[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17308-17323]
[From the U.S. 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.


                     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

[[Page 17309]]

     $165,367,000 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, 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

[[Page 17310]]

     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 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.

[[Page 17311]]

       (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 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.

[[Page 17312]]


  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 
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 and 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 move 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

[[Page 17313]]

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, 
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

[[Page 17314]]

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.
  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

[[Page 17315]]

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, 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.

[[Page 17316]]

  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:
       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

[[Page 17317]]

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 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

[[Page 17318]]

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 
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 17319]]





[[Page 17320]]



[[Page 17321]]

  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

[[Page 17322]]

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 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

[[Page 17323]]


     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.

                              {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.

                          ____________________