[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24829-24831]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT AMENDMENTS

  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3216) to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
Act to exclude certain basic allowances for housing of an individual 
who is a member of the uniformed services from the determination of 
eligibility for free and reduced price meals of a child of the 
individual.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3216

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

     SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MILITARY BASIC ALLOWANCES FOR 
                   HOUSING FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR 
                   FREE AND REDUCED PRICE MEALS.

       Section 9(b)(3) of the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following: ``For the two-year period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this sentence, the amount of a basic 
     allowance provided under section 403 of title 37, United 
     States Code, on behalf of an individual who is a member of 
     the uniformed services for housing that is acquired or 
     constructed under the authority of subchapter IV of chapter 
     169 of title 10, United States Code, or any other related 
     provision of law, shall not be considered to be income for 
     purposes of determining the eligibility of a child of the 
     individual for free or reduced price lunches under this 
     Act.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 3216.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Delaware?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, to address the decline in the condition of military 
family housing, the Department of Defense initiated a housing program 
which would allow commercial contractors to replace traditional base 
housing with newly built or renovated privately managed base housing, 
so-called privatized housing.
  Yet as this program is being implemented, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriguez) brought to my attention a serious and unintended 
consequence of the program, children of junior enlisted personnel 
living in privatized housing were being denied free or reduced price 
meals at lunchtime. Due to DOD accounting changes, servicemembers 
receiving a housing allowance under the privatized housing program were 
being treated differently from those who were assigned traditional 
housing and not paid an allowance. This is because the income-based 
National School Lunch Program considered the housing allowance, but not 
the actual house income. For this reason, servicemembers living in 
traditional base housing at no cost were presumed to have less income 
than servicemembers of the same rank who received a housing allowance, 
but used those funds to pay a private contractor for rent and 
utilities.
  Unfortunately, this distinction caused military families in 
privatized housing to exceed the income-based eligibility requirements 
for the school lunch program, and it resulted in the loss of the free 
or reduced price meals for their children. DOD intended the 
privatization housing program to provide quality housing at no out-of-
pocket expense for servicemembers and their families. Unfortunately, 
these families are now finding that they will have to pay approximately 
$75 per child per month to replace the benefit that they received 
previously under the school lunch program.
  This problem is further compounded by the fact that numerous State 
and Federal education, nutrition and technology programs are contingent 
on the number of children eligible for the school lunch program. As a 
result, entire school districts could be affected.
  To adjust these problems, my legislation, H.R. 3216, amends the 
school lunch program to exclude the housing allowance of servicemembers 
in privatized housing for the determination of eligibility for free and 
reduced price meals. Although this only affects families at about 15 
military installations currently, that number is expected to increase 
to about 70 installations, encompassing 70,000 housing units, including 
450 units at the Dover Air Force Base in Dover, Delaware.
  Our uniformed services are being asked to make tremendous personal 
sacrifices to ensure the defense of our Nation. I believe we should do 
all we can to improve the quality of life for the families they leave 
behind.
  Madam Speaker, for that reason, I am pleased that we are considering 
this legislation today.
  In conclusion, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for 
allowing this measure to come to the floor. I also thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Davis) for their personal interest and leadership on this issue. I urge 
an ``aye'' vote on this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill which will 
correct an unintended consequence of an important program. First, I 
would like to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for 
introducing this legislation. I also thank the chairman and ranking 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their 
consideration of this measure.
  I raised this issue in the spring of this year, and I am happy to see 
that we have come to a reasonable conclusion. In an effort to leverage 
its limited quality life and resources, the Armed Services are 
privatizing military family housing. Such privatization of military 
family housing is a welcomed solution to a difficult problem in my 
district and across the Nation. However, as my colleague from Delaware 
mentioned, one of the unintended consequences of a well-intentioned 
program is the loss of income to school districts resulting from 
reduced eligibility for free and reduced school lunch programs.

[[Page 24830]]

  Compounding this problem, numerous State and Federal education, 
nutrition and technology programs are contingent on the number of 
children eligible for the free and reduced meal program; and this 
program we all know well as title I. The program affects only a small 
number of military children today, but it will affect tens of thousands 
of military families and the schools their children attend as the 
military housing privatization program expands.
  Many children and listed personnel living in the privatized housing 
are disqualified for eligibility for free and reduced price lunch. This 
is because the servicemember living in the privatized house has the 
basic allowance for earnings included on their earnings statement, 
although the money flows directly through the member to the private 
housing developer. This added income, which is not reported for members 
living in traditional on-base housing, causes many servicemembers' 
children to lose eligibility for free and reduced price meals because 
under Department of Agriculture rules, this amount is included as 
income in determining eligibility for free and reduced price school 
lunches. The Department of Defense adds the allowance to the pay 
statement to assist in accounting, but the servicemember loses.
  Madam Speaker, let me explain. On a Sunday, a housing community is 
owned and operated by the military. And on Monday, the housing 
community is operated by a private company still on Federal land, but 
the servicemember, who never moved, is impacted by all this. Earlier 
this year, the superintendent of the Coronado school district, Dr. 
Marilyn Wheeler, first made me aware of this problem. She contacted me 
when she learned that as a result of the privatization of the Silver 
Strand housing area, her small district could lose more than $90,000 in 
title I Federal funds which she already budgeted for in the 2001 and 
2002 school year.
  Title I funds have been utilized to improve school achievement at the 
Silver Strand School. Student achievement has steadily improved for the 
entire student body, and those identified as title I eligible have made 
significant gains in closing the achievement gap.
  This year's funding would have hired a full-time certificated teacher 
to work with small groups of students below grade level in reading, 
language arts and math; and a half-time reading specialist to work one 
on one with students below the grade level in reading, and certificated 
staff to work with small groups of students before or after school in 
reading and math. With all of our hard work on education, it would 
really be a travesty to leave this problem unresolved.
  Madam Speaker, I know that others around the country were facing 
similar circumstances, and I contacted the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Agriculture and the Social Security Administration. 
Initially, the Department of Defense did not believe it was feasible to 
eliminate the housing allowance from the military leave and earnings 
statement because of the negative impact it would have on the entire 
housing privatization program. However, the Department now believes it 
is possible, although the change will take at least 16 months.
  This bill will give DOD the time it needs to adjust its practices; 
and short of this effort, will correct the problem until it can be 
permanently fixed in the 2003 National School Lunch Reauthorization.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our schools and our 
military and vote ``yes'' on this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, in 1995, Congress took important steps 
to address the deterioration of conditions by nearly half of the 
military families in housing by enacting the Military Housing 
Privatization Initiative. The program has expedited the renovation and 
construction of military family housing by having developers construct 
private family housing on Federal property, which is then made 
available to military personnel.
  The unintended consequence of this worthwhile program is that 
children of many junior personnel living in privatizing housing are 
disqualified from being eligible for free and reduced price meals. The 
bill before the House today will temporarily solve the problem, and 
will ensure that 10,000 military children do not lose their eligibility 
for free and reduced price meals.

                              {time}  1415

  A service member living in privatized housing has their housing 
allowance included on their monthly earnings statement even though the 
funding passes directly to the privatized housing developer. This 
reported housing allowance, which is not reported for members living in 
traditional on-base housing, causes certain service members' children 
to lose eligibility for free and reduced-price meals. So you have a 
certain person who receives the same wages but is housed in traditional 
types of homes, those kids can qualify; but the other kids that are in 
a different housing do not qualify. Compounding the problem, numerous 
State and Federal education, nutrition and technology programs are 
contingent on the number of children eligible for the free and reduced-
price meals program. And so both the schools suffer as well as the 
students suffer and families.
  At Fort Hood, Texas, for example, the Army privatized nearly 6,000 
housing units earlier this year. Because of the privatization effort, 
more than 1,000 children of Army families will lose eligibility for 
free or reduced-price meals. The Killeen, Texas, Independent School 
District would lose about $1.1 million annually in State and Federal 
funding.
  I want to take this time to thank the Military Impacted School 
Association for their efforts because they were out there in support of 
all the military schools throughout the country. Working with them, I 
contacted the Department of Defense to remedy this quality-of-life 
problem that they were encountering. The Department of Defense 
responded that it could not fix the problem without dismantling the 
entire housing privatization finance method that they had intact and 
suggested instead that Congress amend the national school lunch 
program. In October, I introduced legislation to amend the national 
school lunch program to permanently fix the problem.
  The bill before the House today will fix the problem for 2 years with 
no cost, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. A permanent 
fix can then be addressed in the reauthorization of the national lunch 
program in the 108th Congress.
  I want to thank Chairman Boehner of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce and Subcommittee Chairman Castle for their efforts in 
introducing and expediting consideration of H.R. 3216. Without their 
strong support and the efforts of all the staff that have been 
extremely helpful, we would not be able to be here on the floor.
  As members of the Armed Forces are fighting terrorism abroad and at 
home, I would urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to 
pass H.R. 3216 unanimously. In these difficult times, the least we can 
do while these people are serving our country is to make sure that we 
take care of their children and their education.
  Once again, I want to thank both chairmen and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis) for helping out in this effort. I think it is 
something that we have to come back in the 108th and make sure we take 
care of it completely. In addition to that, I know that there are about 
16,000 housing projects that have been implemented. There is an 
additional 15,000 whose contracts are out. And then in the future we 
hope to improve the housing quality for all our military. We have over 
51,000 housing projects, so it is an area that we really need to look 
at very seriously.
  I once again thank very much both sides for this effort. The children 
will appreciate it.

[[Page 24831]]


  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Texas. I know he has 
worked tirelessly on this issue. I appreciate all of that and so do the 
children in our school districts.
  Madam Speaker, this is important bipartisan legislation that improves 
the quality of life of our service members, many of whom are deployed 
overseas in the face of danger, and removes a handicap to education 
faced by school districts across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Texas 
for their kind words and the concept of actually going forward with 
this. I agree with the gentlewoman from California, this is legislation 
which is of extreme importance, particularly in helping children who 
need the extra help in an income circumstance.
  I would encourage everybody also to support the legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
3216. H.R. 3216 corrects a problem created by the Department of Defense 
housing allowance policy by exempting military housing allowances as 
income for the purpose of determining a student's eligibility for the 
National School Lunch Program. It will prevent the loss of free- and 
reduced-priced meal eligibility by school-age children of military when 
their family home becomes privatized, or when the family moves into a 
new, privatized home. This measure will take effect for two years from 
the date of enactment and a permanent fix is anticipated in the 2003 
National School Lunch Act reauthorization.
  Military personnel generally receive in-kind housing or a housing 
allowance. In-kind housing usually takes the form of housing on a 
military base. Several years ago, however, the Department of Defense 
initiated a pilot program that allowed private developers to build 
military housing on Federal land, or manage existing military base 
housing.
  Currently, the Department of Agriculture treats this privatized 
housing allowance as income. The result is that a family's income is 
raised above the level needed to receive free-or reduce-price lunches. 
There is little distinction between these families and those living in 
regular civilian housing because military families living in these 
privatized housing sign their housing allowance over to the developer. 
Therefore, military families in privatized military housing should 
remain eligible for the National School Lunch Program.
  We must remember that individual directly benefiting from the 
National School Lunch Program are the children. Mr. Speaker, we cannot 
take away these children's free- or reduced-price lunches because of 
some technicality they have no control over. These are innocent 
children who require the nourishment to get them through the school day 
just like any other student. Especially now, when many American mothers 
and fathers are being called to war to defend our safety and freedom, 
we should not deny this benefit to their deserving children. For these 
children, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3216.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, recently, I was disheartened to learn 
that some children of the men and women who proudly serve our country 
in the U.S. armed services are unfairly losing their eligibility to 
receive free- and reduced-priced school meals. This is occurring for no 
reason other than that their family home is being privatized or they 
have been asked to move into a new, privatized military home. Because 
program eligibility is based on income, the additional compensation in 
the form of a housing allowance received by military personnel to pay 
for privatized military housing can result in the loss of meal 
benefits, although there is no real increase in salary or disposable 
income. In addition, schools attended by the children of military 
personnel could lose Federal and State education aid based on free- and 
reduced-priced meal counts, including their designation and funding as 
title I schools.
  I support the Department of Defenses' plan to improve the standards 
of military housing through privatization, but Congress must resolve 
this unintended consequence of the Department of Defense's housing 
policy before more otherwise qualified children lose access to free- 
and reduced-priced school meals.
  H.R. 3216 addresses and solves this problem for the next two school 
years at no cost. By excluding housing allowances used to live in 
privatized military housing from income when determining a child's 
eligibility to receive a free- and reduced-priced lunch, we can restore 
and preserve this benefit for qualified military families.
  Many of our service men and women take comfort in knowing that their 
children can receive a nutritious meal in school at little or no cost. 
Especially now, when many of our service men and women are being called 
to war to defend our safety and freedom, we should not deny this 
benefit to their deserving children.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3216.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________