H.Amdt. 196House108th Congress (2003-2005)
On page 2, line 13, under the heading "Military Construction, Army", delete the dollar amount and insert $1,726, 660,000; ***.
Sponsored by 
Rep. David R. Obey (D-WI)
Rep. David R. Obey (D-WI)Submitted June 26, 2003
Text
Offered
This amendment's own text couldn't be picked out of its Congressional Record passage, so the passage is shown in full.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 298 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2559.
{time} 1553
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 consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2559) making appropriations for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Bass in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present to the
House H.R. 2559, the fiscal year 2004 military construction
appropriations bill. This legislation provides funds for all types of
construction projects on military installations here in the U.S. and
abroad. Projects range from barracks and housing to training ranges and
runways.
I would like to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards), for his advice and support and cooperation in producing
this recommendation. He has been a good partner, and I appreciate
having the gentleman there to work together on this bill.
I would also like to express my appreciation to all members of the
subcommittee for their help in putting together this year's bill. I
commend the good work done by the subcommittee staff, Tom Forhan, Brian
Potts, Mary Arnold, Kim Reath, and Valerie Baldwin. This has made my
transition to chairman an easy one. I want to thank my personal staff,
Jeff Onizuk and Lieutenant Commander Scott Gray. I appreciate the long
hours they have put in making this the best bill possible.
The bill presented today totals $9.196 billion, which complies with
the 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. This
recommendation is, however, $41 million below the President's request,
a reduction of less than \1/2\ of 1 percent. Excluding funds provided
in response to the global war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom,
the bill is $605 million or 6 percent below fiscal year 2003 enacted
levels.
For the first time in recent memory, this subcommittee has produced a
recommendation that is below the President's request. This is the hand
that we were dealt under current budgetary constraints, and we have
tried to deal with it in as fair a manner as possible.
I assure Members the committee did due diligence to find as much
savings as possible for the bill, and I believe we left no stone
unturned in this process. This bill continues the subcommittee's
bipartisan tradition of quality of life first for our service men and
women. This is our paramount goal, and I believe we have reached it.
As many Members are aware, the Department of Defense is undertaking a
privatization effort for military housing. For those of us who have
seen the results thus far, this is an exciting development. What it
means for the family housing account of this bill is that less money
does not mean less housing. It means that we are getting more bang for
our buck. For example, take the Residential Communities Initiative at
the Presidio of Monterey. Using only the basic allowance for housing,
the BAH, 2,168 new homes will be built and 41 historic units will be
renovated. In addition, the private contractor will build wider roads,
playgrounds, amenities such as community centers and swimming pools,
and so on. What had been substandard housing will become an enviable
community for our military families, and it will come at no cost, no
cost to the family housing account in this bill.
The bottom line is that the funding in this bill does not slow down
the effort to revitalize our military family housing. In fact, that
effort is accelerating because of this privatization initiative.
I would like to take a moment to highlight some key areas in the
bill. First, $1.24 billion is provided for troop barracks. This is a
$62 million increase from last year's level. This sends a positive
message to our unaccompanied personnel stationed all around the world
that their quality of life is a priority.
The bill includes $194 million for hospital and medical facilities,
an increase of $25 million above last year's level. This is another
positive quality-of-life message, one intended for all service members
as well as their families.
$274 million is provided for community facilities, an increase of $45
million above the President's request. These facilities include child
development centers, fire stations, schools, and physical fitness
centers.
[[Page H5980]]
$465 million is provided for the Guard and Reserve components, an
increase of $95 million above the President's request.
The bill fully funds the President's request of $1.2 billion for new
family housing units and improvements to existing units, and $2.7
billion is provided for the operation and maintenance of existing
family housing units.
{time} 1600
I would like to highlight the overseas military construction program
for just one moment. In support of a global repositioning effort, the
President's amended budget submission and the recommendation before
Members today rescinds and/or reduces overseas construction
requirements by $327 million. Of these reductions, $279 million has
been applied to construction requirements in the United States. It is
my opinion additional cuts will adversely impact the quality of life
and mission readiness of our troops living overseas, including those
who are fighting the war against terrorism and also in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Therefore, I cannot recommend additional cuts in this area to
my colleagues.
We have worked closely with the authorization committee in producing
this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and his staff for their
assistance.
In conclusion, we have focused our efforts on programs that directly
support the men and women in our Armed Forces. We would like to do
more. We always have and always will. But in my opinion, the
recommendations in this bill are solid and fully fund projects that are
vital to the security of the United States. The bottom line is this:
with this bill, we meet the military's mission critical infrastructure
needs and enable its efforts to improve the quality of life for our men
and women in the Armed Forces. This is a fair bill. I encourage all my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following tabular material for the
Record:
[[Page H5981]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN03.001
[[Page H5982]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN03.002
[[Page H5983]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for this military construction bill
for one reason and for one reason alone. I believe the gentleman from
Michigan, the chairman of our committee, has worked very hard and in a
fair and bipartisan manner from day one on this bill. He and his
capable staff have worked diligently and professionally to deal with a
$1.5 billion military construction cut. This grossly inadequate funding
level was not the decision of the gentleman from Michigan or myself.
The gentleman from Michigan has a deep and genuine commitment to
supporting a high quality of life for our servicemen and -women and
their families. I know that firsthand. This decision was made above his
pay grade and above mine. As the chairman and the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Military Construction, our responsibility is to take
whatever funding level is given to us and invest those resources in a
way that will fund the highest possible military construction
priorities. I believe that is what the gentleman from Michigan, our
subcommittee, and I have done; and that is why I will vote for this
bill.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss and I believe it would be
the height of irresponsibility for me not to speak honestly to our
colleagues about what I consider to be the serious implications of
cutting military construction funding by $1.5 billion. By the way, that
is before the consideration of inflation. In my opinion, cutting
military quality of life and military training investments during a
time of war breaks faith with America's servicemen and -women and their
families. I am deeply disappointed that the administration and the
House leadership would say in effect that it is okay to salute our
troops with our words while cutting critical military quality-of-life
programs with our deeds. I believe it is wrong to salute our servicemen
and -women with words while insulting them with our deeds. It is wrong
in a time of war in Afghanistan for the administration in a separate
bill to want to cut military education funds for military children by
$173 million and to cut funds for military family housing, health care,
day care and training in this bill by $1.5 billion.
Mr. Chairman, we are starting to see a pattern of respect to our
servicemen and -women in time of war with our rhetoric and disrespect
with our priorities and our actions. Frankly, in my opinion, we are
reflecting the values of the majority leader of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who said during the Iraqi war that in
time of war, nothing is more important than cutting taxes. I would like
to invite the majority leader to my district to explain that statement
and that value to the 44,000 soldiers I represent at Fort Hood, 20,000
of whom are overseas in Iraq today.
I believe it adds insult to injury to make these cuts in military
quality-of-life programs to help pay for an $88,000 tax cut for people
in America living here safely, comfortably at home, not fighting in
war, people making over $1 million a year. It is not just wrong; it is
outrageous. As public officials, our spending priorities are a better
reflection of our values than our speeches and our rhetoric. What does
it say about our values in Congress when we ask Americans to go into
combat in Iraq and then the administration is trying to cut those very
servicemen's and -women's children's education funding by 14 percent?
What does it say about our values when a person making $1 million in
dividend income this year just received a $200,000 tax cut while a
soldier in Iraq must read that the House has voted to cut military
housing, quality-of-life and training facility projects by $1.5
billion? By the way, the House has voted to cut their future veterans
benefits by $28 billion, a vote cast on March 21 just 8 minutes after
we had overwhelmingly voted for a resolution saluting the service of
our servicemen and -women in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion that type of priority makes a mockery of
the American ideals of fairness and shared sacrifice during time of
war. What do these cuts mean? It means that tens and tens of thousands
of servicemen and -women living in inadequate housing will have to
continue to do so. We have 83,000 new barracks that are needed to meet
minimum DOD standards for our single servicemen and -women. We have a
need for 128,860 new housing units for military families who sacrifice
so much for our country. This bill does not meet those needs. Why? Not
because of the values or priorities of the gentleman from Michigan, but
because the top leadership of this House and the administration decided
that we must cut military construction by $1.5 billion to help pay for
that massive tax cut that we have already signed into law.
There is a lot of good in this bill, and the committee should be
proud of its work. There are a lot of important priority programs
funded. I salute the chairman and his very professional staff for,
under very difficult circumstances, having to cut out important
programs in order to adequately fund the highest-priority programs. I
salute the gentleman from Michigan, his staff and the professional
staff on both sides. This bill was put together without partisanship.
It was put together under trying circumstances, with a last-minute
decision by someone, I do not know and I do not know how, someone who
said, we are going to have to cut our spending by $560 million below
the amount authorized just a few weeks ago.
I support this bill for the many good things in it and the good work
that was done to produce it; but I say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman,
we should be ashamed that we are asking our servicemen and -women to
have their housing, their quality of life, their day care, their health
clinics, their training facility programs cut by $1.5 billion in time
of war. We should salute our servicemen and -women and their families
with our deeds, not just with our words.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise for two purposes: one, to express
strong support for the bill and to compliment Chairman Knollenberg and
Ranking Member Edwards for producing as good a bill as they could with
what they had to work with. We have heard today as we heard during the
Homeland Security appropriations bill earlier and I predict, Mr.
Chairman, we will hear it from the other 11 appropriations bills, that
they need more money, that they did not get enough money; that, as in
this particular case, the bill is below the President's budget request.
Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution that this committee is required
to deal with was below the President's budget request. Somebody tell me
how we can go above the President's budget request with a budget
resolution that is below the President's budget request. That would
take a little magic. The gentleman from Wisconsin and I have sat
together many times trying to figure out that magic. We have not found
the right magic wand yet. But the committees and the subcommittees are
doing the best they can with what they have to work with, and they are
producing good bills.
The second part of my interest today is to say to our colleagues
that, although there was a substantial delay in getting past some
budgetary issues that were above the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations, that 2 weeks ago when those issues were finally
settled, your Committee on Appropriations has responded well. The
Homeland Security bill was marked up, sent to the House, and it has
gone on to the Senate. The military construction bill has been marked
up, sent to the House and will go to the Senate today. The defense
appropriations bill has been marked up. The labor, health and human
services bill has been marked up. The interior appropriations bill has
been marked up. The agriculture appropriations bill has been marked up,
and the legislative branch bill has been marked up. So in that 2-week
period, your committee has produced seven of the 13 bills. That is in
addition to having completed 11 of last year's bills during this
calendar year and one major wartime supplemental.
I am very proud of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides. I
am
[[Page H5984]]
proud of the subcommittees and their leadership. But you cannot have
more money to spend than the budget resolution provides, whether it is
with the President's number, above the President's number, or below the
President's number. We are given that number, and that is what we have
to deal with.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
for his comments. There is no Member of this House, Democrat or
Republican, over the years who has been more committed to our
servicemen and -women. As critical as I am of the funding level in this
bill, I know if anyone will work hard to see if we can find more money
to more adequately show our respect to our servicemen and -women with
our dollars in military construction, the gentleman from Florida will
be the person to fight that fight and to lead that fight.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my colleagues that my comments, my
critical comments about the funding level of this bill, not the way it
was put together because the gentleman from Michigan did an excellent
job and a fair job in doing that, but I want people to know this
criticism does not just come from one Member of Congress. I would like
to read an editorial dated June 30 of the ``Army Times.'' It says,
``Nothing But Lip Service.''
``In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled
Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on
the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging
from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.''
It goes on to say this:
``All of which brings us to the latest indignity, Bush's $9.2 billion
military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5
billion below this year's budget on the expectation that Congress, as
has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted
the construction appropriations bill.
``But Bush's tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 Federal
budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.
``The result: not only has the House appropriations military
construction panel accepted Bush's proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted
to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next
year.''
The editorial goes on after commending the gentleman from Wisconsin
for his amendment to try to add nearly $1 billion to this bill to say
this:
``Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as
mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough
of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt
morale, especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls
on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not
ease.''
Mr. Chairman, that is a statement not from a Democrat or Republican
in this House, but from the ``Army Times'' editorial. I think we should
listen to the words and spirit of that editorial. I do not think our
servicemen and -women are going to accept lip service. They give us
dedicated service, including the risking of their lives. It is time for
us to give them more than lip service when it comes to committing to
making tough choices, committing to ensure that they can have a better
quality of life, live in decent housing, have day care for their
children and quality schools for their families.
{time} 1615
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the full
Committee on Appropriations who made an effort earlier this day to
offer an amendment that was closed off by the Republican leadership to
add nearly $1 billion of commitment to our servicemen and women's
quality of life programs.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to express my agreement with the comments made by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of this
committee.
And then I want to say this: Budgets are not just presentations of
numbers. Budgets really reflect and define and exhibit our priorities
and our values. And that is why this bill is such a sad commentary on
the nature of this House.
When President Bush came into office, thanks to the fiscal discipline
demonstrated by the previous administration, we expected to see at
least $6 trillion worth of surpluses over the next decade. We were in
the best shape that we had been fiscally in more than a generation. So
the President decided that we could afford to provide very large tax
cuts, and he estimated we would still have billions left over for other
purposes, and the House passed those tax cuts.
My point is that then something happened that was totally unexpected.
We got hit by 9/11 and the economic downturn that followed that. Any
person of prudence in my view, having seen such a shocking change,
would have been careful about the next step that they took, but this
Congress and this White House, alas, was not. So despite the fact that
the bottom was falling out of the economy and the bottom was falling
out of Government revenues, the White House and this Congress decided
they were going to push on with even larger tax cuts. They said that we
needed to do it in order to create jobs.
But, not a single job has been created during the tenure of the Bush
administration. In fact, we have lost almost 3 million jobs since
President Bush took office. Part of that is not his responsibility;
part of it in my view is, and the Congress's as well. My point is that
when conditions change one would think that their approach and their
remedies change, but they have not. We have gotten only one answer out
of the administration in terms of dealing with the economy: Tax cuts,
tax cuts, tax cuts, no matter how badly they are skewed to the upper
reaches of the income ladders and no matter what they cost to the other
people in this society. And this bill is one of the examples of what it
costs.
When this House passes these tax cuts, it pretends that there is no
cost to anyone else. Let me just spell out what some of the costs are.
Those tax cuts mean that we will be paying $23 billion more in interest
payments next year than we would otherwise be paying. Before these tax
cuts play out we will be spending more on interest payments in the
Federal budget than we will be spending on all domestic appropriation
items reported by this committee, and it will be a gargantuan share of
the Federal budget. We ought to be able to make better judgments than
that.
But there are other costs as well. We passed the ``No Child Left
Behind Act'' for education, sent mandates out to the States and said we
would send cash out to help pay for those mandates. I've news for you,
the appropriations bill that is going to come out will short sheet
those education programs by $8 billion. Nobody knows that, but that is
what is going to happen. And this is happening at a time when budget
crunches all over the country are going to be squeezing States and
squeezing schools. We are also having to squeeze down on what we
provide in health care. There are thousands and thousands of families
being pushed off health care in many States in the Union. And this bill
represents what is going to happen to military families, because we are
cutting $1.5 billion below the deliverable amount in the previous
year's budget for military families under military construction. And we
wind up making only token progress in improving the housing for
military families and for single enlisted people.
The cost of the estate tax elimination, which this House just passed:
For the cost of that money it took to take millionaires off the tax
roll when we passed that estate tax change--that is going to cost $800
billion--for that $800 billion, we could close one-third of the gap in
financing that will be existing in the Social Security system. We
should have done that first. But we did not. We passed another huge tax
cut for the high rollers.
So there are consequences, and there are costs to those tax cuts. The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is right. He cannot perform a
miracle.
[[Page H5985]]
Neither can the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Appropriations are the table scraps that are left over after this House
has decided to plunge ahead, promising all of these out-sized tax cuts
to the American people with a huge share of those tax cuts going to the
most well off, and then we see what happens to the rest.
So that is why I am not pleased with this bill, not because of the
work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) or the staff but
because this House made a basic bad judgment to begin with and it is
being compounded and illustrated and demonstrated with every other bill
we bring to the floor.
That is the problem. There are consequences. The budget process is
being handled in this House to try to hide those consequences. It is
our responsibility to try to lay out what those consequences are, and
that is why we have gone through this operation this afternoon.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there are any other
speakers on this side. I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I never thought I in my 12 years in this House would
come to the floor and speak out in favor of a military construction
bill that cuts quality of life and training investments for servicemen
and women even in time of war by $1.5 billion. I never thought I would
ask my colleagues to vote for a bill that decreases Navy and Marine
Corps family housing construction investment by $193 million compared
to last year. I never thought I would ask my colleagues to vote for a
bill that decreases family Air Force construction housing by $48
million compared to last year.
But I do ask my colleagues to vote for this bill because we had to do
the best we could with the allocation given to us. Because of the
needs, the important needs, military family needs that this bill meets,
I will vote for it. Because of the needs that will remain unmet, I will
not be proud that this House will go on record as saying in time of war
to our servicemen and women thanks for risking their lives, thanks for
fighting in Iraq, thanks for taking care of their children at home
while they are wondering if their loved one will ever come home alive,
while at the same time cutting their quality of life programs by $1.5
billion. I guess it is a testament to my respect for the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), his fairness, his dedication to our
servicemen and women, his commitment to working as hard as any human
could to see that we make the best with an unfair, horrible situation
in this funding level, that I will vote for this bill. And I do want to
pay a special thanks to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg)
for standing up for people who often do not have someone speaking for
them in this House, and that is our servicemen and women overseas,
because I know there was an effort made to make additional cuts in some
of those facilities. There is not much to be gained personally or
politically by defending quality of life commitments overseas because
those folks are not living in our districts at the time. The gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) said no to that kind of cut because he
knew that would have been the wrong thing to do. I salute him and I
hope with his dedication and the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young)
and the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) and other Members of this
House's dedication, we will see before this year ends we can pass a
military construction bill that we can look our servicemen and women in
the eye and say we are proud of them and we do salute them with more
than just words.
So I ask my colleagues, despite my reservations, to support the
tremendous effort and work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) and our subcommittee.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of our men
and women in the Armed Services. For many weeks now, we have all
declared our gratefulness to these warriors and their families of the
sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation.
Besides their incredible efforts in fighting the War on Terrorism,
these patriots and their families have had to learn to live without
their fathers or mothers or spouses present on a daily basis because of
numerous, long, and dangerous deployments, or even worse, if their
loved one has paid the ultimate sacrifice. I, myself, have had more
than my share of families in my district that have paid this price.
I have traveled extensively to our military facilities and have
observed the substandard housing we force our military personnel and
families to live in. We must address this situation.
We are all grateful for these sacrifices, but how will we show this
gratefulness? Will we support the Ranking Member in his effort to scale
back the tax cuts by a mere 5 percent for those who make over a million
dollars a year, so we can restore funding and adequately house our
forces?
Even though we are cutting military construction spending by $1.5
billion from last year's funding, we can still do the right thing at
this time by voting for the Previous Question. We must support the
Ranking Member's efforts and truly show our gratitude to our troops.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Knollenberg
and Ranking Member Edwards for their work on this bill. They have done
their best with an unreasonable and unacceptable allocation. I know
they share my deep disappointment over this level of funding, which is
$1.5 billion less than was appropriated for Military Construction &
Family Housing last year.
Unfortunately this cut makes a bad situation worse. When the Bush
administration came into office, they found a Department of Defense
where the recapitalization rates for facilities varied from 80 to over
100 years in the various services. They rightly condemned this
situation. However, under this budget, the recapitalization rate for
the active Air Force will increase to 183 years. The Navy
recapitalization rate will increase to 140 years. The recapitalization
rate for the Marines actually goes down, but is still an unacceptable
88 years. And the Army recapitalization rate in this budget increases
to 144 years. The DOD goal is 67 years. I strongly support the effort
by Mr. Obey to increase funding for Military Construction and Family
Housing in this bill by $1 billion. This funding, and much more, is
sorely needed.
I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for working
with me on the vital installations in Washington state. We will make a
start in this bill on fixing a Navy pier at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
which today is not up to Navy standards for performing its mission,
which is mooring nuclear powered aircraft carriers. And the bill
includes several important projects to build barracks at Ft. Lewis,
refurbish the Mission Support Center at McChord Air Force Base, and
rebuild the service pier at Subase Bangor. Also, this bill continues to
support the privatization of family housing at Ft. Lewis, WA. Mr.
Chairman, beautiful new houses have been built and are under
construction there, and this Congress can be proud about the new houses
being built for military families through this innovative program.
I hope as this bill proceeds through the Congressional process, that
additional funds can be found to make this a truly responsible piece of
legislation. Having voiced my deep concerns, I will vote today in
support of this bill in order to ensure that those important projects
which do receive funding here are allowed to move forward.
Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, America is indebted to the men and women
of the armed forces. Their success in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the
world give witness to their bravery and commitment. In order to
maintain this dedicated, all-volunteer force and to ensure its
readiness, we must be proactive in providing them adequate quality of
life and training facilities.
The reality is that we are still correcting the spending deficiencies
of the past. Even after years of funding plus-ups to the Department's
military construction budget, service men and women continue to live
and work in aging and inferior facilities. In fact, more than two-
thirds of the services' current facilities are classified at ``C-3'' or
``C-4'' readiness levels. This signifies that their ability to carry
out missions has been appreciably degraded.
I am glad that we are able to work across party lines to ensure that
military construction is funded at the highest levels possible.
H.R. 2559 addresses many of the pressing construction and family
housing needs facing the services. The bill would provide $1.2 billion
for barracks, $16 million for child development centers, and $1.2
billion for new family housing units and improvements to existing ones.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2559, because these new and
improved facilities will enhance the quality of life for our service
members while they are doing their jobs and training to defend America.
We must never let our military deteriorate as we have seen in the
past, because, as recent events have demonstrated, we will never know
when our nation's security will be challenged.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2559, the
Military Construction
[[Page H5986]]
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. It is the second bill we are
considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the
Appropriations Committee on June 17th. I am pleased to report that it
is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, which
Congress adopted on April 10. The budget resolution provided $400.1
billion in discretionary budget authority for national defense. This
bill funds the military construction and family housing portion of that
commitment to our men and women in uniform.
H.R. 2559 provides $9.196 billion in new budget authority and $10.282
billion in outlays for fiscal year 2004. It is therefore identical to
its 302(b) allocation to the House Subcommittee on Military
Construction Appropriations. It does not contain emergency-designated
new BA. It does include $340.5 million in rescissions of previously
enacted BA. Although budget authority in the bill declines by 12.8
percent from the previous year, it is $81 million above the President's
request. This mainly because H.R. 2559 contains a procurement
appropriation of $120 million that, according to CBO, was part of the
administration's request for the Defense appropriation bill rather than
this bill.
The bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which
prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays
established in the budget resolution.
H.R. 2559 represents this House's solemn commitment to the quality of
life of those who put their lives on the line for freedom. It not only
addresses the long-term infrastructure problems at military bases, it
sustains barracks, family housing, medical facilities, and child
support centers across the country and overseas. It also provides
infrastructure funding for National Guard and Reserve troops who now
find themselves on the front lines of the war against terrorism.
Finally, it incorporates the results of real-world national security
policy changes: The redeployment south of U.S. military forces away
from the North Korean border to better-protected bases, and the gradual
drawdown of troops from some Central European bases.
In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2559.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
2559, making appropriations for military construction for fiscal 2004.
This legislation is a strong product for tough times and I want to
commend the Subcommittee Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Knollenberg, and the Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Edwards.
This legislation provides $9.2 billion in funding for military
construction and family housing projects across the country.
While no one is satisfied with the bottom line on this bill and we
all wish that we could not do more, this is a solid product. It
satisfies our obligation to ensure that our men and women in uniform
live in, train at, and deploy from adequate facilities. This bill shows
our commitment to our service members by constructing and upgrading
military installations, and military family housing in the United
States and overseas.
Improving the quality of life for our men and women in uniform
throughout the world is critically important. If we are asking these
brave men and women to protect our national security, then we must
ensure that they have the tools and the facilities to protect
themselves.
America's armed forces have been charged with developing the
capabilities to fight jointly and with coalition partners to secure
victory across the full spectrum of warfare while continuing the
transition to a more flexible, more agile, lighter and more lethal
force.
In this context, I am pleased the Committee has included funding for
a state-of-the-art explosives loading facility at the Army's ``Home of
Lethality''--Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the achievements of our young men and women
in uniform are due in part to the incredible technological advances
employed by our military, much of which has been researched and
developed by Picatinny Arsenal--the only Army-owned, Army-operated
facilities for the research and development of energetics materials
(mines, armor, warheads, artillery, etc.) in the nation. The new
facility will mark a substantial upgrade in safety, environmental
protection and process controls that will benefit the other branches of
the military that rely on Army research and development expertise.
Mr. Chairman, once again I commend Mr. Knollenberg and Mr. Young and
I urge support for this bill.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, today I urge your consideration
of the authorization of $14.3 million for land acquisition to preserve
access to the Barry M. Goldwater Range. This land acquisition would
serve to prevent incompatible land uses and encroachment, and to
increase the margin of safety in the Live Ordnance Departure Area
located southwest of Luke Air Force Base.
The Barry M. Goldwater Range, a 2.7 million acre land and airspace
area in southwest Arizona, is the crown jewel of all flight ranges,
providing the Air Force with the space necessary to conduct live-fire
training and simulating realistically the dimensions of a modern
battlefield.
Luke Air Force Base-with its year-round idyllic weather-is the
training home to the F-16 Fighting Falcon. With an average of 170
sorties flown each day, access to the Barry M. Goldwater Range is an
essential part of the advanced training and practice required of the
Air Force fighter pilots. The southern departure corridor from Luke Air
Force Base is the only air corridor where live ordnance can be carried
out by F-16 Fighters. The threat of advancement and increased pressure
of residential development from what has traditionally been isolated
farmland places the mission and the future of Luke Air Force Base at
risk.
The Air Force has also made this $14.3 million request stating,
``Continued residential development of the departure corridors could
impair Luke [Air Force Base's] ability to support sorties carrying live
ordnance and to fully utilize the [Barry M. Goldwater Range] . . .
[and] further encumbering Luke [Air Force Base's] access to the [Barry
M. Goldwater Range] may adversely impact Luke's mission and result in a
degradation to the national security.''
Mr. EDWARDS. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has 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 has been 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. 2559
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, 2004, and for other
purposes, namely:
Military Construction, Army
(including rescissions)
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, $1,533,660,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $122,710,000 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 both Houses of Congress of his
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Army'' under Public Law 107-249, $142,200,000 are rescinded:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated for
``Military Construction, Army'' under Public Law 107-64,
$24,000,000 are rescinded: Provided further, That of the
funds appropriated for ``Military Construction, Army'' under
Public Law 106-246, $17,415,000 are rescinded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
On page 2, line 13, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$1,726,660,000;
On page 3, line 13, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Navy'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$1,311,907,000;
On page 4, line 5, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and
insert $968,509,000;
On page 4, line 21, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Defense-Wide'', delete the dollar amount and
insert $872,110,000;
On page 5, line 20, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Army National Guard'', delete the dollar amount
and insert $231,860,000;
On page 6, line 3, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Air National Guard'', delete the dollar amount
and insert $95,605,000;
On page 7, line 19, under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$601,191,000;
On page 8, line 13, under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Navy and
[[Page H5987]]
Marine Corps'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$288,193,000;
And on page 9, line 6, under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and
insert $841,065,000.
At the end of the bill, add the following:
Section ______. In the case of taxpayers with adjusted
gross income in excess of $1,000,000 for the tax beginning in
2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of
the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
shall be reduced by five percent.
Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have already explained to the House what
the intention of this amendment is. This amendment would reinstate the
$160 million in cuts from the President's budget for hangers,
maintenance shops, office space, physical fitness facilities for the
military that even the White House thought were crucial. It adds $480
million for family housing to help at least 2,500 military families.
There are 134,000 inadequate units that service those families to date.
It would add $318 million for new barracks. It would help get 5,300
single service personnel into decent housing. The Pentagon says there
is a need for over 83,000 unit fix-ups. And it would pay for that by
reducing the expected tax cut for those with adjusted gross incomes of
more than $1 million dollars annually. We would adjust their tax cuts
from $88,000 to $83,000, thus enabling them to keep 95 percent of their
tax cut. That would free up enough money to meet these military needs,
and I would urge the House, despite the action of the Committee on
Rules, to allow this amendment to go forward.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg)
insist on his point of order?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states in part ``An amendment to a
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing
law.''
At this time I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what has been happening in this House is that
the Committee on Rules has routinely been waiving points of orders for
the majority but denying those same waivers to the minority. That puts
us in an uneven position on the House floor. We are in that kind of
position on this amendment. I want to simply say in conceding the point
of order that I will continue to make this motion on this bill. I will
have it in my motion to recommit. I will try at every stage of the
process to get this matter before the House so we can make these
priority judgments, and it is up to the majority whether it wants to
knock them off the floor or not.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is conceded and
sustained.
The Clerk will read.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill, through page 19, line 19 be considered as read,
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill, from page 3, line 5, though
page 19, line 19 is as follows:
Military Construction, Navy
(including rescissions)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy as currently
authorized by law, including personnel in the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command and other personal services
necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$1,211,077,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $65,612,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, 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 both Houses of Congress of his
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Navy'' under Public Law 107-249, $27,213,000 are rescinded:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated for
``Military Construction, Navy'' under Public Law 107-64,
$12,109,000 are rescinded.
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, $896,136,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $80,543,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, 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 both Houses
of Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
(including rescission and 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, $813,613,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2008: 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 he 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 $63,884,000 shall be available
for study, planning, design, 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
both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons
therefor: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
for ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' under Public Law
107-249, $32,680,000 are rescinded.
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,
$208,033,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.
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,
$77,105,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.
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, $84,569,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008.
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, $38,992,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008.
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, $56,212,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008.
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 in Military
Construction Authorization Acts and section 2806 of title 10,
United States Code, $169,300,000, to remain available until
expended.
[[Page H5988]]
Family Housing Construction, Army
(including rescission)
For expenses of family housing for the Army for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension and alteration, as authorized by law,
$409,191,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated for ``Family Housing
Construction, Army'' under Public Law 107-249, $52,300,000
are rescinded.
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, $1,043,026,000.
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
(including rescission)
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, $184,193,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That of the funds appropriated for ``Family
Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'' under Public
Law 107-249, $3,585,000 are rescinded.
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, $852,778,000.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
(including rescissions)
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension and alteration, as authorized by law,
$657,065,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated for ``Family Housing
Construction, Air Force'' under Public Law 107-249,
$19,347,000 are rescinded: Provided further, That of the
funds appropriated for ``Family Housing Construction, Air
Force'' under Public Law 105-237, $9,692,000 are rescinded.
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, $826,074,000.
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, $350,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008.
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, $49,440,000.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $300,000, 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.
Base Realignment and Closure Account
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law
101-510), $370,427,000, to remain available until expended.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts 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 appropriated in this Act may be
used to begin construction of new bases inside the
continental United States for which specific appropriations
have not been made.
Sec. 105. No part of the funds provided in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts 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 appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts 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 appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts 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.
Sec. 108. No part of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts 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 appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts may be used to initiate a
new installation overseas without prior notification to the
Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts 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 appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts 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 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 appropriations in
Military Construction Appropriations Acts 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
[[Page H5989]]
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 Senate and the House of
Representatives 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. During the current fiscal year, 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 Department of
Defense Authorization Act, 1991, 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, 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 appropriated or made available
by this Act may be obligated for Partnership for Peace
Programs in the New Independent States of the former Soviet
Union.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 123. During the current fiscal year, 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 Department of
Defense Authorization Act, 1991, 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. 124. Notwithstanding this or any other provision of
law, funds appropriated in Military Construction
Appropriations Acts for operations 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 $35,000
per unit may be spent annually for the maintenance and repair
of any general or flag officer quarters without 30 days
advance prior notification to the appropriate committees of
Congress, 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 all operations and maintenance expenditures
for each individual general or flag officer quarters for the
prior fiscal year.
Sec. 125. 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. 126. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for
the Department of the Army for military construction projects
in the Republic of Korea may be obligated or expended for
projects at Camp Humphreys in the Republic of Korea until the
Secretary of Defense certifies and reports to the appropriate
committees of Congress that the United States and the
Republic of Korea have entered into an agreement on the
availability and use of land sufficient for such projects.
The certification must be presented to the committees no
later than September 30, 2004, or the funds expire.
{time} 1630
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Appropriations Act, 2004''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore, Mr.
Thornberry, having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, 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. 2559)
making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and
base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, pursuant
to House Resolution 298, 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. Without the motion to recommit, yes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2559, to the
Committee on Appropriation with instructions to report the
same forthwith with the following amendment:
On page 2, line 13, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$1,726,660,000;
On page 3, line 13, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Navy'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$1,311,907,000;
On page 4, line 5, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and
insert $968,509,000;
On page 4, line 21, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Defense-Wide'', delete the dollar amount and
insert $872,110,000;
On page 5, line 20, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Army National Guard, delete the dollar amount
and insert $231,860,000;
On page 6, line 3, under the heading ``Military
Construction, Air National Guard'', delete the dollar amount
and insert $95,605,000;
On page 7, line 19, under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert
$601,191,000;
On page 8, line 13, under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'', delete the dollar
amount and insert $288,193,000;
And on page 9, line 6, under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and
insert $841,065,000.
At the end of the bill, add the following:
Section ____. In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross
income in excess of $1,000,000 for the tax year beginning in
2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of
the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
shall be reduced by five percent.
Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on his motion to recommit.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the 5 minutes. This is simply
the same motion I offered before. If this House were operating on the
basis of any degree of fairness today, it would be before the House,
and I would simply ask that the majority refrain from offering the
point of order against it. I know they have their marching orders. They
have to do what they have to do, and I have to do what I have to do.
Point of Order
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
motion to recommit because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment proposes to alter the application of existing law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be
heard on the point of order?
[[Page H5990]]
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
As I said earlier, this is the same motion I made before. What is
happening here is that because of a technical difference in the way the
rules are being applied to the majority and the minority, we are being
prevented from offering a motion which would strike a much better
balance between the needs of our military and the needs of the most
well-off people in this society.
With that, I concede the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin concedes the
point of order. The point of order is sustained.
Motion To Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBEY. I am, Mr. Speaker.
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. 2559, to the
Committee on Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
The question is on the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The motion was rejected.
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.
Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
passage of H.R. 2559 will be followed by 5-minute votes on suspending
the rules and adopting House Resolution 277 and on agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 428,
nays 0, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 325]
YEAS--428
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
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
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
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
Fletcher
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)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
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)
Janklow
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
Kirk
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
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
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
Obey
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
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
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)
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)
NOT VOTING--6
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cox
Gephardt
McInnis
Paul
Smith (WA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members
are reminded less than 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1654
Mr. ACKERMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Floor
Latest Action
House amendment offered
June 26, 2003
View full timeline
Floor
House amendment offered
June 26, 2003
Not Used
House amendment offered/reported by : Amendment (A001) offered by Mr. Obey.(consideration: CR H5986-5987; text: CR H5986-5987)
June 26, 2003 • 4:25 PM
Floor
Amendment (A001) offered by Mr. Obey. (consideration: CR H5986-5987; text: CR H5986-5987)
June 26, 2003 • 4:25 PM
Floor
Mr. Knollenberg raised a point of order against the Obey amendment (A001). Mr. Knollengerg stated that the amendment sought to change existing law and as such constituted legislation in an appropriations bill. The Chair sustained the point of order.
June 26, 2003 • 4:26 PM