[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16304-16309]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                              H. Res. 298

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

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

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, we must honor the most basic commitments we have made to 
the men and women of our Armed Services. We must ensure a reasonable 
quality of life to recruit and retain the best and brightest for 
America's fighting forces. Most importantly, we must do it all, 
everything in our power to ensure a strong, able, dedicated American 
military so this Nation will be ever vigilant, ever prepared, so much 
more important now than it has been in the past.
  This bill provides nearly $1.2 billion for barracks, and $176 million 
for hospitals and medical facilities for our troops and their families. 
It also provides $2.7 billion to operate and maintain existing housing 
units, and $1.2 billion for new housing units, much, much needed.
  Military families also have a tremendous need for quality child care, 
especially single parents and families in which one or both parents may 
face lengthy deployment. To help meet this need, the bill provides $16 
million for child development centers. H.R. 2559 is more than just a 
signal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that this Nation 
recognizes their services and their sacrifice. It is a means by which 
we meet our commitment to providing them a decent quality of life so as 
to sustain the commitment and professionalism of America's all 
voluntary armed services and the families that support them.
  While our men and women in uniform have swiftly dispatched our 
enemies abroad, they face increasingly complex personal and 
professional challenges here at home. We must do more to take care of 
those who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedoms, 
and for the families who support them in their efforts. And I am really 
glad we are getting this done before we head home for the July 4th work 
break.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support 
the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule under consideration for H.R. 2559, the Fiscal 
Year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations Act, is an open rule. It 
provides for one hour of general debate, waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, allows for germane amendments and 
provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the work of 
the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) of the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction along with the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for continuing 
the tradition of bipartisan action on this bill and for doing the best 
with a terrible allocation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a terrible feeling of deja vu. Almost exactly 1 
year ago, on June 27 of 2002, I stood on this House floor as the 
minority manager of the rule on the fiscal year 2003 military 
construction bill. Along with the then-chairman, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), we all bemoaned the inadequacy of that bill. 
We all pledged to do better next year and called upon

[[Page 16305]]

President Bush to increase the budget for desperately needed military 
construction, housing, base realignment and base closure.
  Well, 1 year later none of that has happened. In fact, this year is 
even worse. If last year's appropriations bill was inadequate, this one 
is woefully inadequate, to quote the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman 
Knollenberg). In fact, the fiscal year 2004 bill is $1.5 billion less 
than last year's bill. Let me repeat that. This bill is $1.5 billion 
less than the fiscal year 2003 funding levels. It is even $41 million 
less than the chairman's request.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues what in the world are we 
doing? How can we stand on this House floor day after day, week after 
week and declare how much we support our uniformed men and women when 
the funding provided for family housing in this bill is $270 million 
less than last year? How can we stand on the floor of this House day 
after day, week after week and say that we are engaged in a long-term 
struggle against a global enemy when funding for military construction 
in this bill is $1 billion less than last year?
  Mr. Speaker, poor facility conditions are not only unsafe, they 
hamper readiness and decrease troop retention. According to the 
Pentagon, 180,000 of the 300,000 units of military housing are 
substandard. According to the Pentagon, 68 percent of the Department's 
facilities have deficiencies so serious that they might impede mission 
readiness or they are so deteriorated that they cannot support mission 
requirements. The current reductions in funding for construction in 
these facility categories means that the rate at which buildings are 
renovated or replaced has just increased from 83 years to 150 years.
  This is a national scandal. And let us be clear, this bill is not 
only about new housing, it is about the operation and maintenance of 
existing family housing. One of the few increases in family housing in 
this bill is for the Army. It receives an $81 million increase. 
Unfortunately, funding for the operation and maintenance of existing 
Army family housing is cut by $63 million, allowing more and more 
current housing units to deteriorate and fall into substandard 
condition. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing that since the events of September 11 we 
live in a changed world. I keep on hearing how much we appreciate our 
Armed Forces, how much we appreciate their sacrifice and service. Then 
why do we keep cutting and cutting and cutting the military 
construction appropriations bill? We obviously do not appreciate them 
enough to give them decent housing. We obviously do not admire them 
enough to give them quality facilities. Are we going to be on the floor 
of this House next year expressing our disappointment over how 
inadequate the military construction appropriations bill is again?
  Now, I have been told that we should just wait until the 2005 round 
of base closings, then we will see some modest increases for housing at 
the bases that survive the next round of closures. That is as cynical a 
rationalization as I have ever heard. Do we honestly believe that 
inadequate housing and facilities exist only on bases likely to be 
closed down?
  Mr. Speaker, this crisis in funding for family housing and military 
construction is nationwide. It exists at nearly every single base and 
installation across the land and overseas, and it affects every branch 
of our Armed Forces. And if base closure is somehow magically supposed 
to balance the ledgers, then why are we in such a housing and 
construction crisis right now?
  It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker, and there is a remedy. 
The ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), tried to provide an extra $958 million above 
the allocation level for military construction and housing. His 
solution is not hard to accept. This House would simply scale back 5 
percent of the scheduled tax cut for people with adjusted gross incomes 
of over $1 million for 1 year. This would mean that the tax refund for 
these individuals would be reduced from about $88,000 to $83,000.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent census, there are more 
than 280 million people in the United States. This modest change in the 
tax cut would affect about 200,000 individuals, or less than one-tenth 
of 1 percent of all taxpayers. Such a small adjustment, however, would 
provide nearly a billion dollars to help ensure that more than 1.4 
million men and women who serve our country on active duty have decent 
housing and workplaces for themselves and their families. But the 
Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations rejected the gentleman 
from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) proposal, and last night the Republicans on 
the Committee on Rules refused to allow the gentleman from Wisconsin's 
(Mr. Obey) amendment to even be debated and voted on in this House.
  So we are faced with the results of what happens when we rob our 
Nation of the most basic revenue needed to adequately fund our Nation's 
priorities. We rob our valiant military personnel of decent homes and 
facilities. We rob our veterans of their basic benefits. We cut back 
funding for schools and child care for military families. And we are 
faced with passing this woefully inadequate bill, a bill I believe that 
for all the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman 
Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), can only be viewed as a shameful scandal on the part of this 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it would be so nice if the force of our 
rhetoric is matched by the force of our deeds. That certainly is not 
the case with this bill.
  Just a few months ago this House passed this resolution and it said, 
among other things, ``Resolved by the House of Representatives, the 
Senate concurring, that the Congress express the unequivocal support 
and appreciation of the Nation to the members of the United States 
Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom who are carrying out 
their missions with excellence, patriotism and bravery and also to 
their families.''
  Well, the sad news, unfortunately, is that the check is not in the 
mail. We have given them a resolution but we are short-sheeting them in 
terms of things that military families need in order to make their life 
better. I do not understand why we are doing that. This bill shows the 
House's ``support and appreciation'' by providing $1.5 billion less 
than we appropriated last year to provide the military with decent 
housing and work places.
  The bill also thanks the military supposedly by cutting the 
President's own request for the Pentagon by $180 million. This is for 
hangers, offices, fitness centers and teaching facilities that even OMB 
and the administration said the military needed. But this bill cuts 
them out.
  Many Members of this House have seen the problems for themselves. The 
Pentagon itself rates the readiness of most military facilities as 
marginal or worse. Over 225,000 service members and their families 
cannot get decent barracks or decent housing. This bill is not up to 
the job and we all know why. It is not the fault of the subcommittee 
chairman. It is the fault of every single Member of this House who 
voted for the budget resolution which said that the only priorities for 
this year was going to be tax cuts. And as you know, the lion's share 
of the tax cuts went into the pockets of the most wealthy 1 percent of 
people in this country.
  So as a result of that decision by the Republican leadership to put 
tax cuts as the primary goal of this Congress, the budget resolution, 
for instance, that was passed is on track to cut $28 billion from 
veterans benefits. There would be, under the White House budget, $200 
million in cuts to impact aid to the school districts that educate the

[[Page 16306]]

children of military families. As many as 230,000 military families 
have been cut out of the low income child tax provision.
  We are taking millionaires off the tax roll, but we are not giving 
the people who need the help the most anything but table scraps on the 
tax side.
  The defense bill, which was marked up this morning in full committee, 
will cut raises for the most junior enlisted and officer personnel from 
the 4.1 percent they have been expecting to just 2 percent. I want to 
see how many of you who have cried about the fact that you have Army 
personnel on food stamps, I want to see how many of you vote to cut 
that. I want to watch that.
  A realistic budget resolution has been beyond the reach of the 
Congress, and this is the result as we are seeing today. Now, I want to 
be able to offer an amendment to correct the problem. My amendment 
would reinstate the $160 million in cuts from the President's budget. I 
would like to restore all of them. I think the White House is right. We 
need them. I would also add $480 million for family housing. That would 
help at least 2,500 military families. That would be a useful first 
step in replacing the 134,000 inadequate units that service members and 
their families are forced to live in today.
  Finally, the amendment would provide $318 million for new barracks 
that would help 5,300 single service members into decent housing. The 
Pentagon says we need over 83,000 units, so even this amendment goes 
just an inch. My amendment is an opportunity to restore the projects 
the President said were needed, to help about 8,000 service members and 
their families, and it would help Congress to keep its promise to the 
troops.
  Now, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has indicated, I would pay 
for it by changing the tax package that was just passed by this 
Congress. What I would say is that for persons with adjusted gross 
incomes of more than $1 million, instead of their getting the $88,000 
tax cut they will get next year, we would cut that to $83,000. That is 
hardly starvation wages. Now, these are not just millionaires. These 
are people with adjusted gross incomes of more than $1 million each 
year, about 200,000 people in this society. And I bet if you asked 
them, they would say they would happily take that reduction in order to 
provide a real improvement in the quality of life for our troops.

                              {time}  1515

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

                  [From the Army Times, June 30, 2003]

                        Nothing but Lip Service

       In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-
     controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly 
     deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap--and 
     getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime 
     treatment the troops are getting lately.
       For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-
     benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by 
     Congress are wasteful and unnecessary--including a modest 
     proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of 
     troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when 
     Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a 
     day.
       Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it 
     wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly 
     imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation 
     allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in 
     combat zones.
       Then there's military tax relief--or the lack thereof. As 
     Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of 
     tax cuts, they can't seem to find time to make progress on 
     minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military 
     homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training 
     and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
       Incredibly, one of those tax provisions--easing residency 
     rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains 
     exemptions when selling a home--has been a homeless orphan in 
     the corridors of power for more than five years now.
       The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush's proposed 
     2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for 
     some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s 
     and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 
     percent.
       The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, 
     and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and 
     higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the 
     bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be 
     hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
       All of which brings us to the latest indignity--Bush's $9.2 
     billion military construction request for 2004, which was set 
     a full $1.5 billion below this year's budget on the 
     expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent 
     years, would add funding as it drafted the construction 
     appropriations bill.
       But Bush's tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 
     federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on 
     across the board.
       The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military 
     construction panel accepted Bush's proposed $1.5 billion cut, 
     it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 
     million next year.
       Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House 
     Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion 
     of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush's construction budget. He 
     proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for 
     the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a 
     year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive 
     $83,500.
       The Republican majority on the construction appropriations 
     panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making 
     progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that 
     needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other 
     facilities is bleak at best.
       Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be 
     viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal 
     if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling 
     pattern that eventually will hurt morale--especially if the 
     current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked 
     and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
       Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed 
     a resolution in March pledging ``unequivocal support'' to 
     service members and their families, puts it this way:

[[Page 16307]]

     ``American military men and women don't deserve to be saluted 
     with our words and insulted by our actions.''
       Translation: Money talks--and we all know what walks.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has worked very hard on this 
bill.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), the majority leader of this House, said that in time of 
war nothing is more important than tax cuts. Well, this bill proves it. 
Because of the tax cuts, including dividend tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans, because of the $88,000 tax cut that every American on 
average making over $1 million a year will receive, we now bring a bill 
to this House that should be an embarrassment to the Members of 
Congress who stood on this floor and said we should honor our 
servicemen and -women.
  I noted the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) a few 
minutes ago said this bill is more than a signal to our servicemen and 
-women. Well, I agree. It is a flashing red light. It says that while 
we honor you with our words, we cut your quality of life programs with 
our deeds and with our votes. Yes, it is more than a signal. This bill 
is a slap in the face to every serviceman and -woman, every military 
child in America who this year and in years past has made tremendous 
sacrifices, including the sacrifice of life, to defend our country and 
our way of life.
  The dollar figures in this bill are not the fault of the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the great chairman of this 
subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member. He did the very best 
any human could do to fairly put together the highest list of 
priorities given the woefully inadequate funding in this bill; but let 
us tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, like it is. They deserve the 
truth and so do our servicemen and -women.
  What this Republican leadership in Congress this year has said is 
that it is more important to give a person making more than $1 million 
dollar a year an $88,000 tax cut rather than an $83,000 tax cut. It is 
more important to do that than it is to provide adequate housing and 
day care and health clinics and training ranges for our brave 
servicemen and -women, many of whom are serving in Iraq today.
  Let us be clear. What this House leadership is saying is that while 
we salute our troops as they get on the airplane to fly to Iraq or 
Afghanistan and risk their lives for us, we are handing them a slip 
saying the administration wants to cut their children's education 
funding and the IMPACT aid program; and on the very night of March 21 
when we voted to salute our troops in Iraq, 8 minutes later the House 
Republican majority voted to cut those troops' future veterans benefits 
by $28 billion. There is a clear record here; and, yes, it is a clear 
signal to our servicemen and -women.
  It is that we are going to cut your benefits, your housing, your 
children's education, your day care clinics, your health facilities in 
order to pay for the promise of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
who said that in time of war, nothing is more important than tax cuts.
  Unfortunately, the vast majority of the 44,000 Army soldiers that I 
have the privilege to represent at Fort Hood in Texas will not get 
anything or very little at all out of those tax cuts, while the 
millionaires will average, not the millionaires but the people making 
over $1 million a year will average more than $88,000 in tax cuts.
  How serious is the housing problem for our servicemen and -women? 
Maybe they already have quality housing. Perhaps there is some Member 
of this House or some member of the public, Mr. Speaker, that has not 
visited our military installations recently. Maybe they think they live 
in the lap of luxury. Let me present the facts.
  The fact is that there are 83,000 servicemen and -women living in 
inadequate barracks that do not even meet the lowest Department of 
Defense standards. The truth is that there are 128,860 military 
families, people that on this floor just a few minutes ago were called 
professional, the best, clearly dedicated, 128,000 of those families 
are now living in housing that does not meet very low DOD standards.
  By the way, just for the record, let me point out what is defined as 
meeting the quality standard required by the Department of Defense. In 
the Navy that means that $15,000 could fix up your house where it could 
meet those lowest minimum DOD standards and you are living in adequate 
housing. Forget the fact that you may never get that $15,000 to fix 
your leaky roof or to fix the washer and dryer that are not working or 
to repair the damage to the structure of the house. If $15,000 would 
fix it, even if you never get that money to fix that house, you are 
living in adequate housing.
  The truth is, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina said, we ask a 
lot from our servicemen and -women; and I stand in this House today to 
say that this bill, despite the tremendous, valiant efforts of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) who did the best anybody 
could with the amount of money given to him, this bill is a slap in the 
face to our servicemen and -women; and just as the ``Army Times'' in 
its editorial recently said that our soldiers are in effect getting 
tired of lip service from Congress, this bill salutes them by insulting 
them.
  It defines our rhetoric of appreciation with the reality of a $1.5 
billion cut in important programs that would have meant a better 
quality of life, better training so that many of our troops might come 
home safely to the hugs of their families rather than in body bags.
  What this House is saying, despite all the intentions that one might 
have, good or bad, what this House is saying with our votes is that we 
value more an $88,000 tax cut for millionaires, those making more than 
$1 million, more than them getting an $83,000 tax cut, we value that 
more than treating with respect our servicemen and -women.
  We should oppose this rule, support the Obey amendment, and back up 
our rhetoric with our actions.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will close for our side.
  Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their eloquent 
and powerful words and for reminding us all how we are not living up to 
our promise to our uniformed men and women, and it is something that 
every single Member in this House should listen to very carefully; and 
we now have an opportunity to be able to do something about that.
  Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a recorded vote on the previous question, 
and I will urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
that will make in order the Obey amendment to restore funding for 
military construction programs. This amendment was submitted to the 
Committee on Rules and rejected by the Republican majority.
  The bill provides $9.2 billion for military construction spending. 
That is $41 million below the level requested by the President, and 
$1.5 billion less than last year. As we have said over and over, even 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, called the bill woefully underfunded.
  This amendment will help restore some of these desperately needed 
additional funds. It will provide an additional $958 million above the 
subcommittee's allocation. This would be offset by reducing the 2004 
tax cut for 200,000 millionaires from $88,000 to $83,000. That is it.
  Mr. Speaker, whether or not Members are Republicans or Democrats, 
they should be extremely concerned, in fact outraged, about the lack of 
adequate funding for the programs that help our men and women in the 
military. The Obey amendment would help fix that and do so with no 
additional cost to the deficit.
  Our rhetoric is simply not enough, Mr. Speaker. If we want to honor 
our uniformed men and women then we should not be cutting their 
benefits and their programs. We should be providing them what they 
need.

[[Page 16308]]

  So I will urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question. Let me emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not 
stop the House from taking up the military construction appropriations 
bill. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering 
the Obey amendment to help restore funding for this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The material previously referred to by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is as follows:

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

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

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

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               YEAS--220

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

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

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

[[Page 16309]]




                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1551

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

                          ____________________