[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 77 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5659-H5674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3517.
{time} 1121
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3517) making appropriations for military construction, family housing,
and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr.
LaTourette in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] and the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. It is my pleasure to present to the House the recommendations
for the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
The funding contained in H.R. 3517 totals $10 billion, is within the
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, and represents a $1.2 billion, or 10
percent, decrease from last year.
Mr. Chairman, from the outset, we have worked closely with the
National Security Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities
and are supporting only those items contained in the House-passed
authorization bill.
Public attention has recently focused on the problems our
subcommittee has been citing for several years: the quality of military
housing for unaccompanied personnel and those with families, the
necessity for support facilities, and the importance of providing an
adequate working environment to improve productivity and readiness. The
committee has heard testimony from many different individuals and
organizations regarding these problems, and we continue to feel
strongly that the funds in this bill significantly contribute to the
readiness and retention of our military personnel.
The recommendations before the House today deal with the critical
problem of underfunding in these areas. The budget request of $9.1
billion represents a decrease of over $2 billion, or 18 percent, from
current spending. While there are many aspects of the request that are
commendable, there are areas of concern, particularly in the
unaccompanied personnel and family housing arenas. For example, the
report on the Quality of Life Task Force, chaired by former Secretary
of the Army Jack Marsh, cites that 62 percent of the barrack spaces and
64 percent of family housing units are unsuitable. Yet, while the
Department has committed itself to a serious barracks revitalization
program, the request for barracks construction is $65 million, or 10
percent below last year. And, family housing construction and operation
and maintenance accounts are reduced by $405 million.
Mr. Chairman, these reductions are not acceptable to this committee
and, therefore, we are recommending an additional $900 million above
the budget request. Of these additional funds, roughly $680 million, or
75 percent, has been devoted to barracks, family housing and child
development centers.
Of the total $10 billion recommendations, $4.3 billion, or 43
percent, is for construction and operations and maintenance of family
housing. It is imperative that a sustained overall commitment to
funding levels be maintained that will reduce deficits and increase the
quality of living conditions. The recommendations in this bill signify
congressional commitment to meet that goal.
Thirty-one percent, or $3.2 billion, is devoted to military
construction for facilities that support our service members and their
families and improve productivity and readiness. Included under these
accounts is $776 million to address the substandard housing troops must
live in; $313 million for hospital and medical facilities; $132 million
for chemical weapons demilitarization; $88 million for environmental
compliance; and $34 million for child development centers.
In addition, a significant portion of this appropriation, $2.5
billion, is to continue the ongoing downsizing of DOD's infrastructure
through the base realignment and closure program. The implementation of
base closures requires large upfront costs to ensure eventual savings,
and this funding will keep closures ongoing and on schedule.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee
for their help in bringing this bill to the floor. We have worked in a
bipartisan manner to produce a bill which addresses the needs of
today's military. I want to express my deep appreciation to Mr. Hefner
for his commitment to this subcommittee. He has worked hard for many
years to provide the badly needed improvements for the men and women
who serve in our Armed Forces. His dedication to this process is
invaluable.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this $10 billion is only 4 percent of
the total defense budget and a $1.2 billion decrease from last year's
appropriation. But, this $10 billion directly supports the men and
women in our Armed Forces; it increases productivity, readiness and
recruitment, all very vital to a strong national defense. I ask my
colleagues to join us in passing this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following data:
[[Page H5660]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30MY96.000
[[Page H5661]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30MY96.001
[[Page H5662]]
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal year
1997 military construction bill, and I want to compliment the
distinguished chairwoman of the military construction subcommittee for
her work. The gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] has worked hard
to produce a good bill that responds to the highest priorities needs of
our service men and women, and she has done so in a bipartisan way.
As chairman of this subcommittee, I have in the past emphasized the
importance of providing adequate funding for quality of life projects.
It is easy to pay lip service to the importance of addressing our needs
for military family housing and barracks, and we on the subcommittee
understand providing our men and women in the military with a decent
place to live is a key to military readiness and retention, and with
this bill we continue to make important progress on this issue.
The bill contains $10 billion in total funding and is consistent with
a 602(b) allocation. All the projects are included in the authorization
bill as passed by the House. There is $4.3 billion in the bill for
family housing, and $777 million for new barracks, all very important
projects. Recognizing the importance of family housing, barracks and
child development centers, the bill includes $545 billion beyond the
President's request for badly needed facilities. I believe that is $545
million; it is not that much of an increase. I think it is a
typographical error.
At Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force bases, several important projects
are being funded, including significant improvements for family housing
and medical facilities as well as acquisition of additional and needed
funding for Fort Bragg.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, with all the various interation of base closures,
bottom-up reviews, and 5-year plans, there has been a lot of pressure
for significant reductions in funds for family housing. I am very
pleased that this bill continues our bipartisan effort to address the
quality-of-life issues for both enlisted personnel and families of
military members. It may not seem that glamorous to fund barracks,
family housing, and child care centers, but if Members have any
exposure to the military way of life, they know that providing a decent
place to live is an important factor in military readiness.
This bill also takes care of many other critical needs of the
Department, including the base closure and construction and cleanup
requirements, critically needed medical facilities, major new
homeporting facilities, and other operational upgrades.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just want to joint that chorus of folks that
have complimented the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] for
doing an excellent job in a very, what I like to refer to as a
nonpartisan way. This is probably the most nonpartisan committee on the
Hill, and if we had more cooperation in other committees such as we
have in this committee, we probably could get a lot more things done
than we do around here. I wish her very well and the very best in her
retirement, and I hope that she gets to play all the golf that she
wants to play.
As a very dear friend of mine, and I mentioned this in the Committee
on Rules today, who has passed on now, has said in all of his closing
speeches, talking about individuals, he always said: ``I hope you live
as long as you want and never want as long as you live,'' and I hope
that for you. I hope the gentlewoman has a long and happy retirement
and I hope we see her from time to time in Washington, if we are all
fortunate enough to be back here.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's kind
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who also serves as a member of our
Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the
gentlewoman from Nevada, for yielding time to me.
I also wanted to thank the distinguished ranking minority member and
former chairman of the subcommittee for his remarks and for his support
for the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous support of the bill, but I also rise
in tribute to the distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee. She has
done an outstanding job over these many years, and she has brought a
great bill to the floor at this time.
The President, of course, has asked for $12 billion less in the
overall defense budget than what we appropriated last year. In this
particular subcommittee, he asked for about $2 billion less than we
appropriated last year. Under the leadership of the gentlewoman from
Nevada, the chairwoman of this subcommittee, we struck a compromise
between what the President wanted and what we appropriated last year,
and we are providing $10 billion for such things as family housing
units privatization, barracks privatization, child development centers,
hospital and medical facilities, environmental compliance, and
demolition of dilapidated, excess facilities. So there is a lot of good
in here, and I think it is reflective of the character of all of the
members of the subcommittee, and especially its chairman, the
gentlewoman from Nevada, Barbara Vucanovich.
If I may, I would like to just take a minute to point out that she
has been in Congress a number of years, having not held elective office
before she came, but she has represented the people of Nevada in
exemplary fashion. She currently serves as the Republican Conference
secretary. She gave up her position on the Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources, where she had tremendous interest in trying to take
care of the needs of her State and involving herself in issues of great
interest, such as revision of the mining laws and other things
affecting western lands and western States, in order to take this
chairmanship, and she just ran with it; and she has really done
tremendous work in trying to meet the needs of the young people in
uniform and providing for their assistance, their living standards,
where, unfortunately, we have found in years past far too many people
in uniform live in dilapidated and substandard housing.
The gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] has toed the line and
has worked very hard with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Hefner] to upgrade those conditions, eliminate that problem, and make
sure all people are well taken care of.
I think she has produced a bill, a bipartisan bill, as the gentleman
from North Carolina has pointed out, that can pass and should be signed
into law, despite the fact it is $1 billion over what the President
asked for. I think this is because the Members of Congress in this body
have looked after the needs of the service people and have met those
needs within the budget confines with which we are currently faced.
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentlewoman, I thank her for her
service, thank her for her work on this bill, and just as the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] has said, I want to extend my very
best wishes to her for a very long and happy retirement with her
husband, George, and wish her and all her 5 children, 15 grandchildren,
and 3 great-grandchildren, all of the best of everything that life has
to offer.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], who is also retiring this
year, and has done a tremendous job since he has been in Congress,
especially for the veterans and for the military readiness and for
quality of life for our troops in the military.
(Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina for yielding me this time, and I commend the chairman of the
committee and the subcommittee for her wonderful work, and I look
forward to seeing her in retirement.
[[Page H5663]]
Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation. I did not have time to
orient either side, but I have a problem. However, I do support the
bill. I have a problem with the Army National Guard, and the gentleman
from Colorado knows my complaint.
The Army National Guard was recommended by the President this year
for military construction for the Army National Guard, which has over
2,000 units, about $7 million from the President's request. The
authorization committee from the Army National Guard came up with $41
million.
My point is that, really, that is not enough money. Last year the
Committee on Appropriations gave us $137 million, so we are actually
getting $96 million less for the Army National Guard than we got last
year. That is a tremendous decrease. I point out that of the total
military budget, that the Reserves and National Guard are getting only
3 percent of the authorization budget, only 3 percent, yet they have 40
percent of the missions, they have 40 percent of the missions.
So this is out of line, and if we are going to depend on the Guard
and Reserve more to carry on under the total force, we certainly should
maybe next year, and I do not have an amendment to offer, but next time
I would hope that whoever is here will try to give more funding for the
Reserves in military construction.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the members of the committee
that I, too, want to commend and congratulate the Chair of the
Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], and to
personally thank her for the assistance she has given to this freshman
Congressman as a member of her subcommittee. I also want to commend the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for the bipartisan approach
that he and the members of the minority have taken with regard to this
particular legislation. I rise, of course, in strong support of the
bill.
During our subcommittee's hearings over these past few weeks, the
predominant concern expressed was the continued deterioration of
quality-of-life and infrastructure needs which support our military men
and women. We all want to give our Armed Forces the best weapons
systems, training, and equipment we can afford. Unfortunately, one area
of the military that has not received as much attention in recent years
has been this issue of brick and mortar.
In November 1994, the Department of Defense created a task force on
the quality of life to assess the problems associated with military
housing. On February 28 of this year, the chairman of this task force,
former Secretary of the Army John Marsh, reported the findings of the
year-long study.
The findings of the task force were disturbing. With regard to
military family housing, 64 percent of these homes were classified as
unsuitable. With regard to barracks for our single troops, 62 percent
of these barracks were considered substandard due to overcrowding and
poor conditions. One-half of all military barracks were built 30 or
more years ago, and one-fourth require continuous upkeep to deal with
such problems as asbestos, corroded pipes, and inadequate ventilation.
The Department of Defense also faces a 160,000-unit shortfall in
barracks space. It would take 40 years, according to current estimates,
and $8.5 billion to correct all of the deficiencies. Clearly, Mr.
Chairman, whatever we are able to do today will fall far short of what
we need to do to correct this situation.
The bill sends a clear message that we are going to take care of our
military personnel. Family housing projects account for 43 percent of
the bill. In addition, this bill provides $2.5 billion for one-time
costs associated with base realignment and closing. Furthermore, in an
effort to meet the child care needs of military facilities, this bill
sets aside $34 million for child development centers.
Finally, like most of my colleagues, I am concerned about the budget
deficit, the increasing national debt, which now exceeds $5 trillion.
This bill is fiscally responsible, Mr. Chairman. It is within our 602
allocations, and at the same time it addresses important quality-of-
life and military issues. I commend the work of the subcommittee, I
commend the work of our Chair and our ranking minority member, and I
strongly urge the adoption of this military construction bill.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill because I believe it
represents the wrong emphasis in spending priorities. I certainly
appreciate the fact that the funding in this bill represents a cut of
about $1 billion below last year. The $10 billion in spending contained
in this bill, however, is higher than can be justified.
I certainly share with the previous speakers the concern about
improving living conditions of men and women and families that are in
our Armed Forces, but I cannot support spending on military
construction at a level that is $900 million above the President's
request, given the budget constraints we are facing. The fact of the
matter is that in order to provide additional spending in this bill and
stay within the budget allocation, the Committee on Appropriations will
have to make deeper cuts in spending for education, agriculture, and
other important domestic programs in subsequent appropriations bills.
The issue is not just whether the programs and projects funded in this
bill are for worthy causes, but can we justify the deep cuts in other
programs necessary to pay for the additional increased spending in this
bill; can we do it? I do not believe that we can.
Although I am opposed to this bill, I would like to compliment the
managers of the bill and the members of the Committee on Appropriations
for the work that they have done in applying objective criteria to the
unrequested projects included in the bill. As the cochair of the
porkbusters coalition, I have offered amendments to this bill in past
years in other appropriations bills in order to eliminate wasteful
projects. I have consulted with my porkbuster colleagues about the
bill, especially Senator McCain, who is the Senate cochair of the
porkbusters, who helped develop objective criteria for judging military
construction projects.
We have concluded that the bill largely, and I emphasize the word
``largely,'' adheres to the criteria developed by Senator McCain.
Members of the porkbusters coalition, I would like to emphasize, do not
oppose all spending projects. We simply believe that spending projects
should be subject to greater scrutiny than they have in the past, and
while there is always room for improvement, this bill has undergone
much greater scrutiny than previous bills, and for that I would like to
commend the committee.
{time} 1145
I am troubled by the number of projects funded in this bill that were
not in the administration's request or in the Defense Department's
long-range plan. I would like to suggest that what we ought to be doing
is following a 3-part approach to spending in this area. First, we
ought to have a definite dollar amount that we commit to spending, and
that ought to be a goal, it ought to be a limit, and the subcommittee
ought to live within it.
Second, we ought to be sticking with the plan that is in that dollar
figure and we ought not to be approving spending on projects that are
not within the plan. In this case, we have 42 projects, I am advised,
that are not in the long-range Defense Department plan.
And, third, I submit that we should be moving away from itemizing
projects in report language or in the bills themselves. Instead, we
ought to be exercising our oversight function to make sure that the
Defense Department or any other Federal agency is allocating the funds
for certain project areas in a wise and prudent manner, but not
micromanaging within our committees and subcommittees individual
projects, because of the temptations that this provides for members of
the committees and the subcommittees
[[Page H5664]]
to favor their own districts and projects that they feel are
particularly important to them rather than the institution.
So, in sum, again I would like to compliment the committee and the
subcommittee for their work, but say that I will be voting against this
bill because of the fact that it spends $900 million more than the
President has requested, and it includes 42 projects that are not on
the long-range plan that cost $300 million in and of themselves.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Installations and Facilities.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3517, the
Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997 and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and
Facilities, I want to commend Chairman Vucanovich and Mr. Hefner for
their continued cooperation in working with those of us on the
authorization committee charged with improving our military facilities.
I want to echo Chairman Vucanovich's remarks that this bill fully
conforms to the military construction authorizations passed by the
House on May 15--just 2 weeks ago.
This legislation would continue the strong bipartisan support of the
House for initiatives designed to slow the ongoing deterioration of
military facilities critical to the Nation's defense and to the
improvement of housing and other basic quality of life facilities.
Chairman Vucanovich has thoroughly described what is in the bill, but
I want to take a moment to talk about some of the important
improvements we have proposed to improve the quality of life of
military personnel and their families.
Those who serve in the Nation's military know firsthand the difficult
conditions in housing the military faces. Those who served in the past
can often go into a barracks or a military family's home and find that
it has not changed much over the years--in many cases for decades.
Degraded and crumbling housing is simply unacceptable. Whether they are
stationed at home or abroad, we owe the men and women who volunteer to
serve this great Nation more than that and we are working hard to
change it.
I am gratified by the commitment of the Secretary of Defense and the
support of the service chiefs for measures to improve the quality of
life for military personnel. However, I am disappointed that the
administration did not back up that commitment as forcefully as it
could have in its budget proposal to Congress.
For fiscal year 1997, the administration proposed steep cuts in troop
housing, family housing, and child development centers. This
legislation, as well as the authorization bill already passed by the
House, would take a number of important steps to shore up quality of
life with an approximately $675 million package of improvements to the
President's budget request.
Twenty-one additional barracks projects, benefiting thousands of
unaccompanied personnel, will benefit from the added funding. We seek
to increase by nearly 5 times the amount of funding put toward new
child development centers and we would make additional improvements to
housing that will benefit over 3,500 military families.
We need to continue to improve the quality of life for military
personnel and their families as well as modernize our deteriorating
military infrastructure. On a bipartisan basis, the authorization and
appropriation committees have developed legislation that emphasizes the
priority requirements of the military services and this legislation
would put dollars only toward projects that can be executed in the
coming fiscal year.
These are not imaginary requirements. The military services have
indicated in testimony before the subcommittee which I chair that a
military construction program that adequately addresses requirements
and would begin to buy down the lingering facilities backlog would be
two or three times the size of the current program. This bill proposes
nothing quite that grand, but it would make a significant contribution
toward resolving the problem.
Mr. Chairman, on a more personal note, I want to take this
opportunity to reflect on the impending retirement of the chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Barbara
Vucanovich.
Barbara, we are going to miss you, I can tell you that from a very
personal standpoint. I do not think there has ever been an authorizing
chairman and an appropriations chairman that worked any closer than we
did, or two committees that worked more closely or two staffs that
worked more closely, and that is a tribute to your leadership. You did
not consult with me before you made the decision to retire, and I
resent that. I would have told you not to do it. We need you here. Good
luck to you as you enter a new phase of your life and a new adventure.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I do not disagree with anything that the gentleman said, but this is
not a new phenomenon for administrations not to request as much money
as we need. We can go back years and years and years.
Many years ago I went out to Fort Hood, TX. I saw some of the troops'
wives trying to redo an old cafeteria for a day care center, and we
said this is not acceptable. Not any administration since I have been
here has put enough focus on quality of life and family housing in the
military. It is not real sexy to go out and talk about building
barracks and cutting the ribbons for a barracks, as it is for a B-1
bomber or a B-2 bomber, what have you, but it is critical for retention
and for making the quality of life for our troops as well as we can.
We are so far behind. I remember just a few years ago, not only did
we have a cut, we had a pause. We did not do anything in military
construction. It was requested that we have a pause in military
construction. We did not even keep up with the year before. So it is
not a new phenomenon for us to have to go to try to put in extra money
for quality of life and housing for our troops.
Mr. Chairman, I just remember talking, when Mr. Ralph Regula was the
ranking member, when I was chairman, we worked very hard for quality of
life. In fact, it was the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and myself
that brought to the forefront burdensharing. We did not even have a
subcommittee called burdensharing until we brought it to the forefront
about burdensharing for our troops in these foreign countries.
So it is not a new phenomenon and it is not unique to any
administration that they do not ask for enough money to do the job that
we think needs to be done.
Mr. Chairman, having said that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Hefner] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today and particularly to
follow the chair of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Hefley], because I would like to echo his comments on the cooperation
between the appropriations committee and the authorizing committee. In
this particular instance, we are talking about quality of life, and I
would like to follow then on the remarks of the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Hefner] as well.
Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has come to rely upon us in
Congress when it comes to budgetary matters with respect to quality of
life. What happens is, on the procurement side, in the more exotic
weapons systems, particularly those that cost a great deal of money,
they push that part of the envelope right up to the edge, and then they
count on Members of Congress to come through on questions of quality of
life, whether it is barracks or family housing or what have you, child
development centers, et cetera. And we have done that.
I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] for his
bipartisan approach on it, the chair of the subcommittee; and my good
friend from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for seeing to it that these
quality of life issues have not been abandoned.
In particular, I can say in the area of the Pacific, we have dealt
with Schofield Barracks and the renewal of barracks there, and we are
very appreciative, and this year at Kaneohe for
[[Page H5665]]
the Marine Barracks. General Krulak, the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, called very, very happy to see that we were going to start the
phasing in of the new barracks proposals at Kaneohe in the State of
Hawaii.
I will say that this has a further good effect. What this does is
stop the competition for nonexistent rental housing between military
families and civilian families. The result, the 6 years that I have
been in office and the plan that I started out with and presented on a
bipartisan basis, was that this would reduce rents, reduce the cost of
living in Hawaii for civilian families and improve the quality of life
for military families, I think a good result from that, and I am very
grateful for it.
I have two other points that I would like to make very briefly. One,
as a way of improving this, I hope and I think the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has indicated that he has an interest in this,
and other Republican members on our authorizing committee have
indicated an interest in this, is that we start thinking about capital
budgeting and start differentiating operating costs from capital costs,
particularly using as a demonstration model perhaps quality of life
issues in the military. We have started that.
The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] was instrumental in helping
us put together legislation for public-private partnerships to see to
it that we can get into capital expenditures. If we can differentiate
capital expenditures from operating expenditures, I think we can make
vast improvements in the quality of life area and demonstrate a way of
moving toward more sensible spending patterns that will result not only
in helping to balance the budget but in moving forward in a sensible
way with our military budgeting.
So I am appreciative to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], to the gentlewoman from
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], and others who have helped support this
issue.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that when I was first elected in a
special election in 1986, there was someone here who took me under his
wing, that acted as a mentor to me, someone whom I believe to be an
example of the true gentleman that exists in the House of
Representatives, someone who will be more than missed, someone for whom
I have the greatest possible respect, someone that we know and military
families throughout the country will appreciate for decades to come
because of his work at Fort DeRussy and Hale Koa to see that the
recreation needs of our military are taken care of. All of us are going
to miss with all of our hearts Representative Sonny Montgomery from
Mississippi.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Hunter], a member of the Committee on National
Security.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join as a member of the Committee on National
Security and a member of Mr. Hefley's Subcommittee on Military
Installations and Facilities in thanking Chairman Vucanovich for her
great work. It is a work that really has contributed so much to the men
and women who wear uniforms for our country.
It has been mentioned a couple of times that we spend more money than
the President has requested in military construction, but I think Mr.
Hefner hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that we always have
paid more attention to the quality of life issues than the
administrations, regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican.
I am reminded that this bill that Barbara Vucanovich helped to put
together and Mr. Hefner helped to put together that provides for
military construction, the defense bill taken together with that
important component is roughly $100 billion less in real dollars than
the 1985-86 Reagan defense budget. Because we were strong in the 1980's
and because we brought down the Berlin Wall and dissolved the Soviet
empire, we have been able to reduce defense expenditures. But beyond
that, this bill also and the military construction budget that is an
important part of the overall defense bill is in line and is consistent
with the balanced budget program that the House leadership is moving
forward with.
{time} 1200
So this is not a budget buster. It is well within the confines of the
dollar parameters that we have set.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say to gentlewoman from Nevada, who is one
of the warmest, finest persons who has ever served in this body, we
thank her for everything that she has brought to the deliberative
process in the House of Representatives. She is a person of great
wisdom, great intellect, and a big, big heart.
In another area, in the pro-life debates and the debates with respect
to abortion, her speeches about ``Heather the Feather'' have touched
everybody's heart. God bless her and thanks for her work.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], a member of the Committee on National
Security.
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3517, the fiscal
year 1997 military construction appropriations bill.
The President's fiscal year 1997 request for military construction
reflected a cut of 18 percent from fiscal year 1996 appropriated
levels, even though the Defense Science Board's quality of life task
force found that 62 percent of military housing spaces and 64 percent
of family housing units are unsuitable.
The bill helps correct this deficiency. While still below last year's
appropriation, it significantly boosts the President's request for both
new and renovated barracks and military family housing. This will
address the concerns of many in today's military who are fed up with
inadequate housing and are voting with their feet.
This bill supports other infrastructure improvements, as well.
Earlier this year, for instance, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Pirie
highlighted the Navy's need for significant investment in port
infrastructure to ensure readiness. I am pleased H.R. 3517 recognizes
the requirement, adding funding for projects such as wharf improvements
at Naval Station Mayport.
Mr. Chairman, this bill improves the readiness of our Armed Forces.
It merits our support.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I urge strong support of this bill. It is not as much as we would
like to do. I suppose that will always be with the budget restrictions
that we are under. I suppose we will never have enough money to do the
things that we would like to do and would need to do, but I would just
like to point out to those that would be critical of this bill that
every item in this bill is authorized, and we have gone to great pains
to see that the money is going to be targeted to where it would do the
most good for quality of life for our Armed Forces.
So I think it is a good bill, it is a bill that I think that
everybody can support, and I urge that everyone in the body would take
a close look at it and I would strongly urge that we have a unanimous
vote on this milcon bill. And again I want to congratulate the
gentlewoman from Nevada and wish her a very happy retirement, and I
hope that this will be a resounding endorsement of this bill here today
on the last vote that she will be bringing to this floor.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
3517, the Military Construction bill for fiscal year 1997. I would like
to thank the chairwoman of this committee, Barbara Vucanovich, who has
once again moved this bill swiftly through the Appropriations
Committee, and I am sad to say will be doing it for the last time. I
want to wish her well and would like to personally thank her for the
service that she has provided to this important subcommittee and this
institution. I would also like to thank the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Bill Hefner, for his help and assistance in bringing this
legislation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, as both the chairwoman and the ranking member have
noted, this bill provides $10 billion in fiscal year 1997 for military
construction, family housing and military base closure. This bill
continues this committee's commitment to funding initiatives that
upgrade the quality of life for the men and women of armed forces and
families.
[[Page H5666]]
Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight, a few important projects in
the bill that are crucial to the constituents of my district.
The first project is the ongoing renovation of the dormitories at
Travis AFB. This bill provides funding for one dormitory scheduled for
construction this year, and funding to speed up construction of a
second dorm at Travis. Additionally, this bill includes $8.6 million
for the construction of 70 multi-family housing units for enlisted
personnel stationed at Travis. These projects go a long way to improve
Travis' housing situation. The construction of the dormitories is part
of a base-wide project to upgrade and improve base housing in order to
meet Air Force requirements.
This bill also provides funds to replace Travis' underground fueling
system. The system was designed to provide a quick and efficient way to
refuel two jets at one time. Travis currently relies on an underground
system from the 1950's, which often fails because of electrical shorts
which occur after rainstorms. The new fuel system is safer and more
efficient than the fuel trucks on the runway. It will also put an end
to the occasional leaks which are so bad for the environment.
Mr. Chairman, these upgrades are a clear sign that Travis is, and
will remain, vital to the Air Force mission. These improvements in
modernization will ensure that the base will meet that mission.
Finally, this bill provides for two projects at Beale AFB: the
closure of landfill No. 2 and for the CARS Deployable Ground Station
Support Facility. Each of these projects are important to the continued
mission at Beale.
Mr. Chairman, each of the initiatives I have outlined will help
maintain Travis and Beale AFB as critical defense assets and as
integral parts of their respective communities.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my support for this
important military readiness bill.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
disappointment at the lack of funding in this bill for National Guard
Armories, and to urge the Secretary of the Army to include construction
funds for armories in next year's budget request.
When the authorizing committee for military construction, the House
Military Construction and Facilities Subcommittee, held hearings on the
fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense [DOD] authorization bill, the
chairman was clear about his position on armories. No request means no
funding, and no Member add-ons would be included in the bill.
This was not a new position. Last year, Chairman Hefley informed the
Department of the Army and the Army National Guard that no armories
would be funded until they were requested from the department in their
annual budget request. Unfortunately, that advice was ignored this year
and no armories were requested. The army knows how to solve this
problem, and the ball is in their court.
As my colleagues on the National Security Committee know from my
repeated speeches on this subject, the Guam Army National Guard is the
only National Guard unit without an armory. At the same time, the Guam
Army National Guard is one of the most recognized units in the nation,
having received awards for the best recruiting and retention of any
other unit in the country.
The construction of an armory for the Guam Army National Guard is a
priority within the National Guard Bureau. Only recently, it was
included in the $250 million priority list forwarded to the
congressional defense committees at Senator Reid's request.
I am pleased that the Department of the Army is now rethinking how it
funds armories and has begun a dialog with the relevant committees. In
order to meet the construction needs of our National Guard units, I
urge the Department of the Army to include funding for armories,
including a much-needed armory for the Guam Army National Guard, in
next year's budget request.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I am unable to cast my vote in support of
H.R. 3517, the Military Construction Appropriation Act, because I must
attend the funeral of my friend and constituent, Seymour H. Knox III,
of Buffalo.
H.R. 3517 underscores this Congress' continuing commitment to
America's service personnel and their families, including many of my
constituents who serve on the Niagara Falls Air Base. The bill also
reflects a continuing commitment to the American taxpayer by calling
for a $1.2 billion reduction from last year's level of $11.2 billion--
keeping us on the path toward our ultimate goal of reaching a balanced
budget by the year 2002.
According to the Quality of Life Task Force chaired by former
Secretary of the Army Jack Marsh, 62 percent of troop housing and 64
percent of family housing units are currently unsuitable. This bill
helps correct this deficiency.
Included in this legislation is $1 billion for family housing
construction and improvements benefiting over 10,000 military families.
In addition, the bill includes: $36 million for the Homeowners
Assistance Fund; $34 million for child development centers; $313
million for hospital and medical facilities; and $88 million for
environmental compliance.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that the move
to privatize functions of the Department of Defense is apparently
running into some snags when it comes to work being performed on the
approximately 3,000 armories located all across our Nation, and at
facilities located overseas.
First of all, I want to make certain that I am fully understood on
this point, for I do not intend to detract from or denigrate any
members of the National Guard and the Reserves.
Quite simply, my concern is that much of the work being performed
through the Reserved Component Automation System could be resulting in
additional costs, delays, and inefficiencies.
The Reserved Component Automation System program consists of
installing electrical circuits and local-area-network [LAN] cable and
devices in preparation for computers at armories throughout the Nation.
Apparently, the Department of Defense has determined that it cannot
afford to perform this work at some of the smaller facilities through
the use of outside contractors and, instead, is considering using
armory personnel for this work.
Again, I am not questioning the skills, talents, and capabilities of
members of the Guard and Reserves, but when there are small businesses
in the private sector that have a proven track record of performing
such work, I am concerned that local firms and local workers are being
left out of the kind of work they customarily perform, typically at the
lowest cost and with the greatest efficiency and best quality.
Mr. Chairman, a firm in my district has performed electrical and
computer wiring work in as many as 70 armories, and the work they
perform is of the highest quality and efficiency, and frequently at the
lowest costs.
I would like to request of the distinguished chairwoman, my friend
from Nevada, that we fully explore the best use of the funds that we
appropriate through the Reserved Component Automation System and that
we continue to apply very high standards, standards that call for cost-
savings, high-quality, and greater efficiencies.
February 23, 1996.
Congressman Bart Stupak,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Reserve/Armory projects.
Dear Bart: We have recently been advised that a contract
has been issued to Boeing to perform the tasks we discussed
on the larger sites in each State plus Europe. The contract
is apparently a long term one and only for the large sites.
The information still indicates the government plans to
complete the rest of the sites with armory personnel or
individual contractors and since this is the arena we hoped
to participate in, the door may be open.
Please let me know how I can assist you.
Sincerely,
Ronald C. Lindberg,
Rapid Electric Sales & Service.
The Government has issued contracts for a Reserved
Component Automation System which Rapid Electric has
participated in by doing most of the armories in Michigan.
The project consists of installing electrical circuits and
LAN cable and devices in preparation for computers.
The Government has determined it can't afford to do the
smaller sites as originally planned and is considering using
the armory personnel for the electrical and LAN installation.
We offer an alternative:
Rapid Electric has licensed electricians trained and
experienced in these installations and can complete the work
in a timely and professional manner while maintaining a cost
within the allocated budget.
The work would be completed using our already trained
personnel along with licensed electricians from the
communities and states where the armory is located.
We would be consistent with the goals of privatisation and
putting people to work as well as complying with the local
codes and licensing laws.
Using nonqualified, nonlicensed personnel for installation
of a national defense system is commercial senselessness. If
we can't afford to do it right we are better off not to do it
at all. It's better to work without a system than to depend
on one that doesn't work.
The Government is expected to have an armory ready for the
computer people when they arrive. If the electrical and LAN
work isn't complete or does not operate when they arrive
there is added expense and delay for rescheduling and return
trips.
If the system fails when needed, it is of no value.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 3517, the military construction appropriations for fiscal year
1997.
This bill properly focuses on improving the quality of life for our
service men and women and their families. This bill provides for new
barracks and family housing, child care and medical facilities, and
environmental compliance projects; $776 million will be expended
[[Page H5667]]
for new barracks; $34 million is appropriated for construction and
improvement to day care centers and $48 million for energy conservation
programs within the Department of Defense.
In Texas, $35,000,000 will go to construction and renovation of
barracks at Fort Hood. Brooks Air Force Base and Dyess Air Force Base
will receive $5,895,000 and $4,613,000 respectively.
At Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, $5,400,000 will be appropriated
for a student dormitory. Dyess Air Force Base will receive $5,895,000
for improvements to their student dormitory facility.
Statewide, Texas will receive $6,500,000 aimed at general life safety
upgrade for military personnel and their families in Texas.
I am proud to support this bill that provides for these types of
quality of life programs which stress the importance of providing a
healthy, happy, environment for the many families who live and work on
military bases in my home State of Texas and across the country.
These young men and women are making a tremendous sacrifice in the
service of our country and they deserve the improvements that this bill
will make in their daily lives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for
his kind words, and I also urge support for this bill. I think it is a
good bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have no more requests for time, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be
less than 15 minutes.
After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that the
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3517
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1997, for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure functions
administered by the Department of Defense, and for other
purposes, namely:
Military Construction, Army
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as
currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army
Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for
the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and
operation of facilities in support of the functions of the
Commander in Chief, $603,584,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2001: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $54,384,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, architect and engineer services, and host nation
support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of
Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary
for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of his
determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Navy
(including rescissions)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy as currently
authorized by law, including personnel in the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command and other personal services
necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$724,476,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $50,959,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of his
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Navy'' under Public Law 102-136, $6,900,000 is hereby
rescinded: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
for ``Military Construction, Navy'' under Public Law 102-380,
$2,800,000 is hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of the
funds appropriated for ``Military Construction, Navy'' under
Public Law 103-110, $2,300,000 is hereby rescinded.
Military Construction, Air Force
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Air
Force as currently authorized by law, $678,914,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $47,387,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, architect and engineer services, as
authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense determines
that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes
and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Defense-wide
(including transfer of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, installations,
facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the military
departments), as currently authorized by law, $772,345,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such
appropriations of the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as he may designate,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes,
and for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to
which transferred: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated, not to exceed $12,239,000 shall be available
for study, planning, design, architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons
therefor.
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund
(Including Transfer of Funds)
For the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund, $10,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That subject to thirty days prior
notification to the Committees on Appropriations, such
additional amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of
Defense may be transferred to the Fund from amounts
appropriated in this Act for the acquisition or construction
of military unaccompanied housing in ``Military
Construction'' accounts, to be merged with and to be made
available for the same purposes and for the same period of
time as amounts appropriated directly to the Fund: Provided
further, That appropriations made available for the Fund in
this Act shall be available to cover the costs, as defined in
section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of
direct loans and loan guarantees issued by the Department of
Defense pursuant to the provisions of subchapter IV of
chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, pertaining to
alternative means of acquiring and improving military
unaccompanied housing and ancillary supporting facilities.
Military Construction, Army National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United
States Code, and military construction authorization Acts,
$41,316,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United
States Code, and military construction authorization Acts,
$118,394,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter
133 of title 10, United States Code, and military
construction authorization Acts, $50,159,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2001.
Military Construction, Naval Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the reserve components of the Navy and
Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United
States Code, and military construction authorization Acts,
$33,169,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities
[[Page H5668]]
for the training and administration of the Air Force Reserve
as authorized by chapter 133 of title 10, United States Code,
and military construction authorization Acts, $51,655,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2001.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
For the United States share of the cost of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for
the acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized in military
construction authorization Acts and section 2806 of title 10,
United States Code, $177,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Family Housing, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for
constrution, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and
maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction,
$176,603,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001;
for Operation and Maintenance, and for debt payment,
$1,257,466,000; in all $1,434,069,000.
Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement,
addition, expansion, extension and alteration and for
operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing,
minor construction, principal and interest charges, and
insurance premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for
Construction, $532,456,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2001; for Operation and Maintenance, and for
debt payment, $1,058,241,000; in all $1,590,697,000.
Family Housing, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension and alteration and for operation and
maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, as follows: for Construction,
$304,068,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001;
for Operation and Maintenance, and for debt payment,
$840,474,000; in all $1,144,542,000.
Family Housing, Defense-wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for construction, including
acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension and
alteration, and for operation and maintenance, leasing, and
minor construction, as authorized by law, as follows: for
Construction, $4,371,000, to remain available until September
30, 2001; for Operation and Maintenance, $30,963,000; in all
$35,334,000.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $35,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That, subject to thirty days prior notification to
the Committees on Appropriations, such additional amounts as
may be determined by the Secretary of Defense may be
transferred to the Fund from amounts appropriated in this Act
for construction in ``Family Housing'' accounts, to be merged
with and to be available for the same purposes and for the
same period of time as amounts appropriated directly to the
Fund: Provided further, That appropriations made available to
the Fund in this Act shall be available to cover the costs,
as defined in section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the
Department of Defense pursuant to the provisions of
subchapter IV of Chapter 169, title 10, United States Code,
pertaining to alternative means of acquiring and improving
military family housing and supporting facilities.
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense
For use in the Homeowners Assistance Fund established by
section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3374),
$36,181,000, to remain available until expended.
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part II
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law
101-510), $352,800,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not more than $223,789,000 of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available solely for
environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons
therefor.
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law
101-510), $971,925,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not more than $351,967,000 of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available solely for
environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons
therefor.
Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law
101-510), $1,182,749,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not more than $200,841,000 of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available solely for
environmental restoration, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of his determination and the reasons
therefor.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts shall be expended for
payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for work,
where cost estimates exceed $25,000, to be performed within
the United States, except Alaska, without the specific
approval in writing of the Secretary of Defense setting forth
the reasons therefor: Provided, That the foregoing shall not
apply in the case of contracts for environmental restoration
at an installation that is being closed or realigned where
payments are made from a Base Realignment and Closure
Account.
Sec. 102. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction shall be available for hire of passenger
motor vehicles.
Sec. 103. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction may be used for advances to the Federal
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for the
construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of
title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized
therein are certified as important to the national defense by
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to begin construction of new bases inside the
continental United States for which specific appropriations
have not been made.
Sec. 105. No part of the funds provided in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used for purchase
of land or land easements in excess of 100 per centum of the
value as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers or the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, except (a) where there
is a determination of value by a Federal court, or (b)
purchases negotiated by the Attorney General or his designee,
or (c) where the estimated value is less than $25,000, or (d)
as otherwise determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in
the public interest.
Sec. 106. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts shall be used to (1) acquire
land, (2) provide for site preparation, or (3) install
utilities for any family housing, except housing for which
funds have been made available in annual Military
Construction Appropriations Acts.
Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts for minor construction may
be used to transfer or relocate any activity from one base or
installation to another, without prior notification to the
Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 108. No part of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts may be used for the
procurement of steel for any construction project or activity
for which American steel producers, fabricators, and
manufacturers have been denied the opportunity to compete for
such steel procurement.
Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during
the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property
taxes in any foreign nation.
Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts may be used to initiate a
new installation overseas without prior notification to the
Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts may be obligated for
architect and engineer contracts estimated by the Government
to exceed $500,000 for projects to be accomplished in Japan,
in any NATO member country, or in countries bordering the
Arabian Gulf, unless such contracts are awarded to United
States firms or United States firms in joint venture with
host nation firms.
Sec. 112. None of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts for military construction in
the United States territories and possessions in the Pacific
and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in countries bordering the Arabian
Gulf, may be used to award any contract estimated by the
Government to exceed $1,000,000 to a foreign contractor:
Provided, That this section shall not be applicable to
contract awards for which the lowest responsive and
responsible bid of a United States contractor exceeds the
lowest responsive and responsible bid of a foreign contractor
by greater than 20 per centum.
[[Page H5669]]
Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the
appropriate Committees of Congress, including the Committees
on Appropriations, of the plans and scope of any proposed
military exercise involving United States personnel thirty
days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended for
construction, either temporary or permanent, are anticipated
to exceed $100,000.
Sec. 114. Not more than 20 per centum of the appropriations
in Military Construction Appropriations Acts which are
limited for obligation during the current fiscal year shall
be obligated during the last two months of the fiscal year.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction in prior years shall be available for
construction authorized for each such military department by
the authorizations enacted into law during the current
session of Congress.
Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing
projects that are being completed with funds otherwise
expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision,
inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those
projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated to a military department or defense agency
for the construction of military projects may be obligated
for a military construction project or contract, or for any
portion of such a project or contract, at any time before the
end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal year for which
funds for such project were appropriated if the funds
obligated for such project (1) are obligated from funds
available for military construction projects, and (2) do not
exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus any
amount by which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 118. During the five-year period after appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military
construction and family housing operation and maintenance and
construction have expired for obligation, upon a
determination that such appropriations will not be necessary
for the liquidation of obligations or for making authorized
adjustments to such appropriations for obligations incurred
during the period of availability of such appropriations,
unobligated balances of such appropriations may be
transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'' to be merged with and
to be available for the same time period and for the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 119. The Secretary of Defense is to provide the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives with an annual report by February 15,
containing details of the specific actions proposed to be
taken by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal
year to encourage other member nations of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, Japan, Korea, and United States allies
bordering the Arabian Gulf to assume a greater share of the
common defense burden of such nations and the United States.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 120. During the current fiscal year, in addition to
any other transfer authority available to the Department of
Defense, proceeds deposited to the Department of Defense Base
Closure Account established by section 207(a)(1) of the
Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526) pursuant to section
207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be transferred to the account
established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Department of
Defense Authorization Act, 1991, to be merged with, and to be
available for the same purposes and the same time period as
that account.
Sec. 121. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be
expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in
expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections
2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c,
popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
Sec. 122. (a) In the case of any equipment or products that
may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance
provided under this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that
entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the
assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and
products.
(b) In providing financial assistance under this Act, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall provide to each recipient of
the assistance a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 123. During the current fiscal year, in addition to
any other transfer authority available to the Department of
Defense, amounts may be transferred from the account
established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Department of
Defense Authorization Act, 1991, to the fund established by
section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to pay for expenses
associated with the Homeowners Assistance Program. Any
amounts transferred shall be merged with and be available for
the same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to
which transferred.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill, through page 19, line 17, be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Nevada?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
amendment offered by ms. furse
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Furse: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
Sec. . (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds
made available in this Act may be used for renovation,
repair, or other military construction project in connection
with Spinelli Barracks or Taylor Barracks, Mannheim, Germany.
(b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Military Construction, Army'' is
hereby reduced by $17,400,000.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment before I start and
express my deep appreciation to the ranking member of this committee,
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], and how much wonderful
work he does for military personnel, and also to our retiring
chairperson, she has also done such great work.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, which is endorsed by Citizens Against
Government Waste, reduces the Army military construction account by
$17.4 million. That $17.4 million is the cost of renovating two
barracks in Mannheim, Germany.
There are three reasons why I offer this amendment. The first is that
these renovations were not requested by the Department of Defense;
second, they are not in the Army's 6-year future defense plan; and,
third, Mr. Chairman, we are about to undertake a fundamental
reevaluation of our present worldwide troop deployment patterns and it
seems to me this is not the time to be committing ourselves to an over
$17 million remodeling project.
My colleagues will recall the Shays-Frank burdensharing amendment. It
passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 353 to 62 during
consideration of the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization. This
amendment required a report on alternative configuration, due March 1,
1997.
Now, I certainly support the effort to improve quality of life for
our troops; however, the U.S. taxpayers should not be asked to pick up
the tab for this installation in Europe. The United States should
negotiate with the Germans to make these renovations part of their
contribution.
The Japanese Government gives about 79 percent of the nonpersonnel
costs incurred in stationing our troops in their country, but none of
our NATO allies, not even Germany, has agreed to kick in a dime for the
renovation at Mannheim. This is yet another way that the Europeans end
up paying just 24 percent of U.S. nonpersonnel costs and investing
their own money in other things of value.
There are better ways, it seems to me, to spend this $17 million than
in renovating barracks in Europe. In my own State of Oregon, our
National Guard was told that if projects were not part of DOD long-
range plans they would not be added to this bill. Well, the barracks in
Germany were not part of the plan and they got funding for $17 million.
And the question I think we need to ask, if this is indeed a
priority, is why did the Department of Defense not include these
renovations in their request?
It is very important at this time that we are reviewing our overseas
presence, and I believe that while we do that review we should set our
priorities better than the one in this bill that my amendment would
address.
The Furse amendment, is, as I said, endorsed by Citizens Against
Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common Sense. I urge that Members
support my amendment and save $17 million that we can well use in
military construction in this country.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
[[Page H5670]]
The amendment, I think, fundamentally misrepresents the situation on
the ground in Germany and is a direct assault on the young men and
women that are stationed there, young Americans who are in many cases
now deployed in Bosnia.
I believe that deployment to Bosnia was supported by the gentlewoman
from Oregon, but when we bring those troops back from the miserable
situation in Bosnia to Germany, she wants them still to have a
miserable living situation, it would appear, when they get back there.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and
Facilities, I want to remind the House these barracks projects have
already been considered by the House. Just 2 weeks ago, the House
passed the military construction authorization for the coming fiscal
year as part of the defense authorization bill. No one challenged these
barracks improvements at the time. No one offered an amendment, and
these projects have been fully supported on a bipartisan basis
throughout the committee process.
Moreover, these projects are also included in the defense
authorization bill, which is reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee. We recognize the degraded and difficult living conditions of
our soldiers in Germany, and so has the Army. The Army has not
dedicated any military construction funding to barracks in Germany
since before the drawdown began in 1989. Well, the drawdown is over,
and we know where these troops are going to remain.
On April 10, 1996, I wrote to each of the military departments to
determine the high priority unfunded requirements in military
construction. Maj. Gen. Frank Miller, the Assistant Chief of Staff of
the Army for Installation Management, responded to me on April 18. He
indicated that these two projects were high priority unfunded
requirements.
In testimony before the subcommittee that I chair, I asked Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security where the
department would put additional funding if it became available. Here is
what he said: ``I think that were we to have additional funds, the
place that really needs the most attention is our overseas bases, and
particularly in Europe.'' He went on to say that ``what we are asking
of those people and the conditions that they are finding themselves in
are pretty abysmal.'' ``Abysmal'' is the word he used.
{time} 1215
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Furse amendment,
and I am deeply interested in the comments of the previous speaker. The
gentleman certainly raises issues that are of concern to all of us. Our
troops in Bosnia are important to each American, their well-being, and
their support.
But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe that it is our expectation
that the troops in Bosnia will be withdrawn by the end of the year, or
certainly sometime next year, and it is far from clear that these
apartment units, these housing quarters are going to be completed in
time for them to occupy them.
It is our hope and prayer, of course, that these troops will be home
in the United States before then. So, I think that it is a red herring
to claim that these units are for our troops in Bosnia.
Second, I would point out that the Armed Forces themselves have not
included this barracks project in their long-term plan. Why is it we
are building additional housing units in Europe at the instigation of
the committees in Congress, when the Defense Department itself has not
placed a priority on these units? I submit that this is not a
responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
Third, it is important to note that we have a study underway pursuant
to the request by Congress for how we should handle burdensharing
obligations. Is it responsible for us to jump in and say that we should
spend $17.4 million building these barracks when this study is in
progress and when the Defense Department has not requested funds for
the barracks themselves?
I think that the Furse amendment represents a modest, responsible,
prudent approach to budgeting and that all of us would be well-advised
to support this amendment to save the American taxpayer dollars or if
these are dollars that must be spent according to the committee's
calculations, to invest these dollars in facilities that would serve
the American Armed Forces for a longer period of time and not violate
the mandate from Congress with respect to the burdensharing study.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that we are not quibbling here
over whether we are going to do something for the men and women in the
Armed Forces or for our veterans. All of us agree that we ought to
support the folks in the service. The question is what is responsible
with respect to the American taxpayer, and how do we work effectively
as a legislative body with the administrative branch to make these
decisions?
Again, if the Defense Department itself has not included this project
in its long-term plan, why are we leaping in at this point in time to
second guess those experts?
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I would like to point out
is that there are many needs for barracks in the United States. I would
point out one place in Oregon where we do training in central Oregon.
We train about 500 person-days a year, and there the trainees sleep on
the armory floor and they use Porta-potties. They would love to have a
barracks, but they were told, the National Guard was told it was not in
the long-range plan, they would not be able to apply for these.
We are again saying this was not in the long-range plan, it was not
requested, and we would like to see the long-range report completed
first and make sure that our allies pick up the cost of some of these
housing that then become part of their housing stock.
So, I would point out that many of the barracks need remodeling here
in this country and our Army National Guard really does need to have
some of that money spent on their local barracks, and I would suggest
that is probably a better use of money, but it should have been
authorized, or rather it should have been requested and I believe it
must be in the long-range plan to be a conservative use of our
taxpayers' money.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also like to
report that we checked with the German embassy and we were advised that
apartments can be rented in the Mannheim area for $750 a month for a 2-
bedroom apartment. If we have a need for housing for our troops on an
interim or swing period of time especially the troops in Bosnia, why do
not we utilize the market that is available in the area to provide that
housing on a temporary basis? I submit that building housing or
building barracks that probably would have a life expectancy of 40
years is not a responsible use of money.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill. I have come down
to the floor for the express purpose of saying what a joy it has been
to serve on the subcommittee under the chairmanship of the gentlewoman
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. She has been one of the outstanding
members and leaders not only on our Committee on Appropriations but in
this House of Representatives and in the Republican Party.
She has been unfailingly helpful and cooperative with all the
Members. It has been a joy to be a part of her subcommittee. As I said
at the markup, she could give all of the rest of us subcommittee
chairmen lessons in how to mark up a bill in an efficient way and get
the job done for the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has done an outstanding job in crafting
this bill that addresses the quality of life and needs of our Armed
Services, and this bill includes increased funding for troops' barracks
quarters, for new family housing units, for private family homes, for
child development centers.
All of these items are essential to the readiness of our Armed
Forces. It is a disgrace to see the substandard housing facilities in
which we have sometimes allowed the men and women who serve our country
to live. They deserve the very best we can provide.
Under the leadership of Chairman Vucanovich, this bill takes very
strong
[[Page H5671]]
steps toward improving those conditions and I think she has done a
masterful job in crafting the bill. I fully support it, and the fact
that the gentlewoman is retiring, I want her to know that I believe it
is a tremendous loss to the Congress and to the country to see her
enter retirement. She is going to be missed very much, and I have been
proud to serve under her chairmanship of the subcommittee.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Furse amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I first want to say that I applaud the subcommittee
this year and the full committee as well, for the bill itself is $1.1
billion less than last year's spending bill, which I think is a step in
the right direction.
However, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am dismayed that it is still
$900 million more than what the Pentagon asked for. This amendment
seeks to cut $17 million of the $900 million in unrequested funds. The
money is designated, as the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse]
indicated, for barracks improvements in Germany.
While there is nothing wrong with improving the quality of life for
our troops, there is something wrong in asking the taxpayer to spend
$17.5 million for a military project that the Pentagon does not have in
its long-range plan. It did not request it, and consequently it must
not see the need for this project.
Mr. Chairman, I know that it is hard to cut spending. We do not win a
lot of battles, and I regret that this amendment is likely to fail. I
wish that we had the line-item veto in effect for this year's spending
appropriations instead of next year's. It would have been a good first
test. But unfortunately it does not start until next year.
Mr. Chairman, $17 million is a lot of money. It is a lot of money in
anybody's checkbook, whether it be the Federal Government's or somebody
else's. And if we are going to start in cutting back on waste and
unneeded projects, this is where we ought to start.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to join with me and the
Citizens Against Government Waste and the Taxpayers for Common Sense in
supporting this amendment.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, for a couple of reasons, one, I do not like to be on
the wrong side of Citizens Against Government Waste because I am a
citizen and I am against government waste, and second, I reluctantly
oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I think it is ill-advised.
What we are doing here, we are not--and someone mentioned projects
all across the Nation. Well, there is no doubt about that. There are
projects that need to be done. And $17 million would not address many
projects in all the many States, the requests that we have here. But
the only thing we are going to do, if we adopt this amendment, the only
people it is going to hurt is going to be the troops that are stationed
there. And we are going to continue to have the poor living conditions
there. It was not requested. We understand that. But it was a high
priority when we talked to the military people that were responsible
for the living conditions for those people there. It was a high
priority with them.
But in many cases over the years, people have not requested these
funds because it was not a higher priority with them because they had
so many other things and the budget crunch came. But they need these
funds.
The gentlewoman has linked her amendment to a burdensharing amendment
that passed the House in the Armed Services bill. I do not believe that
any redeployment of our troops will affect the Army at Mannheim,
Germany. The fact of the matter is that we are consolidating our forces
there, and it serves as a major railhead for the Armed Forces in
Europe. In fact, it was recently used to send troops and equipment to
Bosnia.
Someone mentioned that they had talked with the German Housing
Authority, and I respect that, but I doubt very seriously if the
Germany Housing Authority could supply the number of apartments that we
would need to accommodate our soldiers that are stationed there. Plus,
they are enlisted men; they do not have the kind of resources that
would be needed to live on the economy in Germany.
It is true that the Germany Government owes us over $200 million
based on cost sharing reached in the understanding with many United
States facilities. However, having said that, cutting these funds from
this bill is not in any way going to affect the behavior of the German
Government. It has been our contention for many years that we do not
put enough pressure on our allies about burdensharing, but we are doing
better with the Japanese, the Germans and everybody that is concerned.
This project will not actually replace but refurbish facilities built
in 1940. I was 10 years old when they began occupying these facilities
and that goes back a long, long way.
I certainly respect the gentlewoman's endeavor here and her
commitment to it, but I think it is ill-advised and I would hope that
the Members of Congress would look at this, look at the whole picture,
and realize that this is not the way for us to go.
{time} 1230
So, reluctantly, at the threat of being on the wrong side of Citizens
Against Government Waste and my dear friend from Oregon, I would
request that Members look at this entire bill and see it for what it
is, a good bill. The priorities are set. There is no money that is
being wasted. This money will be put to a very good use, and it will
benefit our sons and our daughters that are stationed in Germany. This
is not a frivolous funding, and I would highly recommend that we vote
against this amendment and support this bill.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Furse amendment. At first
blush, it might seem that a vote in favor of the amendment would be
politically correct. After all, this project is not in anyone's
district. There is not a single Member of this body who is going to be
able to go home and brag about bringing home pork to his district. This
expenditure simply provides for the needs of our servicemen who have
signed on to support our national interests and have been assigned to
Europe.
Also, we might get a plus from the Citizens Against Government Waste.
And I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina. I am against
government waste and I hate to receive a bad mark from a public
interest group such as Citizens Against Government Waste. But if we
pass the Furse amendment, we will do so at the expense of the quality
of life of our servicemen who have agreed to serve our country and who
are in desperate need of improved barracks right now.
Now, one thing that needs to be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, is that
this project has been recommended by the U.S. Army. The subcommittee
asked for a list of priorities, and the Army told us that these
barracks were priorities. So let's make sure that we get that straight.
The point has been made that they are not in the long-range plan. The
question becomes why are they not in the long-range plan and why is
this not in DOD's budget. As the gentleman from Hawaii pointed out
earlier, the administrations have historically depended upon this
Congress to take care of quality-of-life needs. They know that we are
going to do right by our troops and that we will have to add certain
funds if we are going to take care of our troops, particularly these
single enlisted troops who depend on these barracks in Germany. So, I
would urge that we defeat the Furse amendment that we take this little
step toward quality of life for our troops.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to a few of the comments
that have been made, they talk about why do the Germans not do more. We
are talking about $5 million that they are willing to put into these
projects. Now that is burden sharing.
One of the speakers mentioned, well, they can rent apartments for
$700 a month. How many enlisted people that these are going to benefit,
the lower ranked enlisted people, can afford $700 a month to live on
the economy? That
[[Page H5672]]
might be nice, but who can afford that kind of thing? Yes, there are
many projects we could do in America, and we are doing many projects
across this country to try to improve quality of life across the
country. But realize these are Americans that are in Bosnia now, and
their permanent duty station is Germany. So when they come out of
Bosnia, they go back to Germany. What kind of living conditions do we
want them go come back to when they come back to Germany?
Mr. Chairman, as for it not being in the budget plan, as has been
indicated by the previous speaker, it was a priority. When we asked the
military about the priority, this was one of their priorities. As for
the $900 million over the President's request, that is making the
assumption that the President was correct with his request.
Many of us do not think that he was correct, that he cuts too deep
and he cuts too fast and particularly when we are talking about
quality-of-life projects. Why was it not in the long-range plans? Well,
one of the reasons I think it was not in the long-range plan, it is
going to be in the next long-range plan as a matter of fact. One reason
it was not in the long-range plans is we had the base closure procedure
and we were taking out bases all over Europe that we had, some 400
facilities at one time or another, if I remember the figure correctly,
and we did not know exactly where we would be.
We know now where we will be. We know what the needs are, and we need
to get about meeting those needs.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, I would
simply point out that, even though this bill is $900 million more than
the President's request, it does represent a budget savings and a
substantial savings of 10 percent over the amount appropriated by this
Congress last year.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, there is no Member on the floor for whom I have greater
affection or more respect than the gentlewoman from Oregon. She does an
outstanding job for her State, for her constituents, and she does an
outstanding job for this country. However, on this issue I disagree
with her and would urge my colleagues to support the committee's
judgment in this instance.
The reason for that is I have had the opportunity, as many Members
have had, to visit housing overseas, in Germany and in other countries;
and I know the condition of that housing. As I call him, the chairman
in exile mentioned the fact that this was built in 1940. I was not 10
at that point in time, but I was around, albeit briefly. I understand
that we need to make sure, as the gentleman from Colorado said, that
when these troops return from Bosnia to their permanent duty station
that they have housing which will in fact be quality-of-life housing.
Mr. Chairman, this committee in particular, as well as the
authorizing committee, has worked very, very hard on quality-of-life
issues. As a matter of fact, as I think the gentleman from
Mississippi mentioned, in fact the Congress has been at the forefront.
Not the administration, neither this one nor previous administrations,
has been in the forefront of ensuring quality of life for our troops.
So I want to commend the committee for including this sum,
notwithstanding the fact that it may not have been on the list.
Mr. Chairman, I am not one who believes simply because an
administration, whether it has been the Reagan or Bush or Clinton
administration, failed to include something that it thereby is not
something that is a priority item. So I commend the committee, urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment and support this expenditure for
this very necessary housing for our troops.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Furse amendment.
I ask the sponsor of this amendment if she has ever visited the
troops in Germany? Has she walked through one of these barracks built
and paid for by the Germans during the 1930s? As chairman of this
subcommittee I take pride that I have taken the time to visit with
these troops, to talk to them and to see where they live. Many of them
are on their first assignment and find themselves a long way from home
and they do miss the amenities of the United States.
Let me share with you the condition I have found these barracks to
be--76 percent of the U.S. Army's barracks in Europe still have gang
latrines--when you walk into the buildings, obnoxious odors greet you
because the plumbing systems are inadequately vented and emit sewer
gases into the latrines and hallways. The gang latrines are undersized,
crowded, covered in moisture, rot, and mold growth and do not provide
even a minimum amount of privacy for our soldiers.
The concrete and plaster interior surfaces are cracked and water-
logged in areas next to these latrines. Paint is peeling, replacement
tiles are not available so surfaces appear as an unmatched mosaic.
Stairway nosings are broken, trends are worn and uneven. Heat and air
conditioning systems continuously fail. Electrical service cannot
handle the number of appliances--minor comforts such as a boom box--
that the modern soldier possesses.
I remind my colleagues that these are volunteers and are very proud
to be serving their country. And when I have asked them what is
important to them, the answer I continuously hear is a decent place to
live, a place to take a private shower, to have heat and air
conditioning, and enough electricity to run a microwave.
We have far too long allowed the condition of these barracks to send
the signal that we don't care. As chairman of this subcommittee, I have
worked to correct this unfortunate misconception--these barracks aren't
in anyone's congressional district--they don't benefit one Member of
this Congress--they benefit the young men and women who are deployed by
President Clinton to Bosnia--as chairman of this subcommittee, and as I
leave this House later this year, one of the things I am most proud of,
is not just to talk about how I support our troops but to send a
concrete signal that we really do care. I urge a strong vote against
this amendment, and in support of the quality of life for our soldiers
stationed overseas. There is nothing more important than to ensure they
receive a decent place to live.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill would not be the fine product that
it is without the able, dedicated, and professional work of our
subcommittee staff, Liz Dawson, Hank Moore, Mary Arnold and Mark
Murray, and I want to personally thank them for all their efforts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121,
noes 289, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 200]
AYES--121
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Campbell
Cardin
Chabot
Clay
Coburn
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Fawell
Filner
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gillmor
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hancock
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
Klug
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martini
McCarthy
McDermott
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Sanders
Sanford
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Watt (NC)
Weller
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
[[Page H5673]]
NOES--289
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nethercutt
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (VA)
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--24
Bachus
Camp
Chapman
de la Garza
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Foglietta
Ford
Geren
Gutknecht
Hayes
Houghton
Jefferson
Kennelly
Lincoln
McDade
Molinari
Mollohan
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Quinn
Thornton
Wilson
{time} 1300
Messrs. BLUTE, COSTELLO, OBERSTAR, and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CHABOT, OLVER, FOX of Pennsylvania, and Ms. RIVERS changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Appropriations Act, 1997''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3517),
making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and
base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant
to House Resolution 442, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 369,
nays 43, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 201]
YEAS--369
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
[[Page H5674]]
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--43
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Campbell
Conyers
Cooley
Frank (MA)
Furse
Hancock
Johnston
Kleczka
Klug
LaHood
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Luther
Markey
Martini
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Minge
Nadler
Neumann
Oberstar
Owens
Petri
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Roemer
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Stark
Stockman
Upton
Vento
Watt (NC)
Weller
Williams
Yates
NOT VOTING--22
Bachus
Brown (OH)
Chapman
Clay
de la Garza
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Foglietta
Ford
Gutknecht
Hayes
Houghton
Jefferson
Kennelly
Lincoln
McDade
Molinari
Mollohan
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Quinn
Wilson
{time} 1322
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________