[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 127 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8988-H8993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4200, RONALD
W. REAGAN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 843 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 843
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considerd as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal
conference report rule for H.R. 4200, the Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration. In addition, it
provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled between
the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Committee on
Armed Services.
This should not be a controversial rule; it is the type of rule we
grant for every conference report that comes through the House. This
legislation firmly shows our commitment to restoring the strength of
our Nation's military. The conferees authorized $447.2 billion in
budget authority for the Department of Defense, DOD, and the national
security programs of the Department of Energy, DOE.
{time} 1715
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for all
of the work they have done in their tireless support for our brave sons
and daughters in uniform. The safety and security of our troops and our
Nation can be attributed to the contributions they have made.
This legislation authorizes the funding necessary to defend the
Nation and our interests around the globe. More than 200,000 soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines have served in the global war on terrorism.
We owe them our gratitude for defending our freedom.
Their success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a testament to their
bravery, training and equipment, and their commitment to defend our
freedom.
On the battlefield, we provide critical force protection resources,
including countermeasures for improvised explosive devices, improved
surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities and the latest infantry
equipment.
H.R. 4200 adds more than $2 billion for force protection measures,
including armor, munitions, communications
[[Page H8989]]
and surveillance programs. The legislation contains provisions to
eliminate procurement obstacles and field commercially available
technology on an expedited basis, something that is much needed. At
home, this legislation meets the needs of our military personnel with
numerous quality-of-life improvements.
Among the many initiatives are a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay
raise, special pay and bonuses, and improved housing, as well as the
complete phaseout of out-of-pocket housing expenses.
This conference report makes great strides in addressing the
disparity by which disabled military retirees have their pension
benefits reduced, dollar by dollar, by the amount of disability
benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The
fiscal year 2004 act authorized full concurrent receipt to be phased in
over 10 years.
The conference report continues to build on this improvement by
removing disabled retirees who are rated 100 percent disabled from the
10-year phase-in period. These retirees are authorized for full,
concurrent receipt effective January 2005. Our veterans have given
deeply and heroically, and it is only fair that we recognize their
service.
So let us pass the rule and pass the underlying Defense Authorization
Conference Report. At the end of the day, we are going to make our
homeland safer and we will be supporting our sons and daughters serving
in the military. We will be preparing for war, thereby ensuring
victory. At this crucial time in our history, this bill is most
important.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
The annual defense authorization bill is one of the most important
bills the Congress considers. During my 26 years in Congress, I have
been dedicated to and I have worked to ensure that the United States
has the strongest national defense of any nation on earth. This year is
no exception; in fact, the defense authorization bill is more important
than ever.
This past December, I spent several days in Iraq where I had the
distinct honor and privilege to meet with our rank-and-file soldiers on
our front lines and to thank them personally for their brave and
distinguished service and personal sacrifices. And I was reminded of
this enormous sacrifice upon my return. The cargo plane we flew out of
Baghdad on carried the coffins of two American soldiers who had been
killed just 3 days before Christmas.
It seems like almost every night Americans turn on the news at home
and see reports of violence in Iraq. But when I turn on my television,
I cannot help but recall the selflessness and courage I saw while in
Iraq, and the mix of pride and sorrow I felt on the flight home.
America's sons and daughters in Iraq represent our country well, but
their job continues to be very difficult and very dangerous. And that
is why the bill before us is so important.
Before anything else, the defense authorization bill is a bill to
support our troops. This bill will help keep our service men and women
in Iraq and around the world safe, will provide them with the tools
they need to fight the war on terror, and will give them and their
families the better quality of life that they so richly deserve.
First and foremost, this conference report provides $25 billion in
supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure
that our troops have everything they need to successfully accomplish
their mission and return home to their families safely. The conference
report authorizes new funding for armored Humvees and body armor. We
help ensure the strength of our military by putting 39,000 more Army
and Marine Corps personnel on the ground. We give our troops a 3.5
percent pay raise, and we help ensure that all of our fighting men and
women receive health care by expanding TRICARE coverage to Reservists
and their dependents.
The conference reports also helps those who have served our country
so honorably over the years by making sure that those who are left
behind when a soldier falls receive the full benefits that they deserve
through the Survivor Benefit Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the conferees on both sides of the aisle
who worked so hard to complete this important bill before we return
home for the election. There has never been any doubt that this House,
this Nation, and its people stand 100 percent behind our men and women
in uniform, fighting to secure peace the world over. Let us pass this
bill and this rule to keep our troops safe and give them the tools they
need to do their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to raise some issues today with regard to certain aspects of
this conference report and certain authorizations, particularly those
dealing with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the responsibility of
this Congress to oversee ways in which intelligence is used by the
executive branch.
There are very disturbing aspects of the way in which intelligence is
used. We know that most of the expenditures for intelligence in our
country are spent by the Defense Intelligence Agency. I am interested
in why the majority party has not exercised its oversight
responsibilities with the way in which intelligence has been misused in
ways that are misleading. That goes all of the way back to a time prior
to the attack of September 11, 2001.
We know, for example, that all during the spring and summer of that
year we were getting intelligence information talking about an
impending attack on the United States. In fact, at one point, George
Tenet, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, pointed out
that the lights were flashing red. Others indicated that something
very, very, very big was about to happen.
Then on August 6 of that year, the President received his daily
briefing and in the context of that daily briefing, which was entitled
``bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States,'' there were
substantial amounts of information about how it was discerned that an
attack upon the United States in various ways was imminent, and there
was even discussion about the potential use of airplanes, but no
actions were taken, not during the spring and summer when the first
information came, not after the President's daily briefing of August 6.
Nothing was done. And then the attack occurred.
Mr. Speaker, why are we not looking into the way in which the
intelligence operation is having an effect on the executive branch? Why
are we not overseeing those kinds of activities?
Then, of course, we had the report just yesterday from the United
States weapons inspector in Iraq, Mr. Duefler, which again said very,
very clearly that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq. Prior to that we had the report of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, the 9/11 Commission Report, all of which said, no connection
between Iraq and the attack, and also no weapons of mass destruction.
It just seems to me that as we make these authorizations, the
majority party here, which sets the agenda and has the responsibility
of oversight through the committee system of the way in which the
executive branch is operating, ought to have paid much more attention
to this and ought to be paying much more attention to it now.
We are spending tens of billions of dollars. I am not sure what the
exact number is at this particular point, soon it will be $200 billion,
but at least it is $140-150 billion being spent in Iraq. All of the
loss of life, all of the injuries, and all of the destruction of our
image around the world, why are we not in this Congress, in this House
of Representatives, living up to our obligations and responsibilities
for oversight when so much of the intelligence that we have paid for
has been ignored, so much of the other intelligence that we are paying
for has been misused to mislead this Congress and to mislead the
American people?
[[Page H8990]]
This is an issue that has not been addressed and must be addressed by
this House. The sooner it is done, the better off everyone is going to
be.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, probably one of the least
known things about the President's budget request over the year is that
in June 2001 President Bush presented his defense budget to Congress
and in it asked for the authority to conduct a round of base closures
in 2003 called the Effective Facilities Initiative.
In September of that year, after the House had refused to act on it,
the other body passed by a very small margin the authority for two
rounds of base closure. Later, the House conferees worked that down to
one round, but in the year 2005. But this May, knowing how close we
were coming to it and the fact that our Nation was at war not only in
Iraq and Afghanistan, in a much smaller war, but still a war, in
Colombia, this body by almost a 100-vote margin voted to delay BRAC for
2 years. There were a lot of good reasons for that.
The President asked for this in June 2001. Our Nation was at peace.
We had no troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. We were talking about
shrinking the military.
In this bill we are going to vote on shortly, we expand the ranks of
the Army by 20,000. We expand the ranks of the Marine Corps by 2,000.
Those are both good things.
The President is talking about bringing troops home from Korea and
Europe. Where is he going to put them because, by the administration's
own admission, they are not talking about closing one base or two
bases, they are talking about closing 25 percent of all of the bases in
America, not overseas. This base closure commission is about closing
bases in America, not Europe or Korea. That is one base out of four.
What further complicates this and what I found interesting is, when I
expressed my opposition to this and when I asked the different service
secretaries who have come before the House Committee on Armed Services,
who tell us repeatedly we have 25 percent overcapacity, name one base
you would like to see closed, the Secretary of the Army would not name
one base; the Secretary of the Navy could not name one base; the
Secretary of the Air Force could not name one base. They cannot name
one, yet they keep insisting that they want to close one base out of
four.
Mr. Speaker, what happens when a base is closed? Number one, we lose
that capability that the taxpayers have paid for forever. America is
not getting less populated, it is more populated. It is not less
crowded, it is more crowded. When you lose that land, you lose the
ability to train there. Every single weapon we have requires more of a
stand-off in order to train, not less. Things that used to shoot for
yards now shoot for miles. Things that used to shoot for miles now
shoot across a continent. We need more land to train. We are talking
about bringing troops home, and yet they want to shut down bases.
And there are other unintended consequences. Half of our military
retirees, those people who have given our Nation 20 years of their
blood, sweat and tears, 20 years away from their families, over half of
our Nation's military retirees intentionally chose to retire near a
military facility so they could use the base hospital, because they
were promised use of that base hospital for the rest of their lives.
{time} 1730
They intentionally retired near a commissary because they were
promised the use of the commissary for the rest of their life. You know
what? They spent 20 years away from their families, being called chief
or sergeant or colonel or captain, and they like going back to the base
and being called chief or sergeant, colonel or captain.
When you close the base, you close the commissary. When you close the
base, much more importantly, you close the base hospital. You have
broken the promise of lifetime health care for these military retirees.
So why, when we are at war in Afghanistan, when we are in a war in
Iraq? I happen to, unfortunately, have been on the same flight with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) when those two young GI's came home in
a coffin from Iraq. Why, when we are asking young Americans to enlist
to serve because we want to give them good things?
This body is given the constitutional authority to provide for an
Army or a Navy, turn around and give that authority to some handpicked
bureaucrats who have already been told, close one base out of four.
In particular, to my friends from Florida, I come from hurricane
country. I know what it is like to see houses destroyed. I know what it
is like to go to funerals of people who have died in hurricanes. We got
lucky this time in Mississippi. You did not. You have had four
hurricanes this year.
Why would the President of the United States as Commander in Chief
tell the people of Florida he is going to go there and close one base
out of four knowing that their economy has already been devastated. Why
would he tell his military retirees, who intentionally bought houses in
Florida so they could use the hospital, so they could use the
commissary: We are sorry. We are going to close the base. We are going
to close the hospital. We will close the commissary. You are out of
luck.
In a little while, I will offer a motion to defeat the previous
question, and it will be very sweet and simple. It will instruct the
clerk to put back the language that passed this House by very close to
100 votes, including the vote by the chairman of this committee, that
says we are going to delay BRAC. If we are growing the force, which we
are, if we are bringing troops home from Europe, if we are bringing
them home from Asia, we will need a place to put them. Let us not close
bases now and not have a place for them.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many reasons to be against BRAC. The
biggest of all is the false notion that it saves the taxpayers money.
They predicted great savings. Let me tell you what they did. They shut
down bases, and threw Americans out of work. They deprived military
retirees of their basic health care. They deprived them of their
commissary. But, most importantly of all, we did not sell the bases; we
gave them away. Before we gave away bases, this Nation spent $13
billion, with a B, $13 billion cleaning up facilities just to give them
away. And then you never get them back.
Go to Cecil Field in Florida. Right now, our Nation is spending tens
of millions of dollars buying land in North Carolina. Why? So we can
build a runway. What do we need a runway for? For the F-18s to land
when they come off the ships. Why did we not send them to another base?
Well, we had another base. It was called Cecil Field. It had three
8,000-foot runways. It had a fourth 10,000-foot runway. It had a
hospital. It had a commissary. It had places for the troops to live. It
had places for the family to live. It had mess halls. It had all the
things that a base is supposed to have, but a previous round of BRAC
shut it down. So when the F-18s need a place to land when they come off
the carriers, we have got to go buy land to make up for what was
already given away.
It is very rare in this body where we get a chance to prevent a long-
term mistake. Another round of base closures is a long-term mistake. I
am giving you the opportunity to do the right thing for your country.
In a few minutes, I will offer that.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of this committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
I will say, I have the highest respect for the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) who is a very valuable member of our
committee, and we have done great work over the last many months
putting this bill together. And I would hope that the members of the
House, rather than focusing on what this bill does not do in terms of
stopping the BRAC process or other issues that were of concern to
members, to focus on what it does do.
I just remind my colleagues that, in this bill, we have a 3.5 percent
across-the-board increase for the men and women who wear the uniform of
the United States.
For the first time in our history, we have what is known as a
survivor benefits program. We are doing away with
[[Page H8991]]
the so-called widow's tax. And that is where the surviving spouse of a
military retiree will no longer have to offset their survivors'
benefits against their Social Security check.
We increase what is known as concurrent receipt for our veterans.
That means that a disabled veteran will no longer have to offset to the
degree that he did before his disability check against his retirement
check. We have over $700 million for up-armoring our Humvees. Those are
the vehicles that will be driven by young men and women in theaters
like Iraq and Afghanistan. We have, across the board, enough personnel
benefits to really justify calling this bill the bill that represents
the year of the soldier and marine.
We have this increase of some 20,000 and some 3,000 Marines. A hard
increase and a permissive increase of the Army and Marine Corps of an
additional 10,000 soldiers and an additional 6,000 Marines. We have
this increase in imminent-danger pay and an increase in family-
separation pay. And the 24,000 housing units, which the presumed
paralysis of that housing program, where we thought we would actually
have 24,000 family housing units hanging this year because of a funding
glitch and a scoring glitch; we fixed that in this conference. And that
means that the families of the men and women who wear the uniform of
the United States will have family housing much quicker than we thought
they would have it.
So, for all those reasons, I just hope and would ask my colleagues,
Democrat and Republican, to support this rule and to vote for the
previous question when the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor)
raises it.
I tell the gentleman that I understand his concern and that he and I
both know that it is tough to retrieve these bases with the maze of
environmental regulations that will face any administration in the
future who wants to reach in and retrieve a base that has been closed,
but that, nonetheless, I think that with the good judgment of the
Members of this House overseeing this and watching this process and the
members of Blue Ribbon Panel watching this process, and all the good
things that are in this bill, it is appropriate for us to move forward.
I hope that we pass this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to close the debate.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by complimenting
my chairman on the very genteel way he is handling this. He has done a
good job with the bill, with one glaring exception. And some mistakes
are so bad that they cannot be retrieved, and we need to retrieve this
now while we have a chance.
Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to instruct the enrolling clerk to amend the conference
report to reinsert language that was in the House-passed bill that
would postpone the 2005 round of base closures and realignments until
2007.
As we know, this legislation was included in the original version of
the defense authorization bill that passed in this House in May.
However, it, like several other provisions, mysteriously disappeared
when the bill was in conference.
Mr. Speaker, this is just one of many examples where good legislation
and amendments that passed this House just seemed to vaporize behind
closed doors. That is a bad way to do business. Tonight, we have a
chance to stop that.
Let us do the right thing today. Let us reinsert the provision that
passed by very close to 100 votes right now. I think the Members of
this House must decide for themselves whether or not they want another
round of base closures. As I have said before, when given the
opportunity, the service secretaries could not name and would not name
one single installation they want closed. Read the Constitution,
article I, section 8 says that Congress shall provide for an Army and a
Navy. Not the bureaucrats. We decide.
We are going to leave here and go beg for the opportunity to
represent a sliver of America. We are going to beg for the opportunity
to fulfill congressional obligations. How many of you are going to go
out there and say, Please elect me congressman so I can let some
bureaucrat make the tough decisions for me. I am not. I want to do my
job. I do not trust bureaucrats with my job. I will not vote to allow a
group of bureaucrats to shut down bases at a time when we are at war
and we are getting ready to bring troops home and we are growing the
Army and we are growing the Marines. This does not make sense.
So let me make it perfectly clear. A ``no'' vote on the previous
question will not, will not stop consideration of this conference
report. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote to reinsert the
provision that passed this House by almost a 100-vote margin. However,
a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from
delaying the closing of one base out of every four in America, one base
out of every four. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 13
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 23\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor)
can bring to the floor legislation that would delay the Base
Realignment and Closure process better known as BRAC.
Mr. Speaker, at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army is
restructuring itself. We are assessing our base structure overseas and
plan to bring two divisions home from Europe and to reduce our troop
strength over a period of time from South Korea by at least 12,000
troops. We are increasing the end strength in this bill to relieve the
stress on our troops. We are still developing the Pentagon's role in
homeland security. The division of labor between active duty forces and
the Reserve component is still being evaluated and is a question mark.
This is really a heck of a time to be conducting BRAC.
Voting ``no'' on the previous question will allow the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to bring up legislation that would delay BRAC
2 years. I think a 2-year delay is prudent. Given the turbulent times
facing our military, the legislation will not kill BRAC; it will just
delay it. The House voted decisively several months ago to delay the
base closures, but this provision was dropped by the conference. The
House deserves a serious, serious debate on this issue. I support the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) on a ``no'' vote.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we do not have any additional requests for
time.
I would note that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) will
oppose the previous question, and if he is successful, then he will
have the opportunity to offer his amendment to the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi is
as follows:
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 2. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection
(b) is hereby adopted.
(b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a)
is a concurrent resolution--
(1) which has no preamble;
(2) the title of which is as follows: ``Concurrent
resolution directing the Clerk of the House of
Representatives to make certain corrections in the enrollment
of the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.''; and
(3) the text of which is as follows: ``That in the
enrollment of the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the
Armed Forces, and for other
[[Page H8992]]
purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall add
at the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII the following new
section:
SEC. 2835. TWO-YEAR POSTPONEMENT OF 2005 BASE CLOSURE AND
REALIGNMENT ROUND.
(a) Postponement Until 2007.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Defense shall not publish
in the Federal Register or transmit to the congressional
defense committees and the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission any list of military installations
inside the United States that the Secretary recommends for
closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) before May 16, 2007.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 2914 of the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``2005'' and
inserting ``2007''; and
(B) in subsection (a), by striking ``May 16, 2005,'' and
inserting ``May 16, 2007,''.
(2) Subsection (d) of section 2914 of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
(A) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``September 8,
2005'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 8,
2007''; and
(B) in paragraph (6)--
(i) by striking ``in 2005'' and inserting ``under this
section''; and
(ii) by striking ``July 1, 2005'' and inserting ``July 1,
2007''.
(3) Subsection (e) of section 2914 of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``in 2005'' and inserting ``under this
section''; and
(ii) by striking ``September 23, 2005'' and inserting
``September 23, 2007'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``October 20, 2005'' and
inserting ``October 20, 2007''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``November 7, 2005'' and inserting
``November 7, 2007''; and
(ii) by striking ``in 2005'' and inserting ``in 2007''.
(4) Section 2912 of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``2005'' and
inserting ``2007'';
(B) by striking ``fiscal year 2005'' each place it appears
and inserting ``fiscal year 2007'';
(C) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``for fiscal year
2007'' after ``subsection (a)'';
(D) in subsections (b)(2) and (d), by striking ``in 2005''
each place it appears and inserting ``under section 2914'';
(E) in subsection (d), by striking ``March 15, 2005'' both
places it appears and inserting ``March 15, 2007'';
(F) in subsection (d)(4), by striking ``calendar year 2005
and shall terminate on April 15, 2006'' and inserting
``calendar year 2007 and shall terminate on April 15, 2008'';
and
(G) in subsection (d)(5), by striking ``second session of
the 108th Congress for the activities of the Commission in
2005'' and inserting ``second session of the 109th Congress
for the activities of the Commission under section 2914''.
(5) Section 2904(a)(3) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 is amended by striking ``in the 2005
report'' and inserting ``in a report submitted after 2001''.
(6) Section 2906(e) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 is amended by striking ``2005'' and
inserting ``2007''.
(7) Section 2906A of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``2005'' and
inserting ``2007''; and
(B) by striking ``2005'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2007''.
(8) Section 2909(a) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 is amended by striking ``2006'' and
inserting ``2008''.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution
843 may be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution
843, if ordered, and on the motion to instruct on S. 2845.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 175, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 524]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
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)
NAYS--175
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Skelton
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--32
Ballenger
Bass
Boehlert
Burton (IN)
Clay
Collins
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gephardt
Greenwood
Hinojosa
Issa
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Leach
Lipinski
Majette
Markey
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, Gary
Murtha
Norwood
[[Page H8993]]
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1809
Messrs. THOMPSON of Mississippi, ABERCROMBIE, DEFAZIO, and DINGELL
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. COLE, Mr. DOOLEY of California, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of
California, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 524, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 8, 2004, I regrettably
missed recorded vote numbered 524. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________