Expressing support for freedom in Hong Kong.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

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. 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.

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. 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.

Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his kind words but mostly for his strong efforts in behalf of not only democracy in Hong Kong but around the world. I rise in support of H. Res. 667, which expresses the sense of this House in support of freedom and democracy and self-determination for the people of Hong Kong.

Nearly 2 million of Hong Kong's 7 million people voted yesterday and pro-democracy advocates won 25 out of the 30 seats that they were eligible to compete for. But the other half of the 60 seats in the LegCo were not elected through universal suffrage because those seats were decided by so-called functional constituencies, effectively controlled by Beijing. Many observers have compared the functional constituencies to Britain's ``rotten boroughs,'' where a handful of malleable voters held all the power.

Genuine democracy should be allowed under Beijing's oft repeated slogan of ``one country, two systems.'' It ought to be allowed because it is what the people of Hong Kong want. But at present neither Hong Kong's chief executive nor most of its lawmakers are democratically elected. Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa, shortly after taking power in 1997, assured this Congressman and the United States Congress that, quote, further democratic evolution will depend on the wish of the Hong Kong people. Seven years later, the People's Republic of China has not made good on that promise.

We have been here before.

Last year, the House passed H. Res. 277, responding to a direct threat against freedom in Hong Kong, a Communist-backed law designed to restrict free speech and civil liberties in the guise of punishing subversion. Just days later, more than a half million people in Hong Kong demonstrated against the proposed law. In combination with American and international outrage, this courageous demonstration of people power resulted in a tactical victory for freedom. The law so far remains shelved.

But this year Beijing has returned with a new tactic. Since it is easier simply to prevent democratic elections than it is to completely crush free speech, the Communist regime simply ruled out any possibility of democratic elections for chief executive in 2007 and for the legislature in 2008. They did this on April 6 of this year without even consulting the people of Hong Kong as is required by the basic law. This new interpretation of the basic law bars the legislature of Hong Kong from any actions towards electoral reform until Beijing has granted its blessings. Beijing then sought to ensure that what little democracy the people of Hong Kong were allowed to exercise would be severely manipulated.

These intentions became clear on May 5 of this year. On that day, just a few months ago, the People's Republic of China sailed eight PLA warships down Victoria Harbor in Hong Kong. This overt show of military force, which was the first time that this has happened since the handover in 1997, included four frigates, two submarines, two destroyers, and all the sailors standing at attention atop their vessels. The display left little doubt as to how seriously the Communist regime viewed the question of fully democratic elections and their intention not to have them.

At the same time, the People's Republic of China began a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Hong Kong's pro-democracy activists. As my colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) has described, in early May of this year Albert Cheung, a well-known radio host and columnist, was forced to flee Hong Kong after receiving threats against his life from PRC officials. Mr. Cheung left behind an audio recording. It detailed threats of violence made against him and his family. Shortly thereafter, his replacement on the show, Allen Lee, was also forced to quit broadcasting, citing the need to protect his family. He received a late-night threat by telephone from a PRC official who referred pointedly to his wife and his daughter. Media outlets in Hong Kong have been silenced through commercial pressure for supporting or even just reporting on democratic views. Chinese property developers, for instance, boycotted advertising in the Chinese language Apple

Daily newspaper for daring to report on the July 1 pro-democracy demonstrations. This industry has always been the largest ad buyer for the paper. Pro-democracy legislative candidate Alex Ho was detained under suspicious circumstances on a business trip to the mainland in early August. He was accused of consorting with a prostitute and sentenced to 6 months without a trial. According to Asian media outlets, Hong Kong media moguls who steered their outlets towards Beijing's wishes in the run-up to yesterday's elections have been rewarded with political titles and easier mainland China market access.

In mid May, numerous Hong Kong voters called in to local radio shows to report that they were pressured to vote for Beijing's preferred candidates. Several callers reported being contacted by relatives on the mainland and told that if they did not vote for pro-Beijing candidates, their relatives on the mainland would face severe consequences. Human Rights Watch has recounted in a 42-page report on September 9 that one caller reported, quote, a senior staff member of my company asked me to vote for pro-Beijing candidates instead of pro- democracy candidates. To make sure I have done that, he told me to take pictures of my completed ballot with my mobile phone camera.

As the PRC learned to counter potential freedom through the Internet, so has it learned to twist the freedom of wireless communication into just another tool of oppression. On May 19, the office of legislator Leung Yiu-chung was defaced with excrement. This vandalism closely followed Leung's support in the legislature for a pro-democracy resolution. In June, vandals set fire to election posters in the office of pro-democracy legislator Emily Lau and wrote, quote, Chinese traitors must die on the wall outside.

In July, Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption, an anticorruption body admired worldwide, became just another blunt instrument of Communist rule, raiding the offices of local newspapers, including the South China Morning Post, Apple Daily, Oriental Daily News, the Sun, and Sing Tao. Even the ostensibly pro-Communist Ta Kung Pao newspaper was not spared. Some investigators remained on the scene for up to 10 hours. Journalists' homes were searched and many were not so cordially invited for further questioning. Since the commission is answerable to Hong Kong's unelected chief executive, C.H. Tung, it is unlikely that orders came anywhere but from the top.

All these examples constitute a strange melding of criminal elements. The director of the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, Law Yuk-kai, has said, quote, we believe the Ministry of State Security and Hong Kong triads are collaborating in this political violence and intimidation. Yet this campaign of intimidation and harassment had a goal more important than simply winning yesterday's elections. It was about the PRC making Hong Kong voters understand that supporting democratic forces carries a heavy price. Despite the very real threats from the Communist regime, the people of Hong Kong still went to the polls in record numbers and they returned a near totality of the democratically elected seats in the LegCo. The people of Hong Kong have shown that they will not be intimidated or silenced.

Stephen Vines wrote in the Hong Kong Standard on August 4, 2004, ``Those of us who work in the media have been accused of crying wolf far too often, but maybe we have not cried wolf often enough.'' According to Vines, the way to prevent such erosions of freedom is not to wait for dramatic events like editors being murdered in Russia or newspapers being forcibly closed in mainland China. ``If we need to wait for the worst before speaking out,'' he said, ``we will have waited too long.''

More than 400 academics declared in an advertisement in the Apple Daily newspaper on May 27 that, quote, in the face of autocratic and political pressure, we will not be silent. The people of Hong Kong know that they must defend their democracy and their way of life against Communist oppression. Now it is up to us to remind them that the American people stand with them.

This House demands that Beijing guarantee all revisions of Hong Kong law reflect the wishes of the people of Hong Kong as expressed through a fully democratically elected legislature and chief executive. A high degree of autonomy is what was promised to the people of Hong Kong in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Hong Kong's Basic Law stipulates that Beijing has authority over defense and foreign affairs but that Hong Kong itself should have autonomy for most domestic affairs, driven by an independent electoral democracy. Beijing's attempts this year, as in the past, constitute a blatant violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong, of the Basic Law and of the People's Republic of China's treaty obligations.

An act of this Congress, the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act, directly ties our commercial interests in Hong Kong to the freedom of Hong Kong's people. The President of the United States has the authority under the act to suspend many of the special treatments we extend to the territory in areas including export controls, customs, air service and cultural and educational exchange because Beijing's ham-fisted violation of the Hong Kong autonomy violates that act. The Communists were caught off guard by the massive popular demonstrations in July, both this year and last. For ages, Beijing has maintained the belief that any complaints about autonomy and democracy were really veiled economic frustrations, that the people of Hong Kong could be satisfied with some economic sweeteners. Now perhaps the Communist regime may begin to understand. Business interests can be purchased and bureaucratic machinery can be controlled, but the hearts and minds of the people of Hong Kong are not for sale.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's elections were part of a broader fight for the soul of Hong Kong and ultimately the future of China. We believe that Communist China must follow Hong Kong's example of freedom, not the other way around. Hong Kong's 7 million people remain the best hope for freedom and democracy for billions of other people in China and throughout Asia.

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.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Without the motion to recommit, yes.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

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. 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.

$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.

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:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN03.002

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

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.