[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12036-S12037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE

 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue 
that has troubled me greatly over the years and has recently become an 
even greater problem as our Nation strives toward a balanced budget. 
This is the issue of the quality of life of our service men and women.
  As a former enlisted sailor in the Navy, a commissioned officer in 
the Marine Corps, and Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, I have 
a particular empathy for our men and women in uniform. These men and 
women make sacrifices every day, throughout their careers, in defense 
of our nation. However, the pay and benefits that they receive, which 
in some cases are woefully inadequate, are constantly under attack by 
people and organizations that are too focused on the bottom-line and 
not on the morale and readiness of our Armed Forces. It is for this 
reason that I, as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, 
sleep with one eye open in order to protect the benefits which our 
service members and veterans have earned through loyal and patriotic 
service to our Nation.
  I have worked hard, together with my colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee, to provide increased funding to improve the quality of life 
of our Armed Forces. In particular, we have been concerned about the 
lack of adequate funding for the maintenance of military housing. Many 
of our service members and their families are forced to live in 
substandard housing. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee 
this year, Department of Defense officials testified that a full 80 
percent of military housing falls below Department of Defense 
standards. The result of years of diverting maintenance funds to other 
requirements is military housing units with leaky plumbing, flaking 
paint and broken appliances. Our service members deserve better!
  That is why I was so concerned to see two articles in the most recent 
editions of the Navy and Army Times which describe further inequities 
for our service members in the area of military housing. I ask 
unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.
  The first article concerns a report by the General Accounting Office, 
dated September 17, 1996, which recommends that military families 
should begin paying rent for living in Government quarters. The report 
suggests that the rental payments are not primarily to raise money from 
military families, but to treat all service members equally whether 
they live on or off base. It is unfortunate that GAO's recommended 
solution to fix what they perceive to be an inequity is to raise the 
out-of-pocket expenses of the families living on-base, rather than 
increase the housing allowances to an adequate level for those living 
off-base. GAO's first response is to cut benefits to our Armed Forces.
  I was pleased to see that the Pentagon opposes this idea. I will work 
with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to ensure that this 
GAO recommendation is not adopted.
  The second article concerns a recent ruling by the General Accounting 
Office that a service member who is required to move because of 
renovation or construction of their base housing, is not eligible for a 
dislocation allowance to cover the expenses of that move. This is an 
issue of basic fairness. How can the Government, in good conscience, 
order a military service member to uproot and move his or her family 
and all of their possessions, but not pay the expenses of that move? 
This is another example of the constant attack on the benefits of our 
service members.
  I will work with the Pentagon to try to find a solution to this 
problem. It is my understanding that the Pentagon had been paying 
service members a dislocation allowance for these moves prior to the 
GAO ruling. I am hopeful that a quick solution can be found so that 
service members will not have to bear the cost of these moves. If 
necessary, I will introduce legislation next year to correct this 
unfair practice.
  Mr. President, it is time that we end this continuous assault on the 
quality of life of our Armed Forces. It is a question of fairness and 
respect for those that so selflessly serve our nation and defend the 
freedom that we all hold dear.

                 [From the Navy Times, Sept. 30, 1996]

       Paying Rent on Base? Government Report Says All Should Pay

                             (By Rick Maze)

       Military families should begin paying a modest rent for 
     living in government quarters, according to a new 
     congressional report.
       The rental payments are being suggested not so much to 
     raise money from military families as they are to treat all 
     service members equally, whether they live on or off base.
       But the underlying reason is that the rental payments would 
     eliminate the attraction of living on base for many military 
     members, and that would result in huge savings for the 
     government
       The ``rent'' would vary by rank and location, but would 
     average $2,016 a year, according to the Sept. 17 General 
     Accounting Office report. That is the same amount as the 
     average out-of-pocket cost for service members with families 
     living off base, whose housing

[[Page S12037]]

     allowances are set to fall roughly 18.5 percent short of 
     covering the full cost of lodging and utilities.


                        no rent checks just yet

       Rent checks won't be required any time soon, because the 
     report was delivered to the Senate Armed Services personnel 
     subcommittee just weeks before Congress was scheduled to 
     adjourn.
       But the recommendations will play a part in the debate next 
     year over both the planned overhaul of the military housing 
     allowances and the Pentagon's continued push to improve 
     housing conditions, both on and off base.
       In recommending the on-base rents, auditors from the 
     bipartisan congressional office said it isn't fair that 
     people living off base must pay out of their own pockets for 
     housing while people in the government quarters live rent-
     free.
       But the real reason the bipartisan office is pushing the 
     idea is the belief that charging even a modest amount for 
     living in military family housing could save money. That's 
     because rent-free living is one of the major attractions of 
     living in government quarters.
       If there is no financial difference between living on or 
     off base, the government might be able to reduce its housing 
     inventory. That would save money, the report says, because it 
     costs the government an average of $4,957 more per year for 
     each family living in government quarters than it costs to 
     subsidize families living off base.


                            dod says ``no''

       The Defense Department opposes the idea, saying the rent 
     would have ``potentially severe consequences for military 
     retention and readiness, a sit would equate to a reduction in 
     benefits for those personnel.''
       In an official response included in the GAO report, defense 
     officials said the ``only viable alternative'' is increasing 
     housing allowances to eliminate unreimbursed expenses for 
     those living off base.
       But that is not likely.
       It would take about $1.4 billion a year to raise housing 
     allowances by enough to eliminate out-of-pocket costs for 
     people living off base, defense officials said. It would cost 
     $322 million a year to reduce average unreimbursed housing 
     expenses to 15 percent, the goal of the current allowance 
     system.
       The point of the GAO report is that the services could and 
     should rely more on the private sector to provide housing and 
     eliminate some family quarters. The one exception, according 
     to the report, is that more on-base housing should be 
     dedicated to junior enlisted members with families, who have 
     the greatest difficulty finding affordable off-base housing.
       Defense officials said they will leave decisions about who 
     gets on-base housing to installation commanders. In some 
     cases, junior enlisted personnel get priority. But in most 
     places, career service members whom the services want to 
     retain are given on-base housing ahead of junior members, 
     defense officials said.
       There are some locations with more on-base housing than 
     necessary, defense officials said.
       Construction plans have been modified to prevent 
     overbuilding, but any existing housing that can be 
     economically maintained will be kept open.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Army Times, Sept. 30, 1996]

 Military Won't Pay for You To Move Out of Way--You'll Pick Up Tab for 
                Relocating for Base Housing Renovations

                          (By Andrew Compart)

       The good news: The military is fixing the housing at your 
     base.
       The bad news: Although the military is forcing you to move 
     because of renovations or new construction, it cannot pay you 
     a dislocation allowance to cover your expenses, the General 
     Accounting Office ruled Sept. 11.
       The dislocation allowance, designed to help military people 
     offset the costs of forced moves, is only intended for use 
     when a move is required because of a permanent change of 
     station or an evacuation, the GAO Comptroller General's 
     Office said in its decision.
       The military can use other funds, such as money designated 
     for operations and maintenance, to help people pay for 
     ``mandatory'' items, such as charges for hooking up the 
     telephone and other utilities, the ruling said. But even that 
     money cannot be used to help offset the cost of ``personal'' 
     items, such as drapes or rugs.


                  couldn't afford ``anything decent''

       The GAO ruling came in a case involving Air Force SSgt. 
     Daren Pierce at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, after 
     the financial services officer for the base's 366th 
     Comptroller Squadron asked for a decision on the issue.
       Pierce said he was one of many people to complain when they 
     found out they couldn't get the dislocation allowance, which 
     is a lump-sum payment equal to a person's basic allowance for 
     quarters for two months. He spent $150 to $200 for blinds at 
     his previous home, and though he could scarcely afford it, he 
     spent $120 on the cheapest blinds he could find for the new 
     home.
       Pierce said he would have been satisfied with a partial 
     dislocation allowance. ``I'm not out there to get a bunch of 
     money. But I feel we should be reimbursed for what our 
     expenses were,'' he said, adding that he believes the housing 
     construction is necessary for people at the base.
       Mountain Home is replacing 52 of 612 1950s-era family 
     housing units with two-bedroom homes for junior enlisted 
     people, a project that began in mid-February. Eventually all 
     units will be replaced, said Senior Airman Sonja Whittington, 
     a base spokeswoman.
       The base left some homes empty in anticipation of the 
     reconstruction, and it met with the other families in ``town 
     meetings'' to answer questions about their impending moves. 
     The base paid for movers and expenses such as telephone and 
     cable television connections.
       Initially the base also paid the dislocation allowance to 
     12 of the families, Whittington said. But within a week the 
     base was told by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
     that it had made a mistake, according to Whittington and the 
     GAO summary of the case, and the base had to ask the families 
     to give the money back.
       ``It's unfortunate there was an error, but getting brand 
     new housing is a nice thing,'' Whittington said. ``We tried 
     to make it as easy on our people as we could within the 
     guidelines.''
       It is not known how often complaints about unreimbursed 
     expenses arise. Richard Hentz, in charge of programming for 
     Army family housing construction projects, said the issue 
     never has been raised with him.
       At Fort Knox, Ky., where housing renovations are scheduled 
     to begin Nov. 1, officials stopped moving people into homes 
     that are to be renovated. But even still, more than 400 
     families are being affected, said Peter Andrysiak, chief of 
     the base's housing division.

                          ____________________