[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6460-H6469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 732 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4837.
{time} 1247
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. 4837) making appropriations for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
[[Page H6461]]
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to present the fiscal year 2005 military
construction appropriations bill, which was reported out of the full
committee on appropriations on July 9 by voice vote.
Let me at the beginning thank all of the people who contributed to
this bill, the subcommittee staff, and my ranking member, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I want to also call attention to some of the
staff who did remarkable work to bring this bill forward: Carol Murphy,
Walter Hearne, Eric Elsmo, Mary Arnold and, of course, Tom Forhan on
the minority side.
The ultimate purpose of this bill is to support our service men and
women by providing a quality of life commensurate with the sacrifices
they are called upon to make. I want to thank each Member again of the
subcommittee, because they did contribute greatly via, in some cases,
CODELs to look at some of the housing, for example, around the country
and around the world. I thank them for their hard work and support, and
certainly I add to it again the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who
has been a strong and vocal supporter of our men and women in the
service for years.
The bill totals $10 billion, which is $162 million above the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level and $450 million above the President's request.
The bill also contains a general provision related to housing
privatization that CBO scores as additional budget authority. I will
get to that shortly. But let me emphasize that $10.003 billion is what
the bill appropriates, and not a penny more.
Mr. Chairman, we are at war. Many will argue that in such a time as
this, when so many of our servicemembers and their families are making
great sacrifices, that this bill does not provide enough. In one
respect, they are right. There is no question we could do more if we
had more. But I think this bill does a lot of good things and provides
our active, Guard, and Reserve servicemembers with critically needed
infrastructure to meet their mission goals, and it improves housing and
community facilities for their families.
That being said, I want to draw some attention now to the highlights
of this bill. Within the total amount of $10 billion, the bill provides
$5.3 billion for military construction, including $1.1 billion for
troop barracks; $833 million for the Guard and Reserve component and
other facilities such as schools, fitness centers, and child
development centers.
The bill also provides $1.6 billion for family housing construction,
including funding for about 18 to 24 privatization projects, depending
upon the cost of those projects; $2.5 billion for family housing
operations and maintenance; $246 million for costs related to past BRAC
rounds; and $166 million for the NATO Security Investment Program.
In addition, the bill fully funds overseas military construction; it
fully funds the chemical demilitarization construction program; it
provides the requested funds for projects associated with new weapons
systems, including the Army Stryker vehicle, the F-22 Raptor fighter
jet, and the C-17 Globemaster cargo plane; and provides much needed
funding for the Navy to continue replacing inadequate pier
infrastructure.
Now I want to say a word or two about the family housing
privatization program.
Mr. Chairman, a limitation on budget authority was placed on the
program when it was first authorized in 1996. This $850 million cap was
put in as a safeguard for what was then a new and untested program, a
pilot program, if you will. Eight years later, the program has become
one of the most successful programs we have ever had for improving the
quality of life and morale of our troops and families.
This cap will be reached before the end of this year; and if action
is not taken to increase the limitation in fiscal year 2005, progress
on replacing substandard homes will be seriously hampered.
Unfortunately, we have run into a scoring issue with the CBO, which has
complicated the solving of this problem.
To my colleagues who are concerned about the impact that the
provision would have on our budget deficit, I want to say this, and I
may have to repeat this: this provision does not appropriate any new
money. None. All the money that is needed to support privatization is
already contained within the bill. All this provision does is raise the
authorization to allow the program to continue. Not a single dime more
will be drawn from the Treasury as a result of this provision.
The committee, frankly, disagrees with the new approach that CBO has
decided to take to score the program. It does not reflect the reality
of the program. To me, since the provision spends no new money, scoring
is like building a bridge where there is no water.
Mr. Chairman, this is truly a vital program. To endanger it because
of some bookkeeping disagreement would be unwise. I personally have
seen the homes being built because of the program, and I have talked to
military spouses about how their lives have improved because of this
program. You might be interested in knowing twice the percentage of
families that are in the military service are married as compared to,
say, during the Vietnam War. This is a good program, it is a bipartisan
program, and it is a necessary program.
CBO's rationale for how it scores this program is complex,
convoluted, and unfounded. Every Member of Congress that I have talked
to strongly supports this program, and I mean every Member. Every
witness that testified before the subcommittee supports this program,
including the Joint Chiefs and the military spouses. The chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services supports this program. Even the
administration, the White House, and the Department of Defense strongly
support the provision and submitted statements to the committee that it
would not result in any, any additional cost to the Federal Government.
I have not heard from one single person that does not support this
program.
If the housing privatization cap is not raised, then 16 projects
covering 23 installations spanning 13 States will be affected in fiscal
year 2005. The affected projects include major installations in
California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. A significant number of Members on both
sides of the aisle will feel the impact on their military constituents.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the gentleman from Michigan
(Chairman Knollenberg) for his dedication to improving the quality of
life for our military families. His commitment is genuine, and his work
on this bill has been thorough and fair, along with the work of his
staff. At every step of the way, the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman
Knollenberg) has put the interests of our service men and women above
all other interests. I commend him for that, and he deserves our thanks
and respect for that.
Given what I believe is an inadequate allocation for this
subcommittee, a 1.6 percent increase in military construction funds
during a time of war, an allocation that is nearly a half a billion
dollars below what we spent on military construction before the Iraqi
war began 2 years ago, given all of that, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Knollenberg), the subcommittee, and I have worked together to try
to maximize the use of these inadequate tax dollars to benefit our
troops, and that is why I intend to vote for this bill.
I am also pleased that we have been able to address, as long as no
Member of the House objects to it, what could have been a terrible
injustice to our military families. Eight years ago, we began a new
approach to military housing. We combined Federal dollars with the
strengths and resources of the private sector to create public-private
partnerships to improve military housing.
[[Page H6462]]
This innovative program is saving taxpayers billions of dollars and
dramatically improving housing for our military families. Housing that
would have taken 50 years to build under the old system is now being
done in one-tenth of that time, in 5 years. Through this public-private
partnership, we are providing military families with housing that they
can be proud of, and certainly they deserve no less.
Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office changed the scoring on
this process. In my opinion, they erroneously are scoring dollars that
businesses borrow to help build these new homes, even though the
Federal Government is not responsible for those dollars. OMB disagrees
with CBO's approach, and so do I.
Had we, in this committee, on a bipartisan basis under the leadership
of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) not raised the
cap on the public-private military housing program, new housing
projects would have come to a halt this November, just a few months
away, shutting out over 24,000 military families from new houses in
fiscal year 2005 and then delaying an additional 25,000 or so, for an
impact on almost 50,000 military families in the next 2 years. That
would have sent a terrible message to our military families during a
time of war. It is also a good reason for no Member to object on a
procedural basis, a technical point, against this amendment.
As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I would point out that I
made an effort this spring to solve this problem. The Committee on the
Budget refused to solve the problem. I then talked to members of the
Committee on the Budget and urged them to meet and work with the
Committee on Armed Services to address the problem. The Committee on
Armed Services did address it for fiscal year 2006, but did not do it
for 2005. Had we failed to act in this subcommittee on this bill, it
would have been the third strike. Instead, this subcommittee took the
responsibility on a bipartisan basis to address this housing crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman
Knollenberg) once again for his strong efforts on this particular
important issue. It also could not have been done without the strong
leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the
Committee on Appropriations and its subcommittee staffs.
If any Member of this House who objects to the increase in the cap on
military housing and the directed scoring allows that to happen, let me
explain clearly, Mr. Chairman, what the impact will be. Tens of
thousands of military families that are planning right now on having
new housing built starting next year will have those promises broken,
those promises dashed, even families who have loved ones fighting in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
{time} 1300
If we do that, it would be a grave injustice to men and women and
families who are making incredible sacrifices on behalf of our
children.
Considering the fact that the Committee on Rules allows protection
against technical points of order every week in this Congress, on a
regular basis, for unimportant issues as well as important issues,
surely if there was ever a reason to put the interests of military
families above the interests of technical points of order, today should
be the day, and better housing for those families should be the reason.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss not to mention my disappointment
concerning the overall funding level in this bill. Our Nation is at
war. Our service men and women are risking their lives in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and throughout the world. Military families are making
great, great personal sacrifices for the American family. Yet, this
bill spends $420 million less on military construction than we spent
prior to the Iraqi war. So Congress, in effect, is asking for more from
our troops and military families, while spending less on military
construction. That does not make sense.
It does not pass the fairness test because it means we are
shortchanging military housing, day care centers, training ranges, and
military work facilities. That is not right.
If we can make significant new commitments to defense spending and
highway spending and countless other programs, why can we not provide
more than a 1.6 percent increase in military construction, which is so
important to our troops' quality of life and their training and working
conditions, especially during a time of war?
In March of last year, as American troops were making the final plans
to commence the war in Iraq, the majority leader, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) spoke to bankers and said this: ``Nothing is more
important in the face of war than cutting taxes.'' In all due respect
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), that flawed ideology would be
hard to explain to the nearly 400,000 Army soldiers I represent at Fort
Hood, Texas, nearly 40,000 soldiers who have been asked to serve in
Iraq just this year. It would be hard to explain to their spouses and
children who have to worry every day whether their loved ones will ever
return home.
I believe most Americans, as they did after Pearl Harbor would say,
you know what? Supporting our troops and their families during a time
of war is far more important than tax cuts, especially if some of those
tax cuts benefit Members of Congress, like us. Unfortunately, the
inadequate allocation in this bill reflects the ideology of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) rather than the quintessential
American value of shared sacrifice during a time of war.
By increasing defense construction spending by only 1.6 percent, not
even enough to keep up with inflation, in effect, in that way, it is a
real cut in military construction and quality-of-life programs. It
spends $420 million, as I said, less than we spent 2 years ago before
the Iraq war even began, and even $900 million less in this bill that
the administration, the Bush administration, said was needed for
military construction just 12 months ago.
If anyone thinks this allocation was not decided by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) or me or this committee, but was
decided by a higher pay grade in this House leadership, if anyone
thinks this allocation we had to deal with is adequate, let me remind
them of some of the facts provided by the Department of Defense: Number
one, 39,000 Army families live in inadequate housing; number two,
34,000 Army barracks do not meet even basic Department of Defense
standards; number three, 16,000 Navy and Marine Corps families live in
inadequate housing; number four, 31,000 Air Force families live in
inadequate housing; number five, 70 percent of Army facilities are C-3
or C-4, which means mission impaired; number six, 66 percent, two-
thirds, of Air Force facilities are C-3 or C-4, again meaning that the
mission of those facilities could be impaired.
Just a month ago, the House voted for a new $69 billion tax break
that will not help our military families, but it will just happen to
provide a $1,000 tax credit to Members of Congress such as myself for
every child that we have. So I will receive a $2,000 tax credit as a
result of that bill that the House voted for, over my objection, 2
months ago.
Now, how can we look today in the faces of our service men and women,
look them in the eye and say, last month we could afford to pass a $69
billion child tax credit that applies to people making between $110,000
and $250,000 a year, but today, we cannot even afford 5 percent of that
amount to provide a decent increase in military construction funding
for military families making $20,000 and $30,000 a year. I just do not
see the fairness in that.
Every one of us, Mr. Chairman, Democrat and Republican alike,
genuinely respects the service and sacrifices of our troops and their
families. No one, no one should doubt that. But I strongly believe that
it is time that our budget priorities in Congress should better reflect
that respect. Our service men and women deserve no less.
Despite the objections I have to the underfunding of this, despite my
concern that perhaps a Member of Congress, for whatever reason, well-
intentioned or not, might strike an amendment that would literally
freeze the most important military housing program ever, because of the
strong leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg),
because of the bipartisan way in which he worked this bill, because of
his deep commitment and our committee's work to spend an inadequate
amount of dollars as efficiently as we possibly could, I intend to vote
for this legislation.
[[Page H6463]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Granger), who is also a member of the subcommittee.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important
bill that provides for our military and their families. First, I want
to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for
putting together a great bill, and I also want to commend the ranking
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for his work on the
bill.
The military construction bill for fiscal year 2005 provides just
over $10 billion for construction at our military bases here at home
and overseas, and also for important family housing projects and
quality-of-life initiatives at our military installations. Among other
things, the bill provides funding for new barracks, medical and dental
facilities, and fitness centers and child development centers for our
troops and their families. The bill also provides funding for
construction projects that support major weapons programs like the F/A-
22 Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter.
I strongly support the inclusion of the provision in this bill to
raise the cap on the Military Family Housing Privatization Initiative.
If we do not raise this cap, this privatization initiative will come to
a halt in November of this year and jeopardize projects to build or
renovate 50,000 housing units for our military families. This program
is simply the best way to improve housing for our troops and their
families.
Additionally, the bill includes several important construction
projects for Naval Air Station/joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, in my
district.
It is absolutely essential that we pass this bill to support our
military men and women and their families during this time of war.
Again, I thank the chairman for his great work on this bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), a very effective and hard-working member of the
Subcommittee on Military Construction.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg)
for his leadership on this bill.
We have just had a long debate on this military housing issue, and I
think what is missing in it is a little bit of understanding of what it
is all about.
Several years ago, Congress authorized that instead of designing
military housing, instead of funding and building it, essentially
putting up taxpayers' money and then going out to bid and building it
to a military plan, we decided why not allow the private sector to
build this housing, build it more like the housing that is in the
communities, higher quality housing, and build it to the standards that
are normally found in the private sector in housing; and this was
called the RCI, Residential Community Initiative. It has been a very
effective program because we do not have to put up taxpayer money to do
it.
Through that, what we have found is that the private sector rushed in
and put together these consortiums of developers and have done a job
that is more attractive than anything we could have done under the old
sort of public-military housing concept.
And the soldiers and the wives of the soldiers are very, very
interested. In fact, they came to our committee and said of all of the
issues affecting the military, of all of the issues affecting families
in the military, the number one issue was adequate housing. Not
surprisingly, it is probably the same question on the private side. And
they applauded us for addressing the issue, but they asked us to make
sure that we do not get stuck in these internal budget rules.
What we are talking about is an internal rule. It is our own rule, we
can waive it if we want to, and that is the issue. We should be waiving
it. Why should we be waiving it? Because we do not have to put up the
money; the private sector does it. Why should we waive it? Because it
is all about investment. It is the ounce of prevention that is worth a
pound of cure. What is the investment in? It is in quality homes built
to code standards in the community, the highest standards we have ever
had in this country. It is built to the kind of quality that the
housewives and soldiers, the men and women in uniform like.
And what does it do? It helps us, one, go out and recruit people, and
we are in an all-voluntary military. We cannot force them to join. They
want to join, and part of it is the benefit package that is offered to
you while you are in the military, including the housing.
The second is, once you get in, if you are assigned to bases that
have the inadequate housing that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards)
talked about, and there is a lot of it out there, people living in
Quonset huts, we should not allow that. If these were local homes, they
would be shut down by the building inspectors, yet we allow military
families to live in them when the private sector can build new homes.
So we need to do that for retention.
Once we have these well-trained people in the military, we want them
to stay. One of the biggest attractions of staying is you get to live
in a quality community.
So this internal budget rule makes no sense, and I hope that nobody
raises an objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is a member of the subcommittee as
well.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in strong support of this legislation for a lot of reasons.
Most important, I think, is that of all of the bills that we pass that
relate to defense, this is the only piece of legislation whose main
theme is the betterment of the lives of the men and women who wear our
uniform; and it does it primarily in the area of housing in terms of
their quality of life.
For too long, we have put the priority in terms of the weapons
systems, in terms of the tanks that they drove, and for the first time
in modern history, we are now saying that quality of life, living
conditions are very, very important to our men and women.
So in this bill we spend over $1 billion of new money to provide for
that kind of housing, and we do it in creative, innovative ways,
something like a Ship-to-Shore program.
Right now, our sailors, when they are at sea being deployed, they
live in very cramped situations, and that is a real sacrifice that they
make, and it is part of the sacrifice they make overall. But when they
come back to their home port, it is inexcusable that they have to
continue to live on these ships in these cramped conditions, and that
is what the Ship-to-Shore program helps to solve. It gives them a place
to live on their base, more living room, a better way to live; and that
is important.
Then we have heard a lot of discussion about housing privatization.
This is revolutionary, and it is crazy that somebody has decided that
when the Federal Government spends no money whatsoever that somehow,
that is counted against Federal spending. So we have this new program
that is innovative, creative, where the private sector comes in, builds
new housing, takes the kinds of risks that they ought to take because
they know it is going to be a profitable situation. So we have that as
well.
Most of all, this bill recognizes the most important asset we have
are our men and women in uniform, and this goes a long way towards
providing a better quality of life for all of them. I urge the adoption
of this legislation.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, again, I applaud this subcommittee for addressing a
very serious crisis in military housing that will occur just a few
months from now if we do not include the language that was added in the
amendment.
To be specific about it, let me just say to my colleagues, Mr.
Chairman, some of the families and the numbers of families, the
different locations of military installations that will be affected if
a Member of the House were to raise a point of order against this
housing measure that we added: In New York at Fort Drum, 2,272 families
would have their new housing put on hold. I believe Fort Drum has
played an important role in the Iraqi war.
{time} 1315
In Pennsylvania, 316 families at the Carlisle Barracks would have
their new
[[Page H6464]]
housing put on hold. At Fort Bliss in Texas, 2,776 families would have
their housing put on hold. At Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, 2,739
military families would see the promise of new housing for them broken.
At Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, 914 families would lose the
promise of new housing. At Langley in Virginia, the State of Virginia,
1,268 families would have their new housing denied them.
Sheppard Air Force Base, 1,288 families in Texas would lose that
improved housing. New Jersey, 2,415 at McGuire Air Force Base in Fort
Dix. Those are not numbers. That is 2,415 military families making
sacrifices for our country who would see their housing dreams go down
the tubes.
Let us look at Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, the Southeast and
Eastern Navy projects: 6,076 families would have a ``no'' said to them
in regard to new housing. How about Twentynine Palms in California,
1,382 families. Well, let us look at Camp Lejeune. Obviously they have
made tremendous sacrifices, those machines, that installation as part
of our war on terrorism; 3,516 of those families would be told no.
Congress could afford to vote in the month of May for a $69 billion tax
cut that gave Members of Congress a tax break, but we cannot afford to
give you new housing this year during time of war; we have got to put a
freeze on your new housing.
Well, let us go down to Georgia. People at Fort Benning have made
tremendous sacrifices for our country. They would actually lose 4,055
new military housing under the freeze if any Member of this House
objects to the amendment we put in the bill.
At Fort Benning, actually they would not lose it this year. They are
planning on getting their new housing next year. They have been told
they will not even get their new housing next year, because that will
have to be pushed back a year because of the freeze that would occur on
military housing this year. Fort Knox, Kentucky, would be in that
similar situation. Their new housing for 3,380 military housing would
be pushed back a year if any Member objects to what we did on a
bipartisan basis in this committee.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to just say the Military Officers
Association of America, the Association of the United States Army, the
Air Force Association, the National Military Family Association have
all written letters asking this House on a bipartisan basis to protect
the increase in the cap for military housing so we can show respect to
our military families during time of war, not just with our words and
our rhetoric but with our deeds and better housing.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the committee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this military construction
appropriations bill and would like to commend the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards)
for their good work on this legislation.
I would also like to voice my specific support for those provisions
of this bill which continue the critical ongoing renovation of military
housing. In my district in northern New Jersey, the Army through its
Residential Communities Initiative has selected a developer to
privatize and revitalize military housing at Picatinny Arsenal. Looking
at the larger RCI program, Picatinny's participation is relatively
small. We have approximately 113 affected families, but the
refurbishment of their houses and homes will have a deep impact on
their quality of life. For them this debate and the chairman's
leadership has indeed a very human face. These military families care
about leaky roofs, substandard plumbing, and ancient electrical wiring.
Mr. Chairman, we in Congress can do several things to support our
young fighting men and women who serve our country with such
dedication, because literally we are a Nation at war. We can make sure
they have adequate pay and benefits. In this regard, we have made
significant progress in recent years. We can also ensure that their
retirement benefits meet their needs when their service is over. Again,
we continue to work to improve veterans programs, but we can and must
work to improve the day-to-day quality of life that they have. In this
regard, there are few things more important to military personnel than
where they live and the quality of the roof over their heads.
This legislation contains important provisions which will allow the
continued revitalization of military housing. I would urge the
Committee on the Budget to allow this program to continue and to
support the bill as it was drafted.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks), a tremendous leader in this Congress on defense
issues and an important member of the Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we did not have much time on the rule to
discuss this issue on the cap on family housing, and I want to first of
all congratulate the chairman (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards) for working together in a very bipartisan basis in
our committee. The chairman could not have done more to help bring this
provision to the floor of the House. We all regret, and I think it was
a mistake in judgment for the Committee on Rules, to make a decision to
not protect this provision, and this provision which raised by $500
million the cap on family housing was sought by the administration.
Each of the services testified before our subcommittee. The Secretary
of Defense and his people supported it. The White House supported it.
OMB supported it. The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services
supported it. Of course our distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations also supported it. And we are going
to make a decision based on an arcane rule coming out of CBO that is in
conflict with OMB.
Now, my view in this situation, if I were in the majority party and
the administration wanted this done, I would be trying to find a way to
make it happen; and this is a big problem, because there are, I think,
about a dozen projects.
Here are the projects that will not go forward this year if the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has his way: Fort Drum, New York;
Dover Air Force Base, Delaware; Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina;
Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico; Fort Monmouth/Picatinny Arsenal, New
Jersey; Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; Fort Bliss, Texas; White Sands
Missile Range, New Mexico; Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma; Eglin/
Hurlburt Air Force Base, Florida; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas;
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma; McGuire Air Force Base/Fort Dix, New
Jersey; MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, California; MCSA Kansas City,
Missouri; Camp Lejeune/MCB Cherry Point, North Carolina; Stewart Army
Subpost.
Those projects will all be delayed because of this decision; and as
has been suggested, we are in a time of war. We are in a war on
terrorism, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan. We have our troops
deployed all over the world.
The one thing the people who are deploying say and their spouses say
is one thing we really would like to see an improvement in, in the
services, is military housing; and we have worked at Fort Lewis. I have
a major project out there that is going forward. It is one of the
greatest successes. We can get more housing, new housing and more
restored housing faster under this public-private sector project; and
usually the majority party is thrilled about public-private projects.
In this case, this decision will adversely affect the quality of life
of men and women serving in the military and their families, and this
is over an arcane budget rule. To me, the insistence on striking this
out is one of the worst mistakes I think we have made around here in a
long time.
One thing I have always been proud of, this House has always been
able to rise above partisan or short-term considerations and work
towards a bipartisan cooperation on defense. Let us not ruin that
today.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
[[Page H6465]]
from Virginia (Mr. Goode), who is a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I too want to salute our Chair, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I agree with them. I do not agree
with CBO as other speakers have so indicated. I agree with OMB, I agree
with the President, and I agree with our subcommittee on this issue of
caps. I cannot understand how CBO scores it as it does.
Let me mention briefly the impact in Virginia. An additional 39 units
are planned for privatization in fiscal year 2006 and 2007. This
includes 22 projects in 16 different States. In Virginia at Langley Air
Force Base, we are talking about 1,400 units. I can tell you the
quality of life of those at Langley would be significantly enhanced if
this could go forward.
One gentleman on the other side said we have got to find a way to
make it happen. I believe the best thing to do is vote for this bill,
send it forward. This is just part of the process through which
Military Construction will go before it is finally adopted by both the
House and the Senate and signed by the President.
So I would urge a ``yes'' vote, go forward with the process, and I
think positive things will happen throughout that process.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in yielding me time.
I, too, was saddened by the decision of the House Republican
leadership, so ably articulated by my friend, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards); and I appreciate the service you are doing for our
servicemen and -women, training the spotlight on this.
But I would like to speak briefly, if I could, Mr. Chairman, to a
specific area. Historically, I have come before this subcommittee
talking about the problems of military cleanup. I did not this time,
because I appreciated what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the members of
the committee, were faced with. And I think they have done a good job
under difficult circumstances, trying to put a little bit of money into
the BRAC cleanup; but I would like to serve notice that I am hopeful
that this is the last time that we place this low degree of priority.
I appreciate the imperative that you are facing, but we have a long-
term time bomb, literally, that is ticking. The presence of unexploded
ordnance and other contaminants on transferred military property limits
our use of hundreds of thousands of acres of closed military bases from
prime real estate to scenic open space. That is one of the reasons why
we have such great apprehension about the BRAC process that is working
its way forward. People are afraid that they are going to be left with
a toxic white elephant.
And, indeed, the BRAC situation is just the tip of the iceberg,
because we have between 10 and 50 million polluted acres; and at the
rate of the spending that we are embarked upon now under the MILCON and
the Department of Defense, we are going to take in the neighborhood of
300 years or more to clean up this responsibility that will be
skyrocketing in costs over time. And these things get worse as the
explosives, as the military equipment deteriorates, polluting
groundwater, migrating to the surface. This is a problem that we cannot
continue to sweep under the rug.
The Federal Government should be leading by example, cleaning up
after itself, making sure we are not leaving an expensive, toxic legacy
for the future.
Last but not least, this subcommittee can help by providing more
leadership with local communities to provide a framework to the
cleanup. I have been impressed with what happened in the State of
California, recognizing that long-term operation of military
installations must involve a partnership between the State, the local,
the Federal Government; in some areas, tribal authorities.
{time} 1330
I would hope that we could work together in a cooperative fashion
with these other entities to be able to have a framework that will
promote the clean-up because, ultimately, not only will this improve
the quality of life of our military families, it will hasten the day
that we solve this problem, saving billions of long-term dollars.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
I thank the gentleman for having produced an excellent bill with
limited funds available; and I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards), the ranking member, for his partnership in making this a very
good bill. It is a good bill.
We are focusing on one part of the bill, and I think that is
appropriate. We should focus on that one part of the bill, but all of
the items included in this appropriations bill for military
construction are needed. They are cost effective and they are very good
projects. But the one that we are vitally concerned about today, the
one that we fear might have a point of order raised against it, is the
military family housing issue.
I have not found anybody, Mr. Chairman, that is opposed to doing what
we want to do. We want to provide decent housing for the members of our
military and their families. We do not want a soldier or a Marine to be
in Iraq or Afghanistan and have in the back of his mind that his family
is living in a rat-trap condition back home. That soldier, that Marine,
has to be paying full attention to the mission and to accomplishing the
mission, and also to providing some protection for himself or herself
while they do this mission.
Congress needs to be totally supportive of the troops; and Congress
has done a really good job. I am proud to say that we have identified,
just during this year alone, many areas where the government is not
taking proper care of military members and their families, and we are
fixing them.
And, Mr. Chairman, we ought to do that. We need to fix these issues.
We need to provide what our troops need and we need to protect them
while they are doing it. And we need to have their families have a
quality of life while they are out fighting that war. They do not need
to be worried about what conditions the folks are living in back home.
The reason we need to do this is because this Congress voted to send
them to the war. Now, maybe everybody did not vote for it, but most of
us did, and we have an obligation to the men and women who protect this
Nation and protect our national interests, wherever they might be, and
who are on the front line in the war against terrorism and the threats
of terrorists. A world that is controlled by terrorists or their
threats of violence is not acceptable, and I do not know of anyone who
would disagree with that except the terrorists.
This Congress has stepped up to the plate before, and we need to step
up to the plate today. I am not exactly sure what the issue is on
military family housing. Everybody is for it, but there are some who
want to strike it from this bill and do it at a later time. What I
cannot understand is, if we are going to do it at a later time, why not
do it now?
There may be some other bills that could solve this same problem, but
this bill is here and fixes it today. Some other bill that might solve
this problem of family housing for the military, but it may not have to
pass. This bill has to pass. Before this Congress can leave its
business, this bill and all of the other appropriations bills have to
pass.
That is an interesting point. A lot of folks do not understand that.
Appropriations bills have to pass because if they do not, the
government shuts down. Now, who wants to shut down the government? I do
not know of anybody who wants to shut down the government. There may be
some.
But this bill has to pass, and that is why we ought to solve the
problem of military housing for families in this bill today, while we
are here on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Now, there is a scoring issue. We have had many bills come to the
floor where the Committee on the Budget
[[Page H6466]]
could have raised points of order--issues like the farm bill that
exceeded the budget resolution; like the Medicare reform bill, where
costs far exceeded the estimate; and this afternoon we are going to
consider a highway program that exceeds the authorizing committee
allocation by $400 million. And I have heard nothing about raising
points of order on those bills.
I have not heard anyone from the Committee on the Budget state a
concern about those bills. No points of order were raised against the
farm bill or against the Medicare reform bill. It is my understanding
that none are going to be raised against the highway bill today. That
may change now that we put a little pressure on the issue, but as of
this morning that was not intended.
But, for years, OMB and CBO have scored the military housing program
the same way, 6 years. But for some reason, all of a sudden, CBO
decided to score it differently. I do not know why. Maybe there is some
good reason, but if there is, I do not know what it is.
I want to take just a couple of minutes to read what the President of
the United States thinks about this provision in the appropriations
bill. He supports this very strongly, as do most of the Members of this
House and the Senate, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the chiefs of
the services. They all support it. But you know who really supports it?
The military troops who are defending our Nation support this because
it gives their families some quality of life.
I am quoting now from the letter from the Administration. ``The
administration strongly supports the provision that would increase the
military housing privatization cap from $850 million to $1.35 billion.
This increase will help improve the quality of life of our military
families. Furthermore, without this increase, the current limit would
be reached by November of 2004 and the program would be over. OMB would
not score any additional costs to this provision because it does not
increase the amount of budget authority available to the Department of
Defense.'' And it goes on for about five more sentences expressing
strong support for this provision and, expressing no concern whatsoever
for the scoring.
I just think that it is so important to those Americans serving in
our military, doing whatever they are asked to do, going wherever they
are asked to go, making whatever sacrifice they must make. If we cannot
today, in this bill that must pass, take care of their concerns for the
way their families have to live, shame on us. But I would tell you that
of the 435 Members of this House, I will bet if this was put to an up
or down vote, there probably would not be five votes against it.
It is just too bad that a procedural situation, that is not even
consistent, can derail this extremely important issue.
Let us not shoot Santa Claus on the floor of the House today.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) for his eloquent comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Ortiz), a senior and respected member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) that this bill has some good items in the bill, but I think that
the heart of the bill was in housing. And I do not know whether we have
thought about what are we going to do with reenlistments? How are we
going to do with retainment?
The first time the young men and women enlist in the military they
enlist on their own. Once they serve 2, 3 years in the military, then
they marry. Then the second time they are going to reenlist, they
reenlist their families. That is why this bill, the family housing
portion of this military construction bill, was the very center of this
bill.
The idea was born about private-public housing in my district in
Kingsville because we saw the need to free loose some of the moneys for
other purposes, and this is where this came about. In Kingsville,
Texas, this idea was born, and we have been able to save millions and
millions and millions of dollars.
I am concerned about whether we are going to be able to retain these
young men and women if we do not provide adequate housing for their
wives, for their children.
I have four military bases in my district. Thank God that we do not
have a seriousness yet in housing. But right before 9/11, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and myself, we visited 25 bases in 4
days. I hope that some of the Members have been with us to see the
deplorable conditions of the housing that we have throughout this
Nation.
I think that we are beginning to see retention numbers coming down.
We are going to be able to see within the next few months that
reenlistment will come down.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 8\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD
and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, and a
member of this subcommittee.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for the remarkable work product that he has
provided to us.
The subcommittee worked very hard to meet the needs of our military.
This is our highest priority, and this bill comes in $450 million above
the President's budget request. It supports our active duty forces. It
supports our Guard and Reserve. It is building housing, hospitals,
schools, public safety and, most importantly, our national security. It
is improving our bases.
Personally, in my home, the district in central New York, the Air
National Guard base, not 5 years ago, the commandant came through and
said, This is one of the sorriest looking bases I have ever seen.
These are soldiers who fought in the Gulf War, who have flown air CAP
in Iraq, both north and south, some of the most dangerous duty of any
of our soldiers in the country. And what we have done through this
bill, through the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Knollenberg)
leadership, is made that one of the finest looking bases in America to
make sure that our troops have the very best facilities and equipment
and quality of life that this Nation can afford.
I also rise in strong support of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr.
Knollenberg) manager's amendment regarding raising the cap on
privatization of military housing. This provision has outlived its
usefulness. The provision was put in place to make sure this program
worked. Well, the jury is in. The program works. It works so well that
we now need to continue it. And this cap is no longer needed to provide
insurance that the program works. It does work. It works better than
most.
Our soldiers and their families are benefiting. They deserve good,
quality housing and they need it. Let us raise the cap. Let us build
more housing and let us support the bill.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) who was previously the chairman of this
committee for 4 years.
(Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I can think of no bill more important than
this bill, especially at this time. And I want to thank the committee
on both sides for doing great work on this.
The quality of life for our troops is very important. Their ability
to come home and live in appropriate housing is of the highest need.
{time} 1345
When I was the chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations
Subcommittee, we began in earnest to do the privatization of housing on
our bases because we realized that we did not have enough money to
build housing under the old MILCON way.
I can tell my colleagues that as we go around and visit the bases
today where we have gotten these programs going, people are thrilled at
the quality of the housing that is now there.
[[Page H6467]]
I think CBO has done a very great disservice to this country in not
understanding how these deals are put together. These deals are put
together at no risk for the most part to the Federal Government. There
is only a couple who have a BRAC guarantee. All the rest of them are a
simple, lease-back proposition with no guarantee by the Federal
Government.
So let us take a base that has been done. Let us go to Fort Hood,
Texas. If we go to Fort Hood, Texas, we have a company that has built
this housing, and they have agreed that they will provide this housing
to the military; and the military has said we will rent it, we will
rent it from you, but if it at some time Fort Hood does not need the
housing, the government does not pay for it. The risk of the private
financing on this is in the private sector, not to the Federal
Government; and I do not think CBO understands that. We do not have to
pay for it, if we do not need it.
That is the best deal for the taxpayer. That is the best deal for the
troops. He is getting housing that he is entitled to, that is the same
type of housing if he were in the private sector, and that is the kind
of housing our troops are entitled to; and we are giving it to them.
I urge the support for this bill and to keep this provision in this
bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I would just like to go back to the issue of the military housing
program that is being protected in this bill unless a Member of the
House objects to it.
I want, Mr. Chairman, all Members and all those watching to
understand what is going to happen if anyone objects. First of all,
24,000 servicemen and -women and their families will have a promise
broken to them. A promise to provide them with new housing is a show of
respect for the tremendous sacrifices they are making for our country
and the American family.
Secondly, and this I do not think has been discussed, while the
present bill provides a 1.6 percent increase over military construction
spending compared to a year ago, not even enough to keep up with
inflation, the fact is that many of those dollars being appropriated in
this bill will be prohibited from being spent if one Member of this
House stands up and objects to our having solved the military housing
cap problem.
So, in effect, you are not only saying, no, you are not only going to
break the promise to 24,000 military families across this country; you
are actually saying that in a time of war it is okay with you if the
effect of your action is to actually cut military construction funding
this year compared to last year because literally millions and millions
of dollars that look like they are being appropriated will be nothing
but an illusion, nothing but a false promise to our servicemen and -
women, 40,000 of whom live in my district, nearly 20,000 of whom are in
Iraq today.
No, Mr. Chairman. When our troops are asked to go into combat, they
do not have an option of saying I will take care of that later. That is
called AWOL.
Well, today, let us as Members of Congress not go AWOL when we have
an opportunity to step up to the plate, and right now, not a week from
now, not a month from now, not some false promise, let us vote now to
support our military men and women and the better housing they deserve.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who is a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and I appreciate the time and wanted to stand in support of the
chairman's mark on this important bill.
We have been working in the Subcommittee on Military Construction for
many years to get this housing privatization project going. To date, we
have got about 60,000 houses that are under this program. It has been a
huge success. Yet we have something like 160-odd thousand to go. That
would be our goal. That would give us about 70 percent of the existing
housing units. Big step.
It has been a very, very positive program from Fort Meade to Fort
Stewart. Here is a quote that one of the soldiers in our area at Fort
Stewart actually wrote us: ``There is a maintenance manager here at
Fort Stewart, who is undoubtedly the best I have seen in my 20 years in
the military. He is responsible for Marne Homes. He is personable,
kind, and most of all a man of his word. If he says he'll fix
something, he will fix it and he will fix it fast. He'll fix the root
of a problem and not just put a Band-Aid on it. I feel better'' and
perhaps this is the key sentence, ``I feel better going to Iraq in a
few months knowing he will be here to take care of my family.''
That is a strong statement for our soldiers back home, and yet what
is the problem here? We have two scoring agencies. One is the
Congressional Budget Office. One is the Office of Management and
Budget. And this year, for some reason, the CBO, the Congressional
Budget Office, changed the way they want to score this.
In essence, what they did is they charged all the money up front. It
is the equivalent of going to a soldier and saying, instead of your
annual pay being scored on a 1-year basis, we are going to multiply it
by the 20 years you are going to serve in the military and we are going
to score your pay against you for the whole 20 years. That is what the
Congressional Budget Office did. That does not make any sense, but the
Office of Management and Budget did not change its scoring. The program
has not changed, nor has the committee position changed.
So we should not change as Members of the House. We need to stand
with our military. The manager's amendment has fixed this problem for
right now. We have got good bipartisan support on it, and we need to
move forward on this bill.
So, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that already have been
said, which I would like to repeat in my own words, but I am sure my
fellow Members of Congress would not mind if I spoke for a little less
period of time; but I just want to say that this is what we need to do
for our soldiers.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on his
statement; and when he is right, he is really right. I thank him.
Mr. KINGSTON. I appreciate that. Thanks.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise that each side has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1\1/2\
minutes.
This subcommittee worked on a genuine bipartisan basis to provide a
better quality of life for military families. It worked on a bipartisan
basis to address a looming crisis in military housing. Now the moment
has come for us to decide if we want to support our troops, including
troops in combat, with our rhetoric and with our hearts and with our
deeds.
With all due respect to our hearts and our intentions and our
goodwill, what matters to the 40,000 soldiers I have the privilege to
represent at Fort Hood, Texas, is what Congress does with its deeds.
Our responsibility today should be to say that in a time of war, it is
of the utmost national priority and responsibility to take care of our
military families who are sacrificing so much for all of us.
We need to pass this subcommittee bill as it was drafted and passed
out of subcommittee, now out of full committee. We need to pass this
bill on a bipartisan basis; and for that reason, I ask my colleagues
not only to support this bill but to ask all of their colleagues not to
be the one person in this House who stops the most important housing
program ever for our military.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask one question to any Member who
would have the gall to stand up and strike out this issue, and that is,
2 months ago, how did you vote on the $69 billion tax cut which
included tax breaks for Members of Congress?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I believe my colleagues can tell from the input that has been brought
forward this afternoon and the contributions from everybody that
everyone here feels very strongly about this issue, extremely strongly.
In fact, I think about the work that this subcommittee has done. We
have always striven to do things in a fashion that
[[Page H6468]]
represents actually what ends up being a bipartisan effort, but we
actually do not seek that necessarily. It is just that what we are
doing is for the common good of our military, and it seems to be
appropriate then that it all works out in our favor.
This, I believe, is a fair bill. It is a good bill. We worked with
some monetary restrictions. That is something that has to happen over
here. It happens all the time.
The other thing I would say, this is, as the chairman has mentioned,
a must-pass bill. We cannot think about it and talk about it, but it
has got to pass. It is one of the requirements of this committee.
So I would simply say that this, with input that we have got, with
the feeling being 100 percent in terms of supporting this measure, that
we are in a position to carry out what it is that the troops want. They
deserve better housing. This bill promises better housing; and in fact,
it does something about the inadequate housing, too, that has become a
major problem because the goal of the military is to get those
inadequate housing situations out of the picture by 2007. To crimp
this, it would simply crimp what we are trying to do here.
So I would urge everybody to support this bill. It is a good bill,
and I thank everybody.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly is pleased that
H.R. 4837 provides appropriations for a very important project in
Nebraska's 1st Congressional District. The bill includes $614,000 for a
national guard and reserve center headquarters building at Lincoln
Airbase, Nebraska. This is the second year that this Member has
requested this funding for this necessary project. This Member would
like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction (Mr. Knollenberg) and the
distinguished Ranking Member (Mr. Edwards) for their assistance in this
important matter.
These funds will be used to complete the design process associated
with the construction of a new headquarters and emergency operating
center for the Nebraska Army National Guard. This existing headquarters
facility must be relocated due to the new Antelope Valley highway/flood
control infrastructure project in the city of Lincoln, Nebraska.
While this project was included in the Department of Defense's (DoD)
FY2009 future Year Defense Plan (FYDP), it needs to be accelerated due
to the unanticipatedly expeditious progress on the Antelope Valley
Freeway and Flood Control project, which will very soon necessitate the
abandonment of the current headquarters. It appears that the National
Guard Bureau agrees, since initial design funding was allocated last
year from existing funds, even though it was not authorized or
appropriated.
The new facility will house the Joint Forces Headquarters, the Army
National Guard Emergency Operating Center, the 24th Medical Company,
the 105th Personnel Service Detachment, the Nebraska State Patrol
dispatch and communications systems and the Nebraska Emergency
Management Agency. Building a multipurpose facility on an existing
military installation increases security for all of the components.
Furthermore, housing several Federal, State and local agencies in one
facility allows the Department of Defense to save scarce military
construction funds. Also, bringing those various components within
close proximity will facilitate better coordination among the agencies
on issues of national and homeland security. Indeed, it is critically
important to enhance these relationships in the current post-September
11th environment. This appropriation will allow this important project
to move forward.
In addition, this Member is pleased that $497,000 in design funds is
appropriated in H.R. 4837 for a critically important runway repair at
Offutt Air Force Base, which is immediately contiguous to the 1st
Congressional District of Nebraska. This repair project has been
championed by the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry),
who represents Offutt, with this Member, and the two U.S. Senators from
Nebraska.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support
H.R. 4837.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let me first take this
opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for the leadership shown
by my chairman, Mr. Knollenberg, and my ranking member, Mr. Edwards, on
the housing privatization issue. I would also like to commend the
leadership shown by Chairman Young, and Ranking Member Obey on this
important issue as well.
As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military
Construction, I know of no other issue which is more important to our
military and their families than housing. There is no other issue which
has more of an impact on the quality of life of the men and women
serving in the military than housing. This year we heard witness after
witness testify before our subcommittee--each describing the lack of
adequate housing as ``the'' major quality of life issue facing the
military.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have two major military facilities--Ft.
Benning and the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia, in my
district. However, just as important, I represent thousands of other
military personnel who work at Moody Air Force Base and Warner Robbins
Air Force Base, both of which are now adjacent to my district.
Unfortunately, according to the Department of the Army's installation
status report for fiscal year 2004, approximately 71 percent of the
Army's residential quarters located in the United States require some
level of improvement or replacement, in order to meet the department's
own adequacy standards. If you read literally, this means that seven
(7) out of every ten (10) housing units located at our Army
installations here in the United States do not meet the current
standards for adequacy.
I am particularly concerned about the housing situation at Ft.
Benning. According to the most recent data available, it is my
understanding that approximately ninety percent (90%) of the family
housing at Fort Benning is classified as substandard. Fortunately, Ft.
Benning is scheduled to be one of the first bases to participate in the
upcoming round of privatization.
Ft. Benning is scheduled to construct 4,055 much-needed family
housing units. An additional 872 units are planned in FY 05 for Ft.
Gordon, in Georgia as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, if the point
of order is sustained against the language in the bill extending the
program and we do not raise the cap, the program could be in jeopardy
of stalling after November of this year.
That means that the units planned for Ft. Benning and Ft. Gordon in
Georgia could be in jeopardy of not moving forward but not just in
Georgia. Other bases, including Ft. Riley and Leavenworth in Kansas,
West Point in New York, Ft. Rucker in Alabama, Ft. Knox in Kentucky,
Ft. Jackson in South Carolina--all are just a few of the facilities
which would be in jeopardy for the upcoming round of privatization.
It is important that my colleagues have an appreciation of the
practical effects of not acting to increase the cap. Thousands of our
officers and enlisted personnel will continue to reside in inadequate
family housing. Our national goal of privatizing military housing will
not be accomplished. In addition, the existing inventory of housing
facilities will continue to deteriorate, resulting in even billions of
dollars of more costs for maintenance and operations. Finally, each of
the services, particularly the Army, will be unable to meet its goal of
eliminating all inadequate family housing by 2007.
Not meeting this goal will further adversely affect the health,
safety and quality of life of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines
and their families occupying these units. Privatization will provide
new construction and revitalization of the existing inventory at a more
rapid rate than current procedures and funding limits will permit.
Privatization will also provide renovated or new quarters for our
military and their families, which is comparable to housing of a
similar size and quality as would be available in the local economy.
It is critical that our fighting men and women, and their families,
have the best quality of life we can offer them. Their sacrifices are
too great. This investment is such a small cost given what they are
giving to us--putting their lives on the line--day in and day out. A
decent place to live is small cost in return for their service to
America. We owe them so much more.
Mr. Chairman, housing is at the core of providing a decent quality of
life, and I urge the House to allow a lifting of the cap on housing
privatization.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
severe disappointment of the military housing provisions in H.R. 4837
the Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 2005. While
this legislation as a whole will support important military
construction projects, it is absolutely shameful that Members of this
body would seek to block lifting the cap on military housing
privatization in this legislation. It is clear from the facts, which
were agreed to by the Appropriations Committee, that if we do not take
action now in regards to lifting the cap, then we will experience a
crisis in military housing. I want to thank the ranking member from the
subcommittee Representative Chet Edwards for all his work and
dedication on the issue of military construction specifically his
determination to do justice to our Nation's military families by
lifting the cap on military housing privatization. It is because of his
tremendous effort that the Appropriations Committee as a whole agreed
that this cap must be lifted in this legislation. Again, I will say
that it is shameful that we would try to undo this bipartisan effort in
order to maintain a cap that can
[[Page H6469]]
only hinder military families from finding affordable and quality
housing.
By not lifting the cap on military housing privatization we will in
effect stop developers and property managers from building and
renovating homes that are used by military personnel. Not lifting the
cap in this legislation will affect 50,000 military families. Since its
establishment in 1996, the Military Housing Privatization Initiative
has been the most successful military housing program ever. In less
than 10 years it has already helped over 60,000 military families, and
would help an additional 50,000 military families at 27 military
installations in 22 States if the cap is lifted. Under the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative, the Government creates public-private
partnerships to construct, renovate, and maintain military family
housing. Not only has the program provided better housing for military
families more quickly, this innovative military housing program has
actually saved billions of taxpayer dollars. The Government saves up to
10-15 percent over the life of the project and military families are
receiving improved homes in one-tenth of the time it would take using
old methods of family housing construction. I find it repulsive that at
a time when we are asking so much from our military families that we
would try to undermine such a necessary program. It is imperative that
we keep our promises to provide better and more affordable housing for
our soldiers and their families. If we do not lift the cap in this
legislation then a great deal of military home construction will be put
on hold and many of the hopes of our brave military families will be
put on hold as well.
Many efforts have been made to lift the cap on military housing
privatization, first in the Budget Committee and then in the House
Defense Authorization bill, however it is vital that we lift this cap
now because it is just plain wrong to compromise good and affordable
housing for our military families. This provision was supported on a
bipartisan basis when it came through the Appropriations Committee; it
is also supported by the Bush administration and a large number of
organizations including: the Military Officers Association of America,
the Association of the U.S. Army, the Air Force Association, and the
National Military Families Association. I believe it must be clear to
the entire body the need to lift this harmful cap now. The true of the
matter is that our men and women of the military have always been ready
when called upon and their families have always stood by courageously.
How can we now turn our backs on them by compromising a tremendously
successful program?
I would also like to stress my dismay that funding for existing
military family housing will be $231 million less than the current
level. These funds are used for maintenance and repair, furnishings,
management, services, utilities, leasing, interest, mortgage insurance,
and miscellaneous expenses of already existing family housing units. In
2001, the Department of Defense estimated that 180,000, 60 percent, of
the 300,000 housing units it operates were substandard. While I applaud
the committee's commitment to the goal of eliminating inadequate
housing by fiscal year 2007, we must take significant steps to address
this problem now. Clearly, by cutting hundreds of millions of dollars
from the funds used to maintain existing family units, this will only
magnify the problem. Again, we turn our backs on our military families
when we compromise funding that is used specifically to improve their
living conditions.
Again, I want to thank Ranking Member Edwards for his valiant efforts
on this legislation under difficult conditions. It is truly disgraceful
that there are those in this body who seek to undo the ranking member's
work to craft an effective and bipartisan piece of legislation. It is
also truly unfortunate that this appropriation had to be stretched so
tight because of the administration's insistence on large tax cuts for
the wealthiest Americans. Once again, we see how these reckless
policies have led us to restrict funding to groups of Americans who are
in need of it. In this case it is our military families who will have
to suffer because tax cuts for the rich apparently trump any other
consideration. Even though I have always worked against these reckless
tax policies I want to apologize to our military families because as
Members of Congress we have failed them, even though they have never
failed us. It is my sincere hope that by next year's Military
Construction Appropriations we will be able to do real justice for the
sacrifice made by our military families.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground a quorum
is not present and make the point of order a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and I withdraw my
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, well, then, I insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A quorum is not required to adopt a motion for the
Committee to rise. The Chair will advise it takes 25 to support the
request for a recorded vote. An insufficient number having risen, the
request is denied; and the motion is adopted by voice vote and the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, 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. 4837)
making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and
base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________