Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2559) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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. Speaker, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the rule under consideration for H.R. 2559, the Fiscal Year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations Act, is an open rule. It provides for one hour of general debate, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, allows for germane amendments and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the work of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) of the Subcommittee on Military Construction along with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for continuing the tradition of bipartisan action on this bill and for doing the best with a terrible allocation.

Mr. Speaker, I have a terrible feeling of deja vu. Almost exactly 1 year ago, on June 27 of 2002, I stood on this House floor as the minority manager of the rule on the fiscal year 2003 military construction bill. Along with the then-chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), we all bemoaned the inadequacy of that bill. We all pledged to do better next year and called upon President Bush to increase the budget for desperately needed military construction, housing, base realignment and base closure.

Well, 1 year later none of that has happened. In fact, this year is even worse. If last year's appropriations bill was inadequate, this one is woefully inadequate, to quote the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg). In fact, the fiscal year 2004 bill is $1.5 billion less than last year's bill. Let me repeat that. This bill is $1.5 billion less than the fiscal year 2003 funding levels. It is even $41 million less than the chairman's request.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues what in the world are we doing? How can we stand on this House floor day after day, week after week and declare how much we support our uniformed men and women when the funding provided for family housing in this bill is $270 million less than last year? How can we stand on the floor of this House day after day, week after week and say that we are engaged in a long-term struggle against a global enemy when funding for military construction in this bill is $1 billion less than last year?

Mr. Speaker, poor facility conditions are not only unsafe, they hamper readiness and decrease troop retention. According to the Pentagon, 180,000 of the 300,000 units of military housing are substandard. According to the Pentagon, 68 percent of the Department's facilities have deficiencies so serious that they might impede mission readiness or they are so deteriorated that they cannot support mission requirements. The current reductions in funding for construction in these facility categories means that the rate at which buildings are renovated or replaced has just increased from 83 years to 150 years.

This is a national scandal. And let us be clear, this bill is not only about new housing, it is about the operation and maintenance of existing family housing. One of the few increases in family housing in this bill is for the Army. It receives an $81 million increase. Unfortunately, funding for the operation and maintenance of existing Army family housing is cut by $63 million, allowing more and more current housing units to deteriorate and fall into substandard condition. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing that since the events of September 11 we live in a changed world. I keep on hearing how much we appreciate our Armed Forces, how much we appreciate their sacrifice and service. Then why do we keep cutting and cutting and cutting the military construction appropriations bill? We obviously do not appreciate them enough to give them decent housing. We obviously do not admire them enough to give them quality facilities. Are we going to be on the floor of this House next year expressing our disappointment over how inadequate the military construction appropriations bill is again?

Now, I have been told that we should just wait until the 2005 round of base closings, then we will see some modest increases for housing at the bases that survive the next round of closures. That is as cynical a rationalization as I have ever heard. Do we honestly believe that inadequate housing and facilities exist only on bases likely to be closed down?

Mr. Speaker, this crisis in funding for family housing and military construction is nationwide. It exists at nearly every single base and installation across the land and overseas, and it affects every branch of our Armed Forces. And if base closure is somehow magically supposed to balance the ledgers, then why are we in such a housing and construction crisis right now?

It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker, and there is a remedy. The ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), tried to provide an extra $958 million above the allocation level for military construction and housing. His solution is not hard to accept. This House would simply scale back 5 percent of the scheduled tax cut for people with adjusted gross incomes of over $1 million for 1 year. This would mean that the tax refund for these individuals would be reduced from about $88,000 to $83,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent census, there are more than 280 million people in the United States. This modest change in the tax cut would affect about 200,000 individuals, or less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers. Such a small adjustment, however, would provide nearly a billion dollars to help ensure that more than 1.4 million men and women who serve our country on active duty have decent housing and workplaces for themselves and their families. But the Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations rejected the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) proposal, and last night the Republicans on the Committee on Rules refused to allow the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment to even be debated and voted on in this House.

So we are faced with the results of what happens when we rob our Nation of the most basic revenue needed to adequately fund our Nation's priorities. We rob our valiant military personnel of decent homes and facilities. We rob our veterans of their basic benefits. We cut back funding for schools and child care for military families. And we are faced with passing this woefully inadequate bill, a bill I believe that for all the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), can only be viewed as a shameful scandal on the part of this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has worked very hard on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their eloquent and powerful words and for reminding us all how we are not living up to our promise to our uniformed men and women, and it is something that every single Member in this House should listen to very carefully; and we now have an opportunity to be able to do something about that.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a recorded vote on the previous question, and I will urge Members to vote ``no'' on the

previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Obey amendment to restore funding for military construction programs. This amendment was submitted to the Committee on Rules and rejected by the Republican majority.

The bill provides $9.2 billion for military construction spending. That is $41 million below the level requested by the President, and $1.5 billion less than last year. As we have said over and over, even the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, called the bill woefully underfunded.

This amendment will help restore some of these desperately needed additional funds. It will provide an additional $958 million above the subcommittee's allocation. This would be offset by reducing the 2004 tax cut for 200,000 millionaires from $88,000 to $83,000. That is it.

Mr. Speaker, whether or not Members are Republicans or Democrats, they should be extremely concerned, in fact outraged, about the lack of adequate funding for the programs that help our men and women in the military. The Obey amendment would help fix that and do so with no additional cost to the deficit.

Our rhetoric is simply not enough, Mr. Speaker. If we want to honor our uniformed men and women then we should not be cutting their benefits and their programs. We should be providing them what they need.

So I will urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let me emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the military construction appropriations bill. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering the Obey amendment to help restore funding for this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The material previously referred to by the gentleman from Massachusetts is as follows:

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

Military Construction Appropriations

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order and before

any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of

Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to

amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for

a division of the question in the committee of the whole or

in the House.

``Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as

follows:

On page 2, line 13, under the heading ``Military

Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert

$1,726,660,000;

On page 3, line 13, under the heading ``Military

Construction, Navy'', delete the dollar amount and insert

$1,311,907,000;

On page 4, line 5, under the heading ``Military

Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and

insert $968,509,000;

On page 4, line 21, under the heading ``Military

Construction, Defense-Wide'', delete the dollar amount and

insert $872,110,000;

On page 5, line 20, under the heading ``Military

Construction, Army National Guard, delete the dollar amount

and insert $231,860,000;

On page 6, line 3, under the heading ``Military

Construction Air National Guard'', delete the dollar amount

and insert $95,605,000;

On page 7, line 19, under the heading ``Family Housing

Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert

$601,191,000;

On page 8, line 13, under the heading ``Family Housing

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'', delete the dollar

amount and insert $288,193,000;

And on page 9, line 6, under the heading ``Family Housing

Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and

insert $841,065,000.

At the end of the bill, add the following:

Section . In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross

income tax excess of $1,000,000 for the tax year beginning in

2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of

the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

shall be reduced by five percent.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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, it would be so nice if the force of our rhetoric is matched by the force of our deeds. That certainly is not the case with this bill.

Just a few months ago this House passed this resolution and it said,

among other things, ``Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that the Congress express the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism and bravery and also to their families.''

Well, the sad news, unfortunately, is that the check is not in the mail. We have given them a resolution but we are short-sheeting them in terms of things that military families need in order to make their life better. I do not understand why we are doing that. This bill shows the House's ``support and appreciation'' by providing $1.5 billion less than we appropriated last year to provide the military with decent housing and work places.

The bill also thanks the military supposedly by cutting the President's own request for the Pentagon by $180 million. This is for hangers, offices, fitness centers and teaching facilities that even OMB and the administration said the military needed. But this bill cuts them out.

Many Members of this House have seen the problems for themselves. The Pentagon itself rates the readiness of most military facilities as marginal or worse. Over 225,000 service members and their families cannot get decent barracks or decent housing. This bill is not up to the job and we all know why. It is not the fault of the subcommittee chairman. It is the fault of every single Member of this House who voted for the budget resolution which said that the only priorities for this year was going to be tax cuts. And as you know, the lion's share of the tax cuts went into the pockets of the most wealthy 1 percent of people in this country.

So as a result of that decision by the Republican leadership to put tax cuts as the primary goal of this Congress, the budget resolution, for instance, that was passed is on track to cut $28 billion from veterans benefits. There would be, under the White House budget, $200 million in cuts to impact aid to the school districts that educate the children of military families. As many as 230,000 military families have been cut out of the low income child tax provision.

We are taking millionaires off the tax roll, but we are not giving the people who need the help the most anything but table scraps on the tax side.

The defense bill, which was marked up this morning in full committee, will cut raises for the most junior enlisted and officer personnel from the 4.1 percent they have been expecting to just 2 percent. I want to see how many of you who have cried about the fact that you have Army personnel on food stamps, I want to see how many of you vote to cut that. I want to watch that.

A realistic budget resolution has been beyond the reach of the Congress, and this is the result as we are seeing today. Now, I want to be able to offer an amendment to correct the problem. My amendment would reinstate the $160 million in cuts from the President's budget. I would like to restore all of them. I think the White House is right. We need them. I would also add $480 million for family housing. That would help at least 2,500 military families. That would be a useful first step in replacing the 134,000 inadequate units that service members and their families are forced to live in today.

Finally, the amendment would provide $318 million for new barracks that would help 5,300 single service members into decent housing. The Pentagon says we need over 83,000 units, so even this amendment goes just an inch. My amendment is an opportunity to restore the projects the President said were needed, to help about 8,000 service members and their families, and it would help Congress to keep its promise to the troops.

Now, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has indicated, I would pay for it by changing the tax package that was just passed by this Congress. What I would say is that for persons with adjusted gross incomes of more than $1 million, instead of their getting the $88,000 tax cut they will get next year, we would cut that to $83,000. That is hardly starvation wages. Now, these are not just millionaires. These are people with adjusted gross incomes of more than $1 million each year, about 200,000 people in this society. And I bet if you asked them, they would say they would happily take that reduction in order to provide a real improvement in the quality of life for our troops.

We are saying let them keep 95 percent of their tax cut but use that $5,000 difference to give people who are putting their lives on the line for this country better living conditions.

I do not know if you saw the article in the ``Army Times'' June 30, 2003. Mr. Speaker, I will insert this article in the Record immediately after my remarks.

I would also like to read you two paragraphs from a news story today out of The New York Times. It reads as follows: ``The 400 wealthiest taxpayers who accounted for more than 1 percent of all income in the United States in the year 2000 more than doubled their share from 8 years earlier, but their tax burden plummeted over that same period of time.''

The article then goes on to say why, and then it says that ``had President Bush's latest tax cuts been in effect in 2000, the average tax bill for the top 400 earners in the country would have been about $30.4 million, a savings of $8.3 million, or more than a fifth.''

Now, when we are in tough times, we have to ask, in my judgment, who needs help the most. I think that decent military housing ought to come before $88,000 tax cuts for the most comfortable people in this society. We are not saying cut them out. We are simply saying shave them back by 5 percent.

Our problem is, we will not even be able to offer this amendment on the floor today because the Committee on Rules said, ``No way, baby.'' So that means that once again, the Republican majority is able to hide behind its budget resolution which did not specify where the cuts would come from in order to pay for the tax cuts.

We have a serious problem in this House. The budget process is supposed to force the Congress to make choices, to recognize trade- offs, and explicitly make those choices in full view of the country. Instead, the budget process is being used in conjunction with the rules out of the Committee on Rules to deny the public the understanding of what the costs are from those tax cuts. So they get to think that they are cost-free.

They do not know, for instance, that they will cost the public an extra $27 billion in interest payments next year. If we could take just $10 billion of that extra interest payment, we could take care of the shortcomings in education, in health care, in military housing, and every other appropriation bill that comes before us. That is what we would do if we had any sense of common sense. That is what we would do if we had any sense of justice.

I urge you to vote against the previous question on the rule so that we can offer the amendment that I have just described.

[From the Army Times, June 30, 2003]

Nothing but Lip Service

In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-

controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly

deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap--and

getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime

treatment the troops are getting lately.

For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-

benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by

Congress are wasteful and unnecessary--including a modest

proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of

troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when

Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a

day.

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it

wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly

imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation

allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in

combat zones.

Then there's military tax relief--or the lack thereof. As

Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of

tax cuts, they can't seem to find time to make progress on

minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military

homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training

and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.

Incredibly, one of those tax provisions--easing residency

rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains

exemptions when selling a home--has been a homeless orphan in

the corridors of power for more than five years now.

The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush's proposed

2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for

some ranks, he also proposed capping raises

for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average

raise of 4.1 percent.

The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea,

and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and

higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the

bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be

hashed out in upcoming negotiations.

All of which brings us to the latest indignity--Bush's $9.2

billion military construction request for 2004, which was set

a full $1.5 billion below this year's budget on the

expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent

years, would add funding as it drafted the construction

appropriations bill.

But Bush's tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004

federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on

across the board.

The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military

construction panel accepted Bush's proposed $1.5 billion cut,

it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41

million next year.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House

Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion

of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush's construction budget. He

proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for

the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a

year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive

$83,500.

The Republican majority on the construction appropriations

panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making

progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that

needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other

facilities is bleak at best.

Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be

viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal

if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling

pattern that eventually will hurt morale--especially if the

current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked

and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed

a resolution in March pledging ``unequivocal support'' to

service members and their families, puts it this way:

``American military men and women don't deserve to be saluted

with our words and insulted by our actions.''

Translation: Money talks--and we all know what walks.

Mr. 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.