelihoods with promises that we cannot keep.
I would also point out that under the Armey protocol, A-R-M-E-Y, this
provision should not have been left exposed if the chairman of the
authorizing committee does not object to the inclusion of this
legislative provision in an appropriations bill. Only a piece of the
language, which is directed at scorekeeping, is within the purview of
the Committee on the Budget.
It is further regrettable that this provision is going to be stricken
even though it is strongly supported by the administration and the
House. It does not break the bank, as the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget purports, or he would not have introduced a bill that does
exactly the same thing yesterday.
I concede it is legislation and I concede it is subject to a point of
order, but I also concede it is the right thing to do for our military
families, and I believe the majority of the American people will agree
with me.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
to think about all of this before he insists on his point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do.
Mr. Chairman, what a difference 1 hour makes. Less than 1 hour ago on
this floor the House of Representatives passed a rule for the defense
appropriations bill which waives all points of order against that bill,
and yet because the House leadership instructed the Committee on Rules
and twisted arms to force many Republican House members to vote on a
bill that does not protect a point of order on this, because of that
decision, inconsistent with a rule we just passed in this House by
unanimous vote less than 60 minutes ago, because of that we are
basically going to put at risk the most important military housing
improvement program in American history, a program that does not only
improve housing and show respect in a tangible way to men and women and
families, to children who are making incredible sacrifices for our
country, but a measure that is saving taxpayers billions of dollars by
building these houses more efficiently.
In a House that ignores technicalities every single day to carry out
priorities much less important than quality military housing for our
families during a time of war, we are going to put this incredibly
important program at risk.
Finally, I want to say this. Let us be clear, this is not today just
an action of one person, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). I
respect the gentleman. He is a person of principle. I might disagree
with the debate on fiscal responsibility when we voted 2 months ago for
a $69 billion tax cut that helps Members of Congress and today we
cannot afford to take care of a few thousand military families'
housing, but I do respect him. He is a person of deep principle.
This is not just an action of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
This was an action which was allowed and encouraged by the House
leadership by forcing an unfair rule through this House, a rule that
was opposed by the Military Officers Association of America, the
Association of the U.S. Army, the Air Force Association, and the
National Military Family Association.
This action is also something that was allowed by 212 votes, a
passage of that rule by one vote, 212 to 211. One Member changing his
or her vote, and we could have prevented this tragedy from happening
today.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to consider not recognizing
the technicality raised here that will harm tens of thousands of
military families during a time of war.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, there have been a lot of speeches already,
and I understand it is permissible to speak to the point of order, but
many of these speeches are just repeats of what has been done and can
be done in regular order in consideration of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman raises a valid point. Members are to
limit their remarks to relevant arguments on the point of order; the
Chair has exercised some tolerance in that respect.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to be heard on the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to respect the rules of the
House, but sometimes the rules give Members powers to do things that
they ought not do. Just because we have the power to do something does
not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do it. Sometimes it
is important to exercise restraint. I think this is one of those cases.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) correctly points out that an
hour ago we waived all points of order on a huge spending bill, many
times more dollars than we have in this bill. There were many points of
order that could have been lodged against this bill when it came from
the Committee on Rules, but the House leadership chose to expose only
one item in the bill to a point of order, and that is the item that
would have delivered decent housing to 24,000 military families.
What the House did or what the majority did by adopting that rule is
to say in effect that peace in the family was more important than the
sure delivery of decent housing to 24,000 military families.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that the majority leadership
has dictated to the House that it must allow this one provision to be
eliminated, but there is not much we can do about it and I also
unfortunately have to concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has heard from the chairman of the
subcommittee, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the ranking
member of the full committee, and is prepared to rule on the point of
order raised by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
The Chair finds that this provision directly amends existing law. The
provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the provision is
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page H6668]]
Sec. 130. The fitness center at Homestead Air Reserve Base,
Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Sam Johnson
Fitness Center''. Any reference to such facility in any law,
regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the
United States shall be considered to be a reference to the
Sam Johnson Fitness Center.
{time} 1945
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would just like to announce to my colleagues today that there was a
decision made by the Pentagon to move 3,900 troops to Fort Lewis,
Washington, from Fort Polk, Louisiana, for a third Stryker Brigade. The
reason I bring this up in the context of military construction is we
have done a lot of military construction work at Fort Lewis, but we are
going to have to do more. That is why the consequences of the decision
just made here to me are so serious, because this RCI program that we
have discussed which was started by this committee, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hobson) when he was chairman worked with all of us to try to
further this program, and I believe that this is one of the most
constructive programs that we have ever enacted.
I hope that, working together, the leadership of this Congress, we
can figure out, if we cannot do it in the military construction bill,
maybe we can figure out another way to do it. Maybe the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) can do it, as he mentioned yesterday, that he
would take care of this in the conference on the authorization bill
between the House and the Senate and help us find a way to work through
this.
The reason I am so passionate about this program is because I have
seen what it does out at Fort Lewis. In fact, with the help of the
chairman, I am trying to get Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base,
which are right adjacent to each other on I-5 in Tacoma, Washington, in
my congressional district, along with Adam Smith, these two major
bases, McChord has the C-17, and those two bases can cooperate in a
joint RCI project. I am working with Assistant Secretary Gibbs,
Assistant Secretary Prosch to try to get them to cooperate and work
together as was done at Fort Dix with an Air Force base and an Army
base there and worked out in a terrific joint venture.
I would just say to all of my colleagues, this is one of the best
programs we have ever enacted because we use the housing allowance of
the troops, that housing allowance goes to the company, and then the
company goes out and does the financing and builds this new military
housing. It is terribly popular with the troops. That is why as I see
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) on the floor, who have all
worked on this, I just hope that we can continue to work together until
the end of this Congress to figure out some way, maybe working with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) in the authorization bill, to
find a solution to this.
I think the overwhelming will here is to keep this program moving
forward. We hope that by 2007 we can get rid of all of the backlog of
housing that is substandard in all of the services. This is one of the
goals of Secretary Rumsfeld and the service chiefs and the Secretaries
of each of the services.
I want to compliment the chairman again. This year the chairman did
something quite unique. He got the chief of staff of each of the
services to come and testify before the committee because he wanted to
drive home the point of how important military construction is. I
commend the chairman for doing that. This is something that had not
been done and there was some resistance, but I think once all the
chiefs got there, they realized that this was a friendly committee, a
committee that is trying to improve military housing, military
construction, and that we would have a chance then to talk directly to
the service chiefs on this important subject.
As mentioned by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), all of the
outside groups that support military families have written letters in
favor of this initiative. I hope even with the unfortunate decision of
the Committee on Rules not to protect this provision which was crafted
in a bipartisan basis, there has not been any partisanship here, but it
is the duty of the minority to point out when the majority is not
living up to its responsibilities.
In this case, I believe not protecting that amendment was a mistake
on the part of the leadership in the majority party. It is our
responsibility in the minority and in the highest standards of this
House to point out when the majority makes a mistake. That is our duty
in this legislative process. I hope again that we can pull together
after this unfortunate incident and try to find a solution before this
Congress is over. If we do, it will be one of the most important things
accomplished in this Congress. I want to say again, this is supported
by the President, OMB, the Secretary of Defense, and all the service
chiefs.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and I am not going to take much time,
but I think we would all be remiss if we did not acknowledge that this
fitness center is going to be named after one of our dear colleagues
who was a real war hero, in my opinion. Sam Johnson was shot down in
Vietnam and spent 7\1/2\ years in a Vietnamese prison camp, the Hanoi
Hilton; and he suffered tremendously during that 7\1/2\-year period. I
think it is very, very fitting that he be honored by naming this
fitness center after him. In fact, if I had my way and I think my
colleagues, we would probably name a couple of air bases in total after
him because he is a wonderful guy and a great Congressman.
Sam, if you are listening, we sure love you, buddy.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me add my thoughts to those of my friend from
Indiana (Mr. Burton). What a great American Sam Johnson is. We cannot
do enough to recognize his service. I appreciate that being included.
Just briefly, let me say that on the issue of military housing, I
have got a plaque on my wall from the National Military Family
Association for working with the families of our military. One of the
great joys this year and the year before has been how all of the people
in this body, men and women, Republicans and Democrats, have worked
together so well with our chairman and the chairman of the full
committee to address the issues of housing for our soldiers.
So as I have got that plaque on my wall, as I think about Fort Bragg
and the epicenter of the universe and all those fine soldiers at Pope
Air Force Base and around our country, I am just proud of our chairman
and our Congress for working together across every imaginable line to
do everything that we can to provide the best possible housing. We have
done that. It is under way. I am extremely confident that we will find
a way to make sure that that happens. I appreciate that. I appreciate
our soldiers.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to say that my friend from North Carolina
who so capably represents Fort Bragg, I, as he knows, have five
military installations in my district that I am proud to represent.
Tomorrow night, in fact, I am going to be at Fort Stewart talking to
some of the soldiers. This is a program that does enjoy wide bipartisan
support. We are going to keep working on this and find a way to make it
happen.
We had lots of discussion in the appropriations committee. We could
not quite come to a consensus of where to offset some money. I think
there are a lot of programs out there that we should cut, reduce,
eliminate, in order to provide adequate housing for our troops and the
quality of life for our soldiers in general.
But the one thing to remember is we are in this position because of a
technical change in the way the Congressional Budget Office has decided
to score military housing. What they are doing is they charge all the
money up-front, even though the private sector is paying for it. It is
a paper entry. It is not a real dollar entry. I certainly respect what
the Committee on the Budget is doing in trying to keep the integrity of
the budget process going. I think it is very, very important that we
all try to work through this thing. But if we are faced with this
change in the scoring from the Congressional
[[Page H6669]]
Budget Office, I would like to see us find some waste, some
duplication, and just some fat in the budget and come up with the money
for our soldiers because I think it is so important.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have enjoyed working with him
on various installation issues.
Mr. HAYES. Reclaiming my time, I could not agree more. We will find a
way. It will be done. I thank our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines
and Coasties.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to read into the Record the States
and the specific military installations that have just had a guarantee
of new housing for their military families taken away from them.
Perhaps we will solve this another day. I have been trying to work for
6 months on a bipartisan basis to get this resolved. I am not sure this
late in the Congress I have tremendous confidence that it will get
resolved, but the real pity is that we could have resolved it today if
the leadership had let go through the Committee on Rules the exact same
rule we unanimously approved on the military appropriations bill just
an hour ago.
The States that have just lost a chance because of this technicality
that were allowed by the rule pushed by the leadership that will lose a
guarantee to have new military housing for their service men and women
are Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming.
To add to the military installations I had already mentioned a few
moments ago that will either have their housing frozen this year and,
in fact, a promise broken to those military families or have their
housing expected in 2006 to be delayed a year would include Fort Knox,
Kentucky, 3,380 military families affected by this technical ruling.
Fort Rucker in Alabama, 1,516 military families. Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, 1,580 military families. Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi,
1,682 military families. New Mexico, Holloman Air Force Base, 1,440.
Fort Gordon, Georgia, 872 families. Scott Air Force Base in Illinois,
475. MCB in Hawaii, Phase 1, 1,377 families will have their hopes for
better housing dashed or delayed for a year or more. Camp Lejeune, an
important Marine Corps installation in North Carolina, 838 families. In
addition to an additional 3,516 families at Camp Lejeune that this year
will have their new housing put on hold.
These are not just numbers and names, these are real men and women,
real military families making unbelievable sacrifices in behalf of
every family in this House and in our Nation that have just lost the
opportunity because of an unfair rule opposed by numerous military
organizations exercised, as the gentleman had the right to exercise,
just a moment ago a technicality to kill that dream of a new home.
It is a shame that dream has been killed today. I certainly urge
those who perhaps did not want it to be taken care of today to work
together, and I will pledge to work together in good faith with them to
try to solve it in the months ahead, but there was no reason not to
give this promise today to our military people. They do not ask to be
delayed when they are asked to serve their country. When they are asked
to go to combat, they go. When we had an opportunity to stand up for
them, we should not have been AWOL. We should not have delayed. We
should have taken action. That is what is the most shameful thing about
what has happened today on this bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have the opportunity to respond very
briefly to the gentleman from Texas. First and foremost, he is a member
of the Committee on the Budget. He has been working on this a long
time, as many Members have. There are some challenges we are going to
have to overcome, there is no question. I understand that there is some
skepticism about the bill that was passed yesterday, but I would hope
that the other body would recognize the fact that a bill that was
passed with the unanimous support of the House of Representatives could
be expedited and that we could send a very clear signal to our men and
women in uniform as well as their families that are looking for
housing, that are having to deal with in many instances, as the
gentleman knows far better than I, substandard housing, that we could
deal with this in a very expeditious manner, the way we did yesterday,
in an appropriate way, in a legislative way, not in an extraordinary
way.
I would hope that the other body would take this up as quickly and as
expeditiously as the House of Representatives did. We can accomplish
that. We can do it in a bipartisan way as it was done yesterday. And it
can be on the President's desk in moments, without further action,
without further ado, without having to make them wait or wonder.
The military construction bill that we are considering right now, its
future, we could argue, is also uncertain, given the fact that just
about every prognosticator of the appropriations process suggests that
we will not be completing the appropriations process on time this year,
either as 13 individual appropriation bills or even as an omnibus bill
but that, in fact, we may have to live under a continuing resolution
for some time.
So while there is uncertainty about military construction and other
appropriation matters, there should not have to be concern or question
about our military families and what needs to be done as quickly as
possible. It can be done expeditiously. It can be done using the
vehicle that was passed yesterday by an overwhelming margin.
{time} 2000
I would hope that other Members will not try any further delaying
tactics for our men and women in uniform. I would hope that we can pass
that bill as quickly as possible in the other body, that it will not be
delayed, that it would enjoy the same kind of bipartisan support that
we have here.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Appropriations Act, 2005''.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Knollenberg
and the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee Staff once
again for their hard work and efforts to produce an excellent bill for
us to consider here today.
The importance of our willingness here in Congress to immediately and
effectively take care of the needs of our men and women in the Armed
Services, and to look after their families, certainly goes without
saying. It does not matter whether they are located here at home
protecting our homeland security, or whether they are directly in
harm's way while serving abroad to serve their country. We must support
them in every way that we possibly can.
This legislation represents a vital and immediate need for our troops
and their families--to provide adequate and improved facilities for
training and equipment; to provide better housing for these brave men
and women, and their families, who unselfishly protect our national
interests on a daily basis; to provide quality of life improvements
such as chapels, child development centers, schools, and fitness
centers; to better equip our hospitals and medical and dental
facilities; for public safety and security here in our local
communities; and to ensure the continued strength, construction and
development of our overseas bases and our weapons systems that protect
American interests.
The sacrifice that these men and women have made to this Nation
demands our attention and steadfast support to help them do the job
that they have chosen to do, and to better their lives in any way that
we can find. Many of you are concerned that this bill contains an
increase on the cap on Federal contributions to the Military Housing
Privatization program from $850 Million to $1.3 Billion in this Fiscal
Year. This money is urgently needed to fully fund family housing
construction and maintenance, and to eliminate inadequate housing that
our troops must live in. This funding directly supports two bases in my
home State of Alabama, at Redstone and at Fort Rucker, and I want to
rise in support of the men and women serving there.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the Chairman for an excellent
bill, and to urge its passage to fully support these men and women in
our Armed Services.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
bill to provide for military construction in Fiscal Year 2005.
At a time when our Armed Forces are attempting to streamline and
transform their operations, this bill provides crucial funding to
[[Page H6670]]
upgrade, maintain and construct the facilities necessary for this
process.
One project of particular interest to me, and which I requested funds
for, is a Houston Armed Forces Reserve Center, however, this project
was not earmarked in the House bill.
The proposed facility will be designed for both Texas Army National
Guard units and Marine Corps Reserve units.
Several existing National Guard facilities will either be vacated by
this relocation, or remaining units will be closer to their required
space authorizations.
The vacated facilities will reduce the average age of existing
facilities and lessen maintenance backlogs.
This facility will have a direct impact on soldier readiness by
providing proper authorized space to conduct indoor training, reduce
driving distances for a majority of the soldiers residing in Houston,
and provide modern facilities support for soldiers.
Additionally, this facility is in line with the military's goal of
creating joint-use bases.
While the House bill did not provide an earmark for funding this
project, I am hopeful that our appropriators will see fit to include
this request in the conference report.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:
[[Page H6671]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JY04.007
[[Page H6672]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JY04.008
[[Page H6673]]
The CHAIRMAN. Having reached the end of the legislation, if there are
no further amendments, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Camp) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4837) making
appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base
realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 732, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBEY. Unless the motion is adopted, Mr. Speaker, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4837, to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
bill forthwith with the following amendment:
``Sec. 129. Section 2883(g)(1) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``$850,000,000'' and inserting
``$1,300,000,000''.''
Point of Order
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion
to recommit because it violates Section 302(f) of the Congressional
Budget Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what this amendment attempts to do is to
restore the language just stricken by the gentleman. If the gentleman
insists on his point of order, then obviously once again the House will
have missed an opportunity to provide housing for these 24,000 military
families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that the instructions contained in the motion to
recommit offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) propose to
amend existing law. The instructions, therefore, constitute legislation
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The Chair also finds that the
amendment contemplated by the motion to recommit proposes pending in
excess of the pertinent allocation therefore under Section 302(b) of
the Budget Act, as asserted by the point of order of the gentleman from
Iowa.
The point of order is sustained, and the motion to recommit is not in
order.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a subsequent motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman remain opposed to the
bill?
Mr. OBEY. Unless the motion is adopted, Mr. Speaker, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4837, to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
bill promptly with an amendment increasing from $850,000,000
to $1,300,000,000 the limitation on military family housing
privatization programs in 10 U.S.C. 2883(g)(1).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is
recognized for 5 minutes on his motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is the last opportunity the House will
have to do the right thing for 24,000 military families.
This motion to recommit instructs the Committee on Appropriations to
report the bill back with the cap lifted by $500 million for a total of
$1.35 billion. This does not incur any additional costs. It simply
allows existing funds and other assets to be used for privatization.
The problem seems to be, as Members have pointed out, that CBO wants
to charge these privately raised funds against the budget allocation,
which does not make any sense to anyone who lives in the real world.
Any Member who has visited a military base and seen family housing
knows this is a real need. Raising the cap enjoys broad support on both
sides of the aisle and the White House.
I urge Members to join in support of this motion to recommit and give
military families the decent housing they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Just a few minutes ago my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
said we should work together in the days and months ahead to try to
ensure the promise to our military families of better housing. I
suggest we start right now, and it would be very simple, and we can
send a clear message out to our families who have loved ones in harm's
way that right now we are going to guarantee them the quality housing
they are expecting.
All we need to do is take basically the exact same language that the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) put together in the bill he wrote
yesterday and passed yesterday, which, by the way, was an example of
what the leadership in this House can do when it wants to do something.
Let us just adopt that same language in the gentleman from Wisconsin's
(Mr. Obey) motion to recommit. It is the same language. What is the
difference?
I tell the Members what the difference would be. If we would work
together on a bipartisan basis right now not to object to this, we can
send an important message to our troops out there and their loved ones
that we are going to support them with better housing, especially
during this time of war.
The language is the same. The gentleman's bill, H.R. 4879, that we
passed yesterday that he talked about says we strike the number $850
million and insert $1.350 billion. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr.
Obey) motion to recommit that is now before the floor says let us go
from $850 million to $1.3 billion on the limitation of military housing
privatization programs. What is the difference?
Let us work together right now. Let us do the right thing. Let us not
let a technicality prevent us from doing the right thing for tens of
thousands of military families. We can do it together. We do not have
to wait a week, a month, and the possibilities of what might or might
not happen then. We can doing it right now. I urge this House to do so.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, to those who would cite the action taken by
the House yesterday on the authorization bill, I would simply say that
was not a substantive fix. That was a political fix, which is going
nowhere because there is no assurance whatsoever that that bill will
pass. This bill is a must-pass vehicle. That is why this provision
ought to be attached to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair wishes to clarify that the first
motion to recommit, which was ruled out of order, violated section
302(f) of the Budget Act, as asserted by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit, very reluctantly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the
substance of what he is saying because we have been down that road so
many times and had those discussions. The problem is I do not want to
stop this bill from moving forward, and that is exactly what we would
be doing as much as taking on a risk that we are not clear about what
the resolution will be.
This motion would require the bill to go back to committee and would
slow down the many important programs that we are trying to help. For
this reason alone I must oppose this motion.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, obviously I support the gentleman's
opposition to the motion. Let me just point out as
[[Page H6674]]
well in support of his opposition that not only would it delay the
military construction bill by sending it back to committee, because of
the fact that we are going on recess as an example, it would postpone a
decision about this because the gentleman, interestingly enough,
complained about a technicality earlier. There is a technicality in
this motion that Members need to be aware about. It is the words
``promptly,'' and ``promptly'' means when we get around to it a little
bit later, not forthwith, which means right away.
What we did yesterday is more than promptly. It happened yesterday.
It is over in the Senate. They can take advantage of that opportunity
and pass that bill immediately, not in some form later on.
So I appreciate the gentleman's opposing this method even though I
know his heart may not be in it as much as mine has to be in this
instance.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate what
the gentleman said. I also take it from what he just said that he is
going to be a player in this process as we go forward.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
have been a player in this process from the very beginning. And as I
did yesterday, I intend to be do whatever I can to help move this issue
along in its proper form and in the proper manner.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, could we come to the conclusion that it
would resolve the problem and also eliminate the cap?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I guess the gentleman could take that from
the fact that I wrote the bill yesterday even though I know there were
some who may have been surprised by that. I do not think there is a
Member in this body that opposes housing for military families. We just
need to do it in the right way.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, let us make every effort to do just
that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Let me simply point out to the gentleman from Iowa that the bill that
the gentleman from Iowa is suggesting that we focus on is the bill that
is going nowhere for the next 6 weeks either. The only difference
between this bill and the bill that the gentleman is now purportedly
supporting is that this bill will after the summer recess go somewhere.
The bill the gentleman supported yesterday is going nowhere. That is a
big difference to military families.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. 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 clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the
motion to recommit H.R. 4837 will be followed by 5-minute votes on
passage of H.R. 4837; adoption of the conference report to accompany
H.R. 4613; motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 469;
motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 467; motion to
instruct on H.R. 1308.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 201,
nays 217, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 416]
YEAS--201
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
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
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
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
Smith (WA)
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
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--217
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)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
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
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
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
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
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
Stearns
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 (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Ackerman
Carson (IN)
Clay
Collins
Culberson
Gephardt
Greenwood
Hart
Kirk
Kucinich
Lowey
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Paul
Quinn
Rohrabacher
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
[[Page H6675]]
{time} 2038
Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, BURGESS, TURNER of Ohio, TAUZIN, BURNS,
COLE, and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 420,
nays 1, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 417]
YEAS--420
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--1
Obey
NOT VOTING--13
Ackerman
Carson (IN)
Clay
Collins
Conyers
Gephardt
Greenwood
Kirk
Lowey
Meehan
Paul
Quinn
Rohrabacher
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2046
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________