Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6489-H6495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MILITARY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2004

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4879) to increase the military housing private investment
cap.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 4879

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the ``Military Housing Improvement
Act of 2004.''

SECTION 2. INCREASE IN MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATE INVESTMENT
CAP

Section 2883(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``$850,000,000'' and inserting
``$1,350,000,000''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

[[Page H6490]]

General Leave

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4879, the
Military Housing Improvement Act of 2004. We have spent the last
several hours debating points of order and budgetary implications of a
provision in the Military Construction Appropriations Act to address
the housing privatization program. H.R. 4879, I am pleased to say, goes
straight to the heart of the matter by raising the cap on the housing
privatization program by $500 million, enough to permit DOD to continue
the program through fiscal year 2005.
As Member after Member has pointed out today, the Military Housing
Privatization Program has been an unqualified success. By leveraging
the interest of private sector developers and property managers,
housing privatization improves and manages military family housing
better, more quickly, and at lower cost than our traditional military
construction model.
To date, the housing privatization program has leveraged a government
cash contribution of only $500 million to build approximately $5.6
billion in housing construction. Furthermore, privatized housing is a
tremendous improvement over existing DOD housing facilities.

{time} 1615

Privatized homes are often equipped with new appliances, built to
modern standards, well-maintained, and are parts of communities. This
is in stark contrast to the patchwork of poorly maintained housing for
which DOD is known.
Despite the success of the housing privatization program, a
legislative cap will soon bring a halt to the program by preventing DOD
from entering into new privatization contracts after November 2004. The
FY 2005 National Defense Authorization Act contains a partial fix to
this problem. It eliminates the cap in fiscal year 2006. However, it
leaves a gap between November 2004 and October 2005 during which DOD
would be unable to sign any privatization contracts that would count
against the cap. As a result, most projects DOD plans to begin in
fiscal year 2005 would be delayed until October 2005. This would affect
approximately 24,000 family housing units at at least 16 installations
nationwide.
H.R. 4879 addresses this problem by increasing the cap on the program
by $500 million, enough to allow DOD to proceed with its privatization
program through FY 2005. The program is a success. I urge my colleagues
to join with me in ensuring that it continues by supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My fellow Missourian, Mark Twain, once said, ``The more you explain it
to me, the more I don't understand it.''
I have no idea why we are considering this bill, because all the
majority had to do was not raise a point of order on the appropriations
bill. I do not want to say this is a cynical gesture, but it is. We are
considering this bill because the majority is not serious about taking
care of the troops and their families. 24,000 families will do without
because the other bill will have a point of order raised on it. All
they had to do on the other bill, the appropriations bill, was not to
raise a point of order and 24,000 military families would have their
housing in 2005.
I appreciate the fact that our friends in the majority are taking the
issue seriously, but it appears to me that this is going around Robin
Hood's barn to do what could be simply done by not raising a point of
order.
While this stand-alone bill is fine on its merits, it is going to die
in the Senate. It will go nowhere. What we wanted to do was raise the
privatized housing cap in the Military Construction Appropriations Act.
That is legislation that the Senate cannot ignore. And all we had to do
was just not raise the point of order and those young families would
have their housing.
I cannot argue against the words of this measure, but we should not
be deceived. This is a ruse to avoid dealing with the privatized cap on
an issue in a must-do piece of legislation. The details of the cap
issue have been discussed at length by others, and I raised the issue
during the rule on the other appropriations bill. Let me just say that
because the Committee on the Budget refused to accommodate bipartisan
requests on both sides of the aisle by the Committee on Armed Services,
the Defense authorization bill bowed to CBO scoring. As a result, we
could not fix the problem until 2006. Consequently, 24,000 military
families do without.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend a very warm
thanks to the gentleman from California for bringing this bill to the
floor. He is a devoted patriot and devoted to the men and women who
serve in our military, and he has proved that so many times. What he
does today by expediting the consideration of this bill, the military
folks I think will appreciate him and express that appreciation in many
ways. The gentleman from Missouri again is absolutely correct. This is
a total bipartisan effort not only on the part of the committees but
the House, the administration, the President, the Department of
Defense. Everybody. It is really a shame that we have to ask the
gentleman from California to bring this bill up basically out of order.
But since there is the threat of not allowing the appropriations bill
to include this issue on military family housing, this is the only
other way to get to it.
But here is the problem. This bill will pass today with a big vote,
but that is the end of it. It is never going to pass. It is never going
to become law. We are never going to see it anywhere. The appropriate
way to do this is on that appropriations bill that we were talking
about all morning and that we will come back to later this afternoon.
That is the right way to do it and get it done.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for agreeing with me.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The appropriations bill is a must-pass bill. It
will pass eventually. I cannot say when. We are going to pass it. I
cannot say when it might get final passage, considering the other body
has to deal with it; but the appropriations bill has to pass as all
appropriations bills have to pass, or the government shuts down. We
have not let that happen for a long time, and we are not going to let
it happen now; but it is a shame that we have to use, as the gentleman
from Missouri said, the round robin way to get to this when we could
have had it done and over with and on the way to the Senate if we would
have just passed this bill the way that the committee wrote it with the
bipartisan support of everybody involved, except the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we are not legislating here today. We are engaging in a
giant game of charades. Let me explain. The gentleman who just spoke,
the gentleman from Florida, is the senior Republican on the Committee
on Appropriations. I am the senior Democrat on the Committee on
Appropriations. We are absolutely as one on this issue. I totally agree
with everything the gentleman just said. What I would like to do is to
repeat what he said in a slightly different way to drive home the point
that he was making.
What has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the Committee on
Appropriations brought to this floor earlier today the military
construction bill which contained a provision which enabled us to
improve military housing for thousands of young military families who
are sacrificing more than anybody else in this country because of the
Iraq war.

[[Page H6491]]

When we did that, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget made
known his unhappiness with that action because it technically breached
the previous budget resolution which the Committee on the Budget had
pushed through this House on an earlier date. So the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget made known his intent to eliminate that
provision by making a point of order against it when it was before the
House. That meant that that action would effectively deny that improved
military housing to somewhere between 23,000 and 50,000 additional
military families.
So now what is happening is this. Because evidently some people are
uncomfortable with their being politically exposed on that issue, we
now have seen the authorizing committee ask to bring this bill to the
floor which purports to accomplish the very same thing that was
accomplished by the appropriations committee. The only reason that this
is allowable under House rules and the appropriations bill was not is
because the gentleman's ability to make a point of order lies only on a
bill which has been reported from a committee. This provision that is
before us was never considered by the committee and so, therefore, it
is exempt. So it is a procedural loophole which is being used by the
Committee on the Budget in order to force this House to go through this
outrageous charade, and the net result is what?
The result will be that the bill now before us will not pass. We have
absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that it will be passed in the
Senate. So this is probably on a short track to nowhere. Meanwhile, the
one bill that we know will pass, the military appropriations bill, will
now fall victim to a point of order that will be lodged by the
gentleman from Iowa. The result is the only vehicle which is guaranteed
to pass will no longer contain the provision helping military families.
A vehicle which is not going to go anywhere will contain that provision
that does not help anyone.
The bill that is before us today is not a substantive fix. It is a
political fix. It takes care of a few people's political problems, but
it does not solve the problem of the military families. This is an
outrageous charade. I welcome the action of the gentleman from
California and the gentleman from Missouri in at least trying to do
what they can to help these military families get the housing
assistance they need, but we would not have had to go through this if
we had simply allowed the Committee on Appropriations to proceed with
its bill; and even though we are allowing this committee to take this
action today, there is no guarantee whatsoever that this action will
produce one additional decent house for a military person in this
country. The only guarantee is to vote for the military construction
bill with that provision.
Right now this entire issue is in the hands of the gentleman from
Iowa. If he wants to effectively deny military families that decent
housing, he will proceed to object to the provision in the military
construction bill. I do not think we are going to fool anybody with the
charade that is being participated in by bringing this bill to the
floor.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that optimistic note, I yield myself such
time as I may consume. Let me just address my friend who just spoke and
all Members. This bill does have meaning because every time the full
House manifests its will and gives a good majority vote, a good solid
vote, that is a very important boost to the process. I would just tell
the gentleman that we are going to make sure that by the time the smoke
clears and the dust clears in this process, we are going to have these
24,000 units released for construction. It is important to everyone. I
might say, also, and I appreciate my friend from Florida and all the
great work he has done on this, and all the members of the Committee on
Armed Services, that we do have this problem fixed from 2006 on. It is
this gap, this bridge this year that we need to fix.
I might mention to my colleagues that the gentleman from Iowa is the
author of this provision. I think that bespeaks of his good intentions
to get this problem taken care of.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services for yielding me this time. There is no
one in this body who has worked any harder than he has in making this
issue resolved, getting it to resolution. I appreciate his willingness
to expedite this bill that I introduced today in order to help deal
with the problem.
To those who are suggesting that this bill goes nowhere after it
passes unanimously today, I just ask them, why? I see them shaking
their heads, but why is it that the other body would stop military
families from receiving this benefit? And why is it that the other body
would oppose the Department of Defense authorization, as we hear is
occurring? Why are they stopping everything? For our defense needs, our
intelligence needs, our military families, everything is stopped. They
have not even been willing to vote on a budget.
I ask the Members, is that a problem? Of course it is. Do we break
our rules? Do we bust our budget in order to do that, in order to fix
it? I would suggest no. You have the right to overrule that. You have
the right to vote differently. I would suggest you do that if that is
how you feel. But then do not come to the floor and lecture the
Committee on the Budget about how the budget process is broken. Do not
come to the floor and lecture the American people about deficits and
national debts and tell me time and time again during the budget debate
itself how when you are in a hole, you stop digging. I believe if I had
a nickel for every time that speech was made, we could probably resolve
the national debt and the deficit, because when you are in a hole, you
stop digging.
How could you do that? Today the Committee on Appropriations brought
to the floor a bill that busts the budget by $1.2 billion instead of
looking throughout the rest of their budget, the rest of their
appropriations allocation of $821 billion, to find enough money in
order to meet the needs of our military families.

{time} 1630

So they came to the floor and for the very first time since
Republicans took the majority, violated a rule, bringing to the floor
an appropriation bill that busted their allocation called 302(b), which
I understand most people watching do not pay any attention to.
Yes, these are arcane rules, but the reason that we have these rules
is so that we can try to get a handle on spending. And, no, it is not
just for military families. I ask Members to look through that $821
billion and they will find many places that are less important than our
military families. That is why this bill needs to be supported. We need
to pass it, and we need to put pressure on the other body that stands
in the way of all progress for our military, passing the Department of
Defense authorization, passing appropriation bills.
We are not even going to pass the Military Construction appropriation
bill before the election. I will bet my colleagues on that one. Will we
do what is called a CR? Probably. But do my colleagues think we are
going to pass that before this election? Do my colleagues think we are
not going to have CR and CR and CR? If it is such an important
priority, where are these people rushing to get this done?
So I want to commend the gentleman who is the very distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services who has jurisdiction over
this issue, who has been working on this, who is bringing this bill
today to the floor and deserves the ability to continue to work on this
and not put it in an appropriation bill when it does not belong there,
and it busts the budget.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would simply ask the gentleman, does he mean that even though his
party controls both Houses of the Congress that they are not going to
be able to pass a Military Construction appropriation bill, one of the
13 bills that must pass this Congress before we adjourn; and yet he
believes that the Senate somehow will miraculously pass this bill which
has nothing else going for it?
Give me a break. I do not mind if the gentleman wants to fool
himself, but

[[Page H6492]]

do not think he is fooling me with this action.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin has
been a Member of the House Committee on Appropriations longer than
anyone else on that committee. Help me out. If the provision in the
appropriations bill busts the budget and this bill that we talk about
today has the identical effect and it does not bust the budget, can the
gentleman explain to me how that works?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the only way the gentleman from Iowa can get
away from this is that the rule he is citing applies only to a bill
that is reported from committee. This action is not reported from
committee, so he gets around the very rule he professes to be
supporting.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we have obviously a difference of
opinion as to how we get this particular measure forward, how we move
it forward. We have got people of goodwill on both sides.
I have recommended today, even though we are the authorizing
committee, that we give up some of our turf today and let this thing
pass on the appropriations bill. There is obviously a problem with that
occurring.
We have got this measure up, which is authored, in fact, by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the
Budget, as evidence of the fact that he wants to get this thing to move
forward; and I think if we pass this with an overwhelming vote,
manifesting that will of the House is going to help this process.
We have got a long way to go before the dust settles on the spending
bills this year. We are going to make sure that this problem is solved
this year. The exact parliamentary road for that obviously has not been
determined, as is, I think, evidenced by the debate that has taken
place.
But I would just ask Members from all positions, from all points, who
have one piece of common ground, and that is to get this very important
housing measure passed, to work together on this thing and move
forward.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman is operating in totally
good faith, but the way to move forward is to support the Military
Construction appropriations bill, which came to this floor on a
bipartisan basis.
The subcommittee wanted this problem solved. We solved it in the full
committee with the help of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). This
thing was worked out.
The reason we are doing this is because of this Congressional Budget
Office rule, and OMB, the administration, the Defense Department all
want us to do this. Why can we not figure out a way to do this today?
Why do we have to wait for months when we could get this thing done?
He makes all kinds of excuses, but we might be able to put this into
another bill and maybe it will go into the CR if it passes the House.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time from my very good
colleague, and I just remind him that no objection has been heard yet
on the MILCON bill, and I would just would ask the gentleman, the
chairman of the Budget Committee, to look at this as a very
extraordinary situation, because it is an extraordinary situation in
that we have a very unusual scoring application by CBO that is not
endorsed by OMB and not, obviously, endorsed by us and does not make
good sense. That is that the entire economic implication of this 24,000
units is being scored at one time, and that is a very unusual thing;
and secondly, that we have a very unusual circumstance with this being
the centerpiece of quality of life for our military folks.
So let me just suggest to my friend that we all have a job in this
House and that the Committee on the Budget has undertaken to follow
their duty, their obligation, in the manner they best see fit; and I
would suggest to the gentleman that talking with them and working with
them on this may be the way to get this thing done, and I would hope
that the gentleman would talk with the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
would hope that the gentleman from California would talk to his
leadership, too, because his leadership has got to play a role here in
giving some guidance to senior Members, because they are in charge of
the House, because they are the majority party.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me remind the gentleman that neither of
us belongs to organized political parties. We are Republicans and
Democrats. But I just want to remind the gentleman, too, that we are
stretched between two cross-strains which are very familiar to this
House. One is the strain and the discipline that is required for fiscal
discipline. And we all know that, and I think we have to give some
credence to the Committee on the Budget chairman's statement, because
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget does stand here and he does
take fusillades from both sides about spending money and about not
having rules. On the other hand, we then have these extraordinary
circumstances in which we beat up on the Committee on the Budget
chairman for sticking with those rules.
And I told the gentleman that my position is, even though we own the
turf on this as the authorizing committee, we think it is so
extraordinary and so compelling we are willing to give up that turf and
pass it in this particular bill.
But I would recommend to the gentleman that he talk with the members
of the Committee on the Budget and remember that they have an
obligation, too, and try to work through that obligation.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, this is a good program, too. That is the
point we want to make. This is working, and it is not costing the
taxpayers money. We are using the payments to work with the private
sector. This meets all the tests of a great program.
The other thing is, this is not mandatory. I mean, in other words, we
can get out of this program. If the military does not need the housing,
then the private sector will take the project over and operate it. That
is why I am wondering why this big scoring rule when, in fact, we are
not putting real money into this, we are just giving a guarantee, and
that way we get the housing done and it is much more effective than
military construction.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me respond to the
gentleman because I think all of us were disappointed when we saw what
I think is a very unusual ruling, that this is all to be costed up
front, and that was a highly unusual ruling which I think is erroneous.
On the other hand, it has put us where we are. And what we have got
to do is work through it, and I think we are going to work through it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My recollection, during the earlier debate on the rule on the
appropriation bill, was that my friend and my colleague and chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services, during his very eloquent speech at
that time, urged the gentleman from Iowa not to raise the point of
order.
So I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: In order for us to have 24,000
more family units under the privatization program, the only thing that
has to happen under the appropriation bill would be for the gentleman
from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, not to raise a
point of order.
So I ask the gentleman from Iowa, will he insist on raising the point
of order on the appropriation bill?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will insist on that.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, he will insist on raising the point of
order.
Mr. Speaker, we just saw 24,000 military families getting their just
housing delayed for a long time.

[[Page H6493]]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle).
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Missouri,
I have even been told today I was shooting at Santa Claus. Somebody
came to the floor and said I shot Santa Claus today. My goodness, I
have been accused of a lot of things, but shooting Santa Claus and
personally, individually, one Member stopping 24,000 families from
getting that housing, let us review the record.
If this was so important, would my colleagues not think that the
Committee on Appropriations, in their base bill as it was reported to
the subcommittee, do my colleagues not think that in that base bill
they would have written this procedure in? It was not done. It was not
done. In fact, it was done as an amendment at the committee.
So I understand that this is now a pretty important priority for a
number of reasons. Some of it is politics. Some of it is expediency.
Some of it is probably due to the fact that we have a body across the
Rotunda that does not appear to be getting much accomplished. There is
a lot of that that probably makes it very difficult. But that does not
mean that we bend our rules, we break our rules here in the House in
order to proceed.
There is not one family today that loses their housing as a result of
a point of order on the House floor. My goodness, if that was the case,
there would probably be a lot more Members down here doing a lot of
points of order on a lot more issues.
What needs to be done is, priorities need to be made. We need to
within the bills determine what is important, and I would stack up
military housing to just about anything else in most of these bills
that come to the floor called appropriation bills.
People want to talk about priorities? These are the priorities, and
the gentleman from Missouri is as strong as the gentleman from
California in understanding that. But I am, too, and every Member of
this body is, too. And I appreciate the leadership that that gentleman
from Missouri makes every day for our men and women. But we have many
leaders who make that same sacrifice, and I do not count myself in the
back seat to any one of them.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).

{time} 1645

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the distinguished
chairman that it was because the chairman of our subcommittee, who has
worked so hard on this, asked us to do this in full committee. We did
not raise it in subcommittee. We had a long discussion about it. The
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) asked us to hold up and do it
in full committee. So the committee on a bipartisan basis agreed to
that strategy.
This was not because it was not a big priority. It has been a big
priority all year. So the gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, is misinformed on this subject.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in my 14 years in the House, the
introduction of this bill this afternoon is the most cynical charade I
have ever seen. This bill, they did not even know what bill number to
put on this. They had to mark out one bill number and put another. They
had to hand write part of this. What a sorry way to deal with the needs
of 24,000 military families, the need to get better housing.
I think it is interesting that the gentleman from Iowa, the very
person who within the next couple of hours is going to kill our
opportunity to solve a military housing crisis, is at the moment trying
to get us to pass a bill that a few hours ago had not even been
introduced.
It is also interesting that the same gentleman who introduced this
bill, that says this is the solution to our military housing problem,
then spoke on the floor just a minute ago saying the other body cannot
pass anything.
What reason do we have to believe that this is going to go anywhere?
It is probably to go in a trash bin of fig leafs. And that is exactly
what this is, and that is what bothers me more than anything. When the
House Republican leadership this morning could have stood up for our
military families, who deserve better housing, especially during a time
of war, they were not only AWOL, they broke arms on the floor of this
House for 25 minutes to see that Members voted for a rule that would
get us into exactly the quagmire we are in at this moment. Shame on
them for doing that.
Now the House leadership, when the issue is no longer providing new
housing for military families, the issue is far more important than
that, a much higher priority than that. It is how do we pass a fig leaf
today so that Members of Congress are not embarrassed, 212 of them who
voted to get us into the position we are in today? One Republican
Member could have added to that vote saying to the Speaker, I am going
to put military families' interests today above my loyalty to you, and
we would not be here.
We can solve this problem. We do not have to pass this fig leaf that
is going nowhere. We ought to simply bring back up the military
construction appropriations bill and pass it by unanimous consent, a
bill that was put together on a bipartisan basis.
But, unfortunately, the same leadership that turned its back this
morning on the Air Force Association, on the Association of the U.S.
Army, on the Military Officers Association of America, and on the
National Military Families Association, the same leadership that turned
their back on these groups that wanted to really help military families
to better housing, that leadership is now saying, gee, we could not do
that this morning, but we can pass a fig leaf bill.
Why can they pass a political fig leaf for Members of Congress, but
cannot do something over the last 6 months that we have been asking to
help military families get better housing?
This is a sad day for all the servicemen and -women in our country
who sacrifice for our Nation. I am proud to represent 40,000 of those
great servicemen and -women at Fort Hood in my district. What we ought
to do is pass a military construction bill. Let us put military
families first, not fig leafs for politicians first.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to remind my friend
that the same Republican leadership that he has criticized so heavily
is the Republican leadership that passed concurrent receipt, where
retirees can receive their checks and disability checks; has urged and
has passed the survivor benefit program, which laid in state for years;
has increased the equipment supply from an average of about $45 billion
a year under the Clinton administration to an average of about $70
billion a year for new equipment for our troops in the field; and
supplied the ammunition, force protection and, surveillance they have
been so sorely lacking the last 15 years.
I would remind my friend, this should not be a blame day; this should
be a day in which we all work and move forward. I think that every vote
that one takes on an issue, one can call this a fig leaf vote if one
wants, but I would remind my friend that every vote that we take on an
issue is an important vote.
I would just tell my friend from Texas, at the end of this year when
the dust clears on this process, which is obviously affected by the
political season, we are going to have legislative vehicles come down
the track and get across the finish line. This problem is going to be
fixed.
If my friend wants to ask me to take the floor with him at the end of
this session and we will prove up, I will be happy to tell him now, I
will give him my word, this problem is going to be fixed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California (Chairman Hunter) for the good work that he does and the
strong support he is giving us on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one thing said earlier on, that
nothing is getting done, that the national defense bill is not working
and this is not happening and that is not happening on national
defense. The national defense appropriations bill has been passed by

[[Page H6494]]

the House, has been passed by the Senate, has gone to conference; and,
as a matter of fact, it has been filed and we would be considering it
right this minute if it had not been for the fact we are having to deal
with this issue.
As we deal with this issue, we are spending a lot of time; and that
is okay, because the issue is extremely important. But I have to keep
asking myself over and over again, and I can usually come up with the
answer: What is the difference in doing it on the appropriations bill
or doing it on a freestanding bill? The effect is the same.
The chairman who is going to raise the point of order on the
appropriations bill is the author of this bill, so I have a hard time
understanding what the problem is. I do not know if there is a good
answer to that. But no matter how we do it, it is going to have the
same effect.
If we do not do it, we are going to have many people who are looking
forward to having decent housing for their military families that are
not going to get it any time soon. That is the big issue.
Now, when it was suggested that someone was shooting Santa Claus, I
said that earlier in debate. I said, let us not have these kids in Iraq
and Afghanistan who are planning to have their families in decent
housing, let us not let them think Santa Claus is going to be shot
today. Let us not be the Grinch that stole Christmas.
Let us do what we have to do; let us do what is right. If we are
going to do it later, why not do it now, while the vehicle is before
us? There are a lot of questions that I really cannot get answers to in
my own mind.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to say there is no
financial difference whatsoever between these two approaches. The only
real difference is the one being proposed by the gentleman from Iowa
probably will not become law, and the other one will.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman
is exactly right.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) has expired. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day today. I do not know if anybody else is
as ashamed as I am that we are going through this kind of a process.
When I think back at the times I have visited Iraq, five times that I
have visited in Iraq, and I sit across the table, whether it is for
breakfast, for lunch or for dinner, with the soldiers, they look at us
and they have a trust that we are going to do the right thing. They
look at us, and they know that we are going to represent their best
interests.
In my district at Fort Bliss, Texas, there are about 2,500 military
families that have been looking forward to getting a benefit from this
program that we are talking about here. We were looking forward to it.
It is clear to me that what we are doing here today is a lot of
political CYA and nothing substantial apparently is going to come from
it. Shame on us for not having the guts to stand up and do what is
right for our military families, and shame on us for passing emergency
legislation, supplemental bills, that give $20 billion, $21 billion,
whatever that figure is, to reconstruct neighborhoods, give garbage
trucks and all of these other things in Iraq, when we cannot even do
the basic thing for our military families.
So here we are in this situation here, where we are talking about
what a great job our military is doing, how proud we are of them and
how we consider them heroes; and at the same time, we cannot find a
process to give their families who are sacrificing beyond what most of
us can imagine, who are sacrificing, we cannot give them decent
housing.
Shame on us. We call this the people's House? We ought to be ashamed
of each and every one of these machinations that we put ourselves
through.
So it is a sad day for me. It should be a sad day for all of us. But,
most of all, as I look at my watch and it is sometime after midnight in
Iraq, those soldiers are putting their lives on the line for us for
everything that we hold dear. We ought to have enough guts to do
whatever it takes to find the money, to ensure that the money is there.
I will tell you very honestly, I do not have the knowledge of the
intricacies of the budget and all of these other things that my
honorable colleagues have, but I do know one thing: do not run a sham
on our military families. That is all they care about. All they want to
know from us is, as they look in our eyes, that they can trust us, that
we are going to deliver for them like they deliver for us every day.
Shame on us.
Mr. Speaker, at Fort Bliss in my district, nearly half of the NCOs
attending the Sergeant Major's Academy live in beautiful recently built
homes. The other half live in what is affectionately referred to as
``Bedrock.'' While there is something nice about returning home to a
neighborhood where your neighbors are Barney and Fred, it's not the
neighbors that make this area of family housing on Fort Bliss resemble
Bedrock--it's the fact that despite noble efforts by the folks at Fort
Bliss, the houses are in poor shape and look like they were built in
the Stone Age.
About 2,500 military families at Fort Bliss were looking forward to
living in new or improved homes, thanks to the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative (MHPI) that is scheduled to start this year.
The Army's arm of this program, the Residential Communities Initiative
(RCI), aims to eliminate inadequate housing on Army bases by 2007
through the construction of new homes, the improvement of current
structures and the incorporation of community features such as
recreation centers into military posts. At Fort Bliss, this means that
``Bedrock'' will be a thing of the past.
MHPI is an extremely cost-effective measure because contractors pay
the up-front costs and recover their investment through rental payment.
MHPI also stimulates local economies by providing job opportunities in
the construction and maintenance of homes and facilities. Unfortunately
for the 2,500 military families at Fort Bliss and for thousands of
other families across the country, MHPI is threatened by a funding cap
which will be reached in November of this year.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I stood on the floor of this House to
urge my colleagues to vote against the rule for the FY05 MilCon
appropriations. The rule would have stripped a provision from the bill
to ensure that the MHPI program would continue. The passage of that
rule almost ensures that this important provision will be eliminated
from the appropriations bill. The bill now before us, H.R. 4879,
contains language that is nearly identified to the military housing
privatization provision in the MilCon appropriations bill. This bill is
basically a face saving measure by the Republicans. This suspension
bill that increases the housing cap does not keep out faith with our
men and women in uniform. If the provision is in the MilCon
appropriation bill, it will be committed to Conference and the Senate
must deal with it. If, on the other hand, it is passed as a Suspension,
the Senate is under no obligation whatsoever to consider the measure,
and we have no idea if it will ever see the light of day--in short, the
odds that it will become law are dramatically decreased. Mr. Speaker,
this bill is a cynical gesture and a slap in the face of our brave men
and women of the armed services. Our men and women in uniform and their
families deserve the very best--and adequate housing is the least that
we can provide for them. Unfortunately, this bill falls far short of
ensuring that they will get the housing they so need and deserve.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the issue today, it is very
simple. It is so simple. Private industry is putting a lot of money out
so that our soldiers and their families can have adequate housing.
But let me look at the other side. When the pilots that we train,
when the helicopter pilots leave, when the tank drivers leave, do you
know how much it costs to train them? Private industry, my friends,
they do not put one penny into that. It comes strictly from the
taxpayers.
We know that a lot of the more senior members of the military are
coming out, because the terrorist environment is blooming and they are
getting out of the military so that they can get better paying jobs,
and we are forcing them to leave the military because their families do
not have adequate housing.
I have talked to helicopter pilots, and they tell me that they get
calls in

[[Page H6495]]

Iraq about the plumbing in their homes not working, about the
electricity having been shut off because of the wiring.
Mr. Speaker, let us do something that we need to do now and support
our soldiers. It will take millions and millions of dollars when those
senior members of the military get out, because their families do not
want them to stay in the military because they do not have adequate
housing.
Mr. Speaker, I promised the soldiers that we were going to correct
that. Now I feel kind of embarrassed that we could not deliver to them
what they need. I feel like my colleague. I am ashamed that we were not
able to help our soldiers, those who are being wounded, those in the
different hospitals.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we pride ourselves in this body, I know my chairman and
I pride ourselves, in working for and supporting the troops. But
supporting the troops is more than a bumper sticker. We are the one
body in the United States of America that can speak, and speak with
authority, and make good things happen for those families and those
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
I hate to turn the news on in the morning, because I hear so many
Americans have either been wounded or killed or both in the far reaches
of Afghanistan and Iraq.

{time} 1700

Those St. Louis families, we are not going to take care of them. We
are going to do it by insisting on a technical point of order on the
appropriations bill. That is not right. So let us vote for this. I will
support this suspension measure. I, of course, do so with reluctance
because we could solve the problem so easily on the appropriations bill
by just doing nothing.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for the bill under consideration here today. But I am disappointed that
we could not address this issue in the military construction
appropriations bill.
The military construction bill includes not just funding for the
construction of much needed facilities but also funds dedicated to
constructing housing for our troops and their families. These funds are
needed to construct new housing to replace existing housing that is in
poor condition--where failing electrical systems and leaky roofs risk
the safety of our military families. These funds are needed to build
new houses on military bases where there are not enough homes to meet
the demand of our military families--where the waiting time for a home
can be over a year, where young enlisted families must live far from
the support the base community provides. And these funds are needed to
remodel and refurbish homes that are in disrepair--where families live
without proper air conditioning in the summer or with poor heating in
the winter.
In order to meet these pressing needs in the best and quickest way
possible, we have worked with private industry to speed relief to
military families. But today some here in Congress want to put a halt
to the very successful military housing privatization program--not
because they want to harm military families, but because they want to
argue about the legislative process.
I believe that there is a time and a place for a debate about budget
process to occur--that time is not now. Not when we have military
families living in substandard housing. And not when we have hundreds
of thousands of fathers and mothers serving in hostile environments
around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to support our military
families by supporting the privatized housing program that has been so
successful in bringing needed relief to these hardworking families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4879.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________