[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22728-22733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4200, RONALD 
   W. REAGAN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 843 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 843

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
     for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considerd as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal 
conference report rule for H.R. 4200, the Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration. In addition, it 
provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled between 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Committee on 
Armed Services.
  This should not be a controversial rule; it is the type of rule we 
grant for every conference report that comes through the House. This 
legislation

[[Page 22729]]

firmly shows our commitment to restoring the strength of our Nation's 
military. The conferees authorized $447.2 billion in budget authority 
for the Department of Defense, DOD, and the national security programs 
of the Department of Energy, DOE.

                              {time}  1715

  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for all 
of the work they have done in their tireless support for our brave sons 
and daughters in uniform. The safety and security of our troops and our 
Nation can be attributed to the contributions they have made.
  This legislation authorizes the funding necessary to defend the 
Nation and our interests around the globe. More than 200,000 soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and Marines have served in the global war on terrorism. 
We owe them our gratitude for defending our freedom.
  Their success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a testament to their 
bravery, training and equipment, and their commitment to defend our 
freedom.
  On the battlefield, we provide critical force protection resources, 
including countermeasures for improvised explosive devices, improved 
surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities and the latest infantry 
equipment.
  H.R. 4200 adds more than $2 billion for force protection measures, 
including armor, munitions, communications and surveillance programs. 
The legislation contains provisions to eliminate procurement obstacles 
and field commercially available technology on an expedited basis, 
something that is much needed. At home, this legislation meets the 
needs of our military personnel with numerous quality-of-life 
improvements.
  Among the many initiatives are a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay 
raise, special pay and bonuses, and improved housing, as well as the 
complete phaseout of out-of-pocket housing expenses.
  This conference report makes great strides in addressing the 
disparity by which disabled military retirees have their pension 
benefits reduced, dollar by dollar, by the amount of disability 
benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The 
fiscal year 2004 act authorized full concurrent receipt to be phased in 
over 10 years.
  The conference report continues to build on this improvement by 
removing disabled retirees who are rated 100 percent disabled from the 
10-year phase-in period. These retirees are authorized for full, 
concurrent receipt effective January 2005. Our veterans have given 
deeply and heroically, and it is only fair that we recognize their 
service.
  So let us pass the rule and pass the underlying Defense Authorization 
Conference Report. At the end of the day, we are going to make our 
homeland safer and we will be supporting our sons and daughters serving 
in the military. We will be preparing for war, thereby ensuring 
victory. At this crucial time in our history, this bill is most 
important.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  The annual defense authorization bill is one of the most important 
bills the Congress considers. During my 26 years in Congress, I have 
been dedicated to and I have worked to ensure that the United States 
has the strongest national defense of any nation on earth. This year is 
no exception; in fact, the defense authorization bill is more important 
than ever.
  This past December, I spent several days in Iraq where I had the 
distinct honor and privilege to meet with our rank-and-file soldiers on 
our front lines and to thank them personally for their brave and 
distinguished service and personal sacrifices. And I was reminded of 
this enormous sacrifice upon my return. The cargo plane we flew out of 
Baghdad on carried the coffins of two American soldiers who had been 
killed just 3 days before Christmas.
  It seems like almost every night Americans turn on the news at home 
and see reports of violence in Iraq. But when I turn on my television, 
I cannot help but recall the selflessness and courage I saw while in 
Iraq, and the mix of pride and sorrow I felt on the flight home.
  America's sons and daughters in Iraq represent our country well, but 
their job continues to be very difficult and very dangerous. And that 
is why the bill before us is so important.
  Before anything else, the defense authorization bill is a bill to 
support our troops. This bill will help keep our service men and women 
in Iraq and around the world safe, will provide them with the tools 
they need to fight the war on terror, and will give them and their 
families the better quality of life that they so richly deserve.
  First and foremost, this conference report provides $25 billion in 
supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure 
that our troops have everything they need to successfully accomplish 
their mission and return home to their families safely. The conference 
report authorizes new funding for armored Humvees and body armor. We 
help ensure the strength of our military by putting 39,000 more Army 
and Marine Corps personnel on the ground. We give our troops a 3.5 
percent pay raise, and we help ensure that all of our fighting men and 
women receive health care by expanding TRICARE coverage to Reservists 
and their dependents.
  The conference reports also helps those who have served our country 
so honorably over the years by making sure that those who are left 
behind when a soldier falls receive the full benefits that they deserve 
through the Survivor Benefit Plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the conferees on both sides of the aisle 
who worked so hard to complete this important bill before we return 
home for the election. There has never been any doubt that this House, 
this Nation, and its people stand 100 percent behind our men and women 
in uniform, fighting to secure peace the world over. Let us pass this 
bill and this rule to keep our troops safe and give them the tools they 
need to do their jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to raise some issues today with regard to certain aspects of 
this conference report and certain authorizations, particularly those 
dealing with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the responsibility of 
this Congress to oversee ways in which intelligence is used by the 
executive branch.
  There are very disturbing aspects of the way in which intelligence is 
used. We know that most of the expenditures for intelligence in our 
country are spent by the Defense Intelligence Agency. I am interested 
in why the majority party has not exercised its oversight 
responsibilities with the way in which intelligence has been misused in 
ways that are misleading. That goes all of the way back to a time prior 
to the attack of September 11, 2001.
  We know, for example, that all during the spring and summer of that 
year we were getting intelligence information talking about an 
impending attack on the United States. In fact, at one point, George 
Tenet, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, pointed out 
that the lights were flashing red. Others indicated that something 
very, very, very big was about to happen.
  Then on August 6 of that year, the President received his daily 
briefing and in the context of that daily briefing, which was entitled 
``bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States,'' there were 
substantial amounts of information about how it was discerned that an 
attack upon the United States in various ways was imminent, and there 
was even discussion about the potential use of airplanes, but no 
actions were taken, not during the spring and summer when the first

[[Page 22730]]

information came, not after the President's daily briefing of August 6. 
Nothing was done. And then the attack occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we not looking into the way in which the 
intelligence operation is having an effect on the executive branch? Why 
are we not overseeing those kinds of activities?
  Then, of course, we had the report just yesterday from the United 
States weapons inspector in Iraq, Mr. Duefler, which again said very, 
very clearly that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction 
in Iraq. Prior to that we had the report of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, the 9/11 Commission Report, all of which said, no connection 
between Iraq and the attack, and also no weapons of mass destruction.
  It just seems to me that as we make these authorizations, the 
majority party here, which sets the agenda and has the responsibility 
of oversight through the committee system of the way in which the 
executive branch is operating, ought to have paid much more attention 
to this and ought to be paying much more attention to it now.
  We are spending tens of billions of dollars. I am not sure what the 
exact number is at this particular point, soon it will be $200 billion, 
but at least it is $140-150 billion being spent in Iraq. All of the 
loss of life, all of the injuries, and all of the destruction of our 
image around the world, why are we not in this Congress, in this House 
of Representatives, living up to our obligations and responsibilities 
for oversight when so much of the intelligence that we have paid for 
has been ignored, so much of the other intelligence that we are paying 
for has been misused to mislead this Congress and to mislead the 
American people?
  This is an issue that has not been addressed and must be addressed by 
this House. The sooner it is done, the better off everyone is going to 
be.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, probably one of the least 
known things about the President's budget request over the year is that 
in June 2001 President Bush presented his defense budget to Congress 
and in it asked for the authority to conduct a round of base closures 
in 2003 called the Effective Facilities Initiative.
  In September of that year, after the House had refused to act on it, 
the other body passed by a very small margin the authority for two 
rounds of base closure. Later, the House conferees worked that down to 
one round, but in the year 2005. But this May, knowing how close we 
were coming to it and the fact that our Nation was at war not only in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, in a much smaller war, but still a war, in 
Colombia, this body by almost a 100-vote margin voted to delay BRAC for 
2 years. There were a lot of good reasons for that.
  The President asked for this in June 2001. Our Nation was at peace. 
We had no troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. We were talking about 
shrinking the military.
  In this bill we are going to vote on shortly, we expand the ranks of 
the Army by 20,000. We expand the ranks of the Marine Corps by 2,000. 
Those are both good things.
  The President is talking about bringing troops home from Korea and 
Europe. Where is he going to put them because, by the administration's 
own admission, they are not talking about closing one base or two 
bases, they are talking about closing 25 percent of all of the bases in 
America, not overseas. This base closure commission is about closing 
bases in America, not Europe or Korea. That is one base out of four.
  What further complicates this and what I found interesting is, when I 
expressed my opposition to this and when I asked the different service 
secretaries who have come before the House Committee on Armed Services, 
who tell us repeatedly we have 25 percent overcapacity, name one base 
you would like to see closed, the Secretary of the Army would not name 
one base; the Secretary of the Navy could not name one base; the 
Secretary of the Air Force could not name one base. They cannot name 
one, yet they keep insisting that they want to close one base out of 
four.
  Mr. Speaker, what happens when a base is closed? Number one, we lose 
that capability that the taxpayers have paid for forever. America is 
not getting less populated, it is more populated. It is not less 
crowded, it is more crowded. When you lose that land, you lose the 
ability to train there. Every single weapon we have requires more of a 
stand-off in order to train, not less. Things that used to shoot for 
yards now shoot for miles. Things that used to shoot for miles now 
shoot across a continent. We need more land to train. We are talking 
about bringing troops home, and yet they want to shut down bases.
  And there are other unintended consequences. Half of our military 
retirees, those people who have given our Nation 20 years of their 
blood, sweat and tears, 20 years away from their families, over half of 
our Nation's military retirees intentionally chose to retire near a 
military facility so they could use the base hospital, because they 
were promised use of that base hospital for the rest of their lives.

                              {time}  1730

  They intentionally retired near a commissary because they were 
promised the use of the commissary for the rest of their life. You know 
what? They spent 20 years away from their families, being called chief 
or sergeant or colonel or captain, and they like going back to the base 
and being called chief or sergeant, colonel or captain.
  When you close the base, you close the commissary. When you close the 
base, much more importantly, you close the base hospital. You have 
broken the promise of lifetime health care for these military retirees.
  So why, when we are at war in Afghanistan, when we are in a war in 
Iraq? I happen to, unfortunately, have been on the same flight with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) when those two young GI's came home in 
a coffin from Iraq. Why, when we are asking young Americans to enlist 
to serve because we want to give them good things?
  This body is given the constitutional authority to provide for an 
Army or a Navy, turn around and give that authority to some handpicked 
bureaucrats who have already been told, close one base out of four.
  In particular, to my friends from Florida, I come from hurricane 
country. I know what it is like to see houses destroyed. I know what it 
is like to go to funerals of people who have died in hurricanes. We got 
lucky this time in Mississippi. You did not. You have had four 
hurricanes this year.
  Why would the President of the United States as Commander in Chief 
tell the people of Florida he is going to go there and close one base 
out of four knowing that their economy has already been devastated. Why 
would he tell his military retirees, who intentionally bought houses in 
Florida so they could use the hospital, so they could use the 
commissary: We are sorry. We are going to close the base. We are going 
to close the hospital. We will close the commissary. You are out of 
luck.
  In a little while, I will offer a motion to defeat the previous 
question, and it will be very sweet and simple. It will instruct the 
clerk to put back the language that passed this House by very close to 
100 votes, including the vote by the chairman of this committee, that 
says we are going to delay BRAC. If we are growing the force, which we 
are, if we are bringing troops home from Europe, if we are bringing 
them home from Asia, we will need a place to put them. Let us not close 
bases now and not have a place for them.
  Mr. Speaker, there are so many reasons to be against BRAC. The 
biggest of all is the false notion that it saves the taxpayers money. 
They predicted great savings. Let me tell you what they did. They shut 
down bases, and threw Americans out of work. They deprived military 
retirees of their basic health care. They deprived them of their 
commissary. But, most importantly of all, we did not sell the bases; we 
gave them away. Before we gave away bases, this Nation spent $13 
billion, with a B, $13 billion cleaning up

[[Page 22731]]

facilities just to give them away. And then you never get them back.
  Go to Cecil Field in Florida. Right now, our Nation is spending tens 
of millions of dollars buying land in North Carolina. Why? So we can 
build a runway. What do we need a runway for? For the F-18s to land 
when they come off the ships. Why did we not send them to another base? 
Well, we had another base. It was called Cecil Field. It had three 
8,000-foot runways. It had a fourth 10,000-foot runway. It had a 
hospital. It had a commissary. It had places for the troops to live. It 
had places for the family to live. It had mess halls. It had all the 
things that a base is supposed to have, but a previous round of BRAC 
shut it down. So when the F-18s need a place to land when they come off 
the carriers, we have got to go buy land to make up for what was 
already given away.
  It is very rare in this body where we get a chance to prevent a long-
term mistake. Another round of base closures is a long-term mistake. I 
am giving you the opportunity to do the right thing for your country. 
In a few minutes, I will offer that.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of this committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  I will say, I have the highest respect for the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) who is a very valuable member of our 
committee, and we have done great work over the last many months 
putting this bill together. And I would hope that the members of the 
House, rather than focusing on what this bill does not do in terms of 
stopping the BRAC process or other issues that were of concern to 
members, to focus on what it does do.
  I just remind my colleagues that, in this bill, we have a 3.5 percent 
across-the-board increase for the men and women who wear the uniform of 
the United States.
  For the first time in our history, we have what is known as a 
survivor benefits program. We are doing away with the so-called widow's 
tax. And that is where the surviving spouse of a military retiree will 
no longer have to offset their survivors' benefits against their Social 
Security check.
  We increase what is known as concurrent receipt for our veterans. 
That means that a disabled veteran will no longer have to offset to the 
degree that he did before his disability check against his retirement 
check. We have over $700 million for up-armoring our Humvees. Those are 
the vehicles that will be driven by young men and women in theaters 
like Iraq and Afghanistan. We have, across the board, enough personnel 
benefits to really justify calling this bill the bill that represents 
the year of the soldier and marine.
  We have this increase of some 20,000 and some 3,000 Marines. A hard 
increase and a permissive increase of the Army and Marine Corps of an 
additional 10,000 soldiers and an additional 6,000 Marines. We have 
this increase in imminent-danger pay and an increase in family-
separation pay. And the 24,000 housing units, which the presumed 
paralysis of that housing program, where we thought we would actually 
have 24,000 family housing units hanging this year because of a funding 
glitch and a scoring glitch; we fixed that in this conference. And that 
means that the families of the men and women who wear the uniform of 
the United States will have family housing much quicker than we thought 
they would have it.
  So, for all those reasons, I just hope and would ask my colleagues, 
Democrat and Republican, to support this rule and to vote for the 
previous question when the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
raises it.
  I tell the gentleman that I understand his concern and that he and I 
both know that it is tough to retrieve these bases with the maze of 
environmental regulations that will face any administration in the 
future who wants to reach in and retrieve a base that has been closed, 
but that, nonetheless, I think that with the good judgment of the 
Members of this House overseeing this and watching this process and the 
members of Blue Ribbon Panel watching this process, and all the good 
things that are in this bill, it is appropriate for us to move forward. 
I hope that we pass this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to close the debate.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by complimenting 
my chairman on the very genteel way he is handling this. He has done a 
good job with the bill, with one glaring exception. And some mistakes 
are so bad that they cannot be retrieved, and we need to retrieve this 
now while we have a chance.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to instruct the enrolling clerk to amend the conference 
report to reinsert language that was in the House-passed bill that 
would postpone the 2005 round of base closures and realignments until 
2007.
  As we know, this legislation was included in the original version of 
the defense authorization bill that passed in this House in May. 
However, it, like several other provisions, mysteriously disappeared 
when the bill was in conference.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just one of many examples where good legislation 
and amendments that passed this House just seemed to vaporize behind 
closed doors. That is a bad way to do business. Tonight, we have a 
chance to stop that.
  Let us do the right thing today. Let us reinsert the provision that 
passed by very close to 100 votes right now. I think the Members of 
this House must decide for themselves whether or not they want another 
round of base closures. As I have said before, when given the 
opportunity, the service secretaries could not name and would not name 
one single installation they want closed. Read the Constitution, 
article I, section 8 says that Congress shall provide for an Army and a 
Navy. Not the bureaucrats. We decide.
  We are going to leave here and go beg for the opportunity to 
represent a sliver of America. We are going to beg for the opportunity 
to fulfill congressional obligations. How many of you are going to go 
out there and say, Please elect me congressman so I can let some 
bureaucrat make the tough decisions for me. I am not. I want to do my 
job. I do not trust bureaucrats with my job. I will not vote to allow a 
group of bureaucrats to shut down bases at a time when we are at war 
and we are getting ready to bring troops home and we are growing the 
Army and we are growing the Marines. This does not make sense.
  So let me make it perfectly clear. A ``no'' vote on the previous 
question will not, will not stop consideration of this conference 
report. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote to reinsert the 
provision that passed this House by almost a 100-vote margin. However, 
a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from 
delaying the closing of one base out of every four in America, one base 
out of every four. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 13 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 23\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
can bring to the floor legislation that would delay the Base 
Realignment and Closure process better known as BRAC.
  Mr. Speaker, at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army is 
restructuring

[[Page 22732]]

itself. We are assessing our base structure overseas and plan to bring 
two divisions home from Europe and to reduce our troop strength over a 
period of time from South Korea by at least 12,000 troops. We are 
increasing the end strength in this bill to relieve the stress on our 
troops. We are still developing the Pentagon's role in homeland 
security. The division of labor between active duty forces and the 
Reserve component is still being evaluated and is a question mark. This 
is really a heck of a time to be conducting BRAC.
  Voting ``no'' on the previous question will allow the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to bring up legislation that would delay BRAC 
2 years. I think a 2-year delay is prudent. Given the turbulent times 
facing our military, the legislation will not kill BRAC; it will just 
delay it. The House voted decisively several months ago to delay the 
base closures, but this provision was dropped by the conference. The 
House deserves a serious, serious debate on this issue. I support the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) on a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we do not have any additional requests for 
time.
  I would note that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) will 
oppose the previous question, and if he is successful, then he will 
have the opportunity to offer his amendment to the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi is 
as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 2. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection 
     (b) is hereby adopted.
       (b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a) 
     is a concurrent resolution--
       (1) which has no preamble;
       (2) the title of which is as follows: ``Concurrent 
     resolution directing the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives to make certain corrections in the enrollment 
     of the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.''; and
       (3) the text of which is as follows: ``That in the 
     enrollment of the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
     for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the 
     Armed Forces, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House 
     of Representatives shall add at the end of subtitle C of 
     title XXVIII the following new section:

     SEC. 2835. TWO-YEAR POSTPONEMENT OF 2005 BASE CLOSURE AND 
                   REALIGNMENT ROUND.

       (a) Postponement Until 2007.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Defense shall not publish 
     in the Federal Register or transmit to the congressional 
     defense committees and the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Commission any list of military installations 
     inside the United States that the Secretary recommends for 
     closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 
     101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) before May 16, 2007.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 2914 of the Defense 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``2005'' and 
     inserting ``2007''; and
       (B) in subsection (a), by striking ``May 16, 2005,'' and 
     inserting ``May 16, 2007,''.
       (2) Subsection (d) of section 2914 of the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
       (A) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``September 8, 
     2005'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 8, 
     2007''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6)--
       (i) by striking ``in 2005'' and inserting ``under this 
     section''; and
       (ii) by striking ``July 1, 2005'' and inserting ``July 1, 
     2007''.
       (3) Subsection (e) of section 2914 of the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``in 2005'' and inserting ``under this 
     section''; and
       (ii) by striking ``September 23, 2005'' and inserting 
     ``September 23, 2007'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``October 20, 2005'' and 
     inserting ``October 20, 2007''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``November 7, 2005'' and inserting 
     ``November 7, 2007''; and
       (ii) by striking ``in 2005'' and inserting ``in 2007''.
       (4) Section 2912 of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``2005'' and 
     inserting ``2007'';
       (B) by striking ``fiscal year 2005'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``fiscal year 2007'';
       (C) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``for fiscal year 
     2007'' after ``subsection (a)'';
       (D) in subsections (b)(2) and (d), by striking ``in 2005'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``under section 2914'';
       (E) in subsection (d), by striking ``March 15, 2005'' both 
     places it appears and inserting ``March 15, 2007'';
       (F) in subsection (d)(4), by striking ``calendar year 2005 
     and shall terminate on April 15, 2006'' and inserting 
     ``calendar year 2007 and shall terminate on April 15, 2008''; 
     and
       (G) in subsection (d)(5), by striking ``second session of 
     the 108th Congress for the activities of the Commission in 
     2005'' and inserting ``second session of the 109th Congress 
     for the activities of the Commission under section 2914''.
       (5) Section 2904(a)(3) of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 is amended by striking ``in the 2005 
     report'' and inserting ``in a report submitted after 2001''.
       (6) Section 2906(e) of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 is amended by striking ``2005'' and 
     inserting ``2007''.
       (7) Section 2906A of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``2005'' and 
     inserting ``2007''; and
       (B) by striking ``2005'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``2007''.
       (8) Section 2909(a) of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 is amended by striking ``2006'' and 
     inserting ``2008''.

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 
843 may be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 
843, if ordered, and on the motion to instruct on S. 2845.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 175, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 524]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter

[[Page 22733]]


     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--175

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Ballenger
     Bass
     Boehlert
     Burton (IN)
     Clay
     Collins
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Hinojosa
     Issa
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Leach
     Lipinski
     Majette
     Markey
     Matsui
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Murtha
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Towns


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1809

  Messrs. THOMPSON of Mississippi, ABERCROMBIE, DeFAZIO, and DINGELL 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COLE, Mr. DOOLEY of California, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of 
California, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 524, I was in my 
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 8, 2004, I regrettably 
missed recorded vote numbered 524. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________