[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16828-16836]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4837, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 732 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 732

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for 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. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except: section 129. During consideration 
     of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules met and granted an 
open rule for H.R. 4837, the Fiscal Year 2005 Military Construction 
Appropriations Act.
  The United States military is clearly the best in the world, and the 
young men and women in our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are 
thoroughly dedicated and patriotic professionals, the best our Nation 
has to offer.
  And we are asking a lot of our military today. Our military personnel 
on active duty know that they may well be deployed overseas and perhaps 
on dangerous missions; so we want to provide a quality of life for 
themselves and their families that will allow them to serve, knowing 
that their families will be taken care of with good housing and good 
health care.
  H.R. 4837 recognizes the dedication and commitment of our troops by 
providing for their most basic needs: improved military facilities, 
including housing and medical facilities.
  Mr. Speaker, we must honor the most basic commitments we have made to 
the men and women of our Armed Forces. We must ensure a reasonable 
quality of life to recruit and retain the best and the brightest for 
America's fighting forces, and most importantly, we must do all in our 
power to ensure a strong, able, dedicated American military so this 
Nation will be ever vigilant, ever prepared.
  H.R. 4837 provides nearly $1.1 billion for troop housing and $190 
million for hospital and medical facilities for the troops and their 
families. Military families also have a tremendous need for quality 
child care, especially single parents and families in which one or both 
parents may face lengthy deployments. To help meet this need, the bill 
provides $26 million for child development centers.
  This bill is more than just a signal to our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and Marines that this Nation recognizes their sacrifices. It is 
a means by which we meet our commitment to providing them decent 
quality of life, and this will sustain the commitment and 
professionalism of America's all-volunteer armed services and the 
families that support them. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.
  While our men and women in uniform have swiftly engaged our enemies 
abroad, they face increasingly complex personal and professional 
challenges here at home. We must do more to take care of those who are 
putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom and for their 
families that support them. So I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule and to support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Last night the Committee on Rules met to report a rule for the 
Military Construction Appropriations bill for 2005. The bill has wide 
bipartisan support. It provides sufficient funding for America's 
military construction needs and includes funding to improve facilities 
and family housing on reserve and active duty installations around the 
world. The bill also includes a provision that protects the most 
successful military housing project in history, the Military Housing 
Privatization Initiative.
  Under this program, the Federal Government creates public-private 
partnerships to construct and renovate military family housing. The 
current state of military housing is a disgrace. It is often old and 
dilapidated. Under this program, quality homes for our troops and their 
families are constructed more affordably and more quickly. It is 
estimated that the government saves 10 to 15 percent over the life of 
the project, and military families receive improved homes in one-tenth 
of the time it will have taken using old methods of family housing 
construction.
  When the program started in 1996, it was tied to a cap of $850 
million in government investment. The Department of Defense will reach 
this cap in November. The Military Construction bill contains a 
provision to raise the cap and ensure that the most successful military 
housing program ever will be able to continue.
  And herein lies the problem, Mr. Speaker. The rule that we are 
considering today puts this program in danger. It allows a point of 
order on the section of the bill raising the cap on the Privatization 
Initiative that would allow it to be completely stripped from the bill. 
If that happens, the program would be unable to continue past November 
of this year, and almost 50,000 military families would pay the price 
and continue to live in substandard housing.
  I made a motion last night in the Committee on Rules to protect this 
section of the bill so that it could not be stripped out, but it was 
defeated on a party-line vote. I just do not understand that, Mr. 
Speaker, because perhaps more than anything else in this bill, this 
provision will help raise the quality of life for our troops and their 
families.
  Perhaps worst of all is the fact that this is the only provision in 
the Military Construction bill that can be stripped out on a point of 
order. I think that shows real disregard and disrespect for our 
soldiers, and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I find it disgraceful. We in 
this House are constantly talking about the need to support our troops, 
and yet when the time comes to actually vote on a substantive issue 
that could really help our fighting men and women and their families, 
some Members of this House are not following through.
  I, for one, am proud to support our troops. As a Nation, we continue 
to ask more and more of them, especially in this time of war and 
uncertainty. Our brave soldiers and their families deserve to live in 
quality housing, not slums. It should be their right, not their 
privilege; and that is why today I will attempt to defeat the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to

[[Page 16829]]

protect the military housing cap in the bill from being stripped out on 
a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, countless military 
families and military organizations, and the President of the United 
States--let me repeat that, and the President of the United States, all 
support raising this cap. This House should too. America's troops and 
their families deserve to have our unconditional support as they 
continue to fight the war on terror. Vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in opposition to this rule, and I do so without disrespect at 
all to the gentlewoman. She is a very valuable Member of this Congress 
and a friend and someone who has worked hard to make sure that when we 
write budgets, when we determine spending priorities, that we adhere to 
them. And that is why I rise in opposition to this rule.
  This bill breaches the spending limit made under the budget. There 
will be people who come to the floor today who will claim that the only 
issue today is military housing when, in fact, the issue today is an 
$800-plus billion budget from which we can find many puts and many 
takes in order to adjust priorities here and adjust priorities there in 
order to make sure all priorities fit within a budget.
  How does this process work? The Committee on Appropriations, 
appropriately and in a way that we all appreciate, filed their bill 
meeting what is called the 302(b) number for military construction, 
meaning that it fit within the budget when the committee process began. 
But there were amendments that were made in order to increase the 
amount of spending over the budget and over the amount that was 
prioritized.
  Why was that done? It was done for political purposes. It was done to 
make points because, as everyone knows, in the Department of Defense 
authorization bill, the cap that we will be talking about today for 
military housing was lifted. So it is being taken care of. It is being 
taken care of in the authorization process, which is the appropriate 
way to handle it, the appropriate direction to take, and a way that 
does not bust the budget and allows all of us to do this within a 
responsible process.
  This Military Construction bill breaches the allocations that the 
Committee on Appropriations established for the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction by $1.2 billion as a result; that is 10 percent 
of the allocation. We are not just busting this by a couple of bucks 
here. We are not just saying it is okay to go over by a little. I mean, 
there have already been three bills that have left the House floor as 
appropriations that busted their allocations, three bills that we voted 
on on the floor here, that were sent to the other body, that busted the 
budget.
  So it does happen. It does happen by a few hundred thousand here, 
hundred million there, but rarely have we ever seen the chutzpa of 
coming to the floor with a bill that busts it by over 10 percent of the 
allocation.
  How does the Committee on Appropriations usually deal with this? Very 
typically, very routinely, the Committee on Appropriations comes to the 
floor and they make an adjustment to their 302(b) allocations. In fact, 
they can even make an adjustment to a bill that has already left, and 
they have done that in the past. And in fact, as I understand it today, 
they will make adjustments to their 302(b) allocations in order to make 
the three bills that left here, busting the budget, fit, something that 
they routinely do currently and totally within their jurisdiction and 
something that we, as fiscal hawks and people that want to make sure 
that we adhere to the budget, appreciate.
  The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has never brought a 
bill to this floor that busted the budget. Unfortunately, today this 
rule would allow that to happen. And that is why I rise in opposition, 
because we should not allow that to happen.
  Military housing is an effective program, so important that I am 
disappointed that the Committee on Appropriations did not offset the 
additional cost with a spending reduction in other bills from lower-
priority items, which is fully within their jurisdiction. Do they mean 
to tell me there is nothing else within any of the 13 appropriation 
bills that are lower priority than the military housing for our 
families who are fighting to defend our freedom? Nothing? Absolutely 
nothing? We cannot look for anything?
  Just waive the rules, and not only waive the budget and the budget 
rules, but to do so almost 2 weeks after we had a debate on this floor 
saying the budget process is broken, we have got to come up with new 
rules. Why do we have to come up with new rules if we break the rules 
that we already have? Why do we adhere to the rules that we already 
have? Such as we write a budget, we allow the Committee on 
Appropriations to make their allocations within the discretionary 
accounts. They make that decision and bring bills to the floor to fit 
within that budget so that in final analysis we are able to stay within 
that budget overall and not increase the deficit and not borrow more 
money and not add to the national debt.
  But we will continue to hear today that this is an important program 
and it needs our support. And it does need our support and it already 
has our support because it is moving through in the Department of 
Defense authorization.
  The House should not be in a position of having to take up this bill. 
Under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, it is not in 
order for the House to even consider a measure that breaches the 302(b) 
allocation, Mr. Speaker. It is not even in order to consider this bill. 
And there are all sorts of mechanisms available to the Committee on 
Appropriations prior to bringing this bill to the floor, to make their 
adjustments to ensure that this bill meets its allocation.
  The purpose of this rule is not to put a burden on enforcing the 
budget on the committee while it is moving the bill. Nevertheless, in a 
dramatic lapse of what I would call parliamentary responsibility and 
budget discipline, the rule waives this point of order. The rule shifts 
the burden for bringing the bill into compliance with the resolution 
away from the committee that is responsible, away from the Committee on 
Appropriations that we ask to make the tough decisions, to make the 
tough political decisions when they are political, like this one will 
have to be because people will make political points about this, about 
people not caring, about people not supporting, about people not 
wanting our military families to live in decent housing.

                              {time}  1045

  Well, there is not a Member of this body, not a Member of this body 
on either side, who should be accused of that or who would suggest that 
the men and women who serve in our military, who fight for freedom, 
should live in sub-quality housing. That is why we have the program. 
That is why the Department of Defense authorization lifts the cap and 
works to ensure that our men and women in the military have the ability 
to do just that.
  Faced with the choice, and it is an unfortunate choice that I believe 
we are faced with today, of enforcing the budget resolution or 
supporting this rule, I believe it is my job as the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget to enforce the budget; to listen to the men and 
women in the military who think their choice is more important than all 
sorts of choices that have been made and are going to be made in 
subsequent appropriation bills, number one, and also listen to the 
unbelievable amount, it should not be unbelievable, it is actually 
believable to me, but the growing chorus of people across this country 
that say you in Congress spend too much money. Set your priorities.

[[Page 16830]]

Determine what is important. Support our military families, and find 
something that is not quite as high a priority to cut out of the 
budget, to postpone until next year, to eliminate entirely.
  The waste, fraud and abuse that is going on in this budget, that is 
going on in this government, that goes on as a result of what we 
continue to perpetuate without making those tough choices, is what we 
have to come through. Are the choices tough? Of course they are tough. 
But remember 2 weeks ago when we had that budget debate; when everybody 
said please, take away those tough choices for me. Come up with new 
rules that have commissions, outside commissions, to make these 
decisions. Or let us do something so that I do not have to make these 
tough choices, so I do not have to choose between military families and 
waste within other Departments of the government.
  I know what my choice is. My choice is let us eliminate the waste. My 
choice is let us support those families, just like everybody else here 
on the floor would choose.
  Instead, unfortunately, what happens today is we have a bill that 
comes to the floor that not only busts the overall budget, but busts 
its total allocation for this bill alone by 10 percent. That is 
irresponsible to our military families, and that is irresponsible to 
the fiscal integrity of this government.
  We should not adopt this rule. If it is adopted, I will move to 
strike this provision. I ask for people to vote in opposition to this 
rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Will the chairman of the Committee on the Budget please remain for a 
question? Will the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) please remain for a 
question? I do not think he meant to intentionally misstate a fact.
  I would point out that the authorization bill lifts the cap for 2006. 
It does not lift it for 2005. In fact, the administration has asked for 
the $500 million.
  I do not think the gentleman intentionally meant to misstate the 
fact, but he did make a misstatement of fact on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think that the speech we just heard indeed 
does illustrate rather dramatically the difference in priorities 
between most of us on this side of the aisle and many others on that 
side of the aisle.
  What is before us is this: we routinely see Members of both parties 
in this House talk about the need for shared sacrifice, and we 
routinely see Members of both political parties posing for political 
holy pictures because they both profess to be so concerned about the 
welfare of our soldiers who are fighting our wars on behalf of our 
national interest. But this rule walks away blatantly--it walks away 
from our obligation to those military families who are the backbone of 
our military efforts, whether in Iraq or other places around the world.
  Now, the bill as it was reported by the Committee on Appropriations 
at the request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who is the 
primary mover on this issue, included a provision which allowed the 
Military Housing Privatization Program to continue to operate. That is 
important, because 160,000 military families right now live in sub-
standard housing, and the provision in this bill to raise the cap on 
that program would have helped 50,000 of those military families to 
wind up living in decent housing. This rule will allow a single Member 
of this House to knock out that provision.
  So here we are in the middle of a war. We talk about shared 
sacrifice, but in the end, how does that shared sacrifice really apply? 
To some folks in the military, those folks are asked to do their duty 
not just once, but twice. Some of them have already done one tour in 
Iraq. Now they are being called upon to do it again. Meanwhile, the 
rest of us in the country can sit back and ``sacrifice'' by accepting 
our tax cuts.
  Now, the gentleman who just spoke, the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget, produced a budget resolution which sacrificed virtually 
every national priority to his preference that we provide supersized 
tax cuts to people who make $1 million a year. So the budget resolution 
which that gentleman brought to the floor guaranteed that we were going 
to be able to give $90,000 tax cuts to people who make $1 million a 
year.
  Where did the money come from? By squeezing on military housing, by 
squeezing on aid to education, by squeezing on health research at NIH, 
by squeezing on law enforcement funding.
  The gentleman has very frankly stated his priorities, and I 
congratulate him for his honesty. I do not think much of his judgment, 
however, because if we were to follow his judgment and if we vote for 
this rule, that gentleman will be allowed to strike this provision on 
military housing.
  If we follow this rule, if we allow this rule to pass, we will be in 
a situation where one Member of the House can exercise his personal 
preferences and knock out the provision that the Committee on 
Appropriations, on a bipartisan basis, put in this bill, to try to 
provide some help to the people who are doing the most to support the 
national policies of this country, and that is military families. I 
think that the result of this rule would be shameful.
  Now, frankly, I was surprised when I heard the gentleman from Iowa 
oppose the rule, because this rule is here because of his pressure on 
the Committee on Rules. But, Mr. Speaker, now as I think about it, I 
finally realize what the game is. The gentleman from Iowa wanted the 
Committee on Rules to do the dirty work. He wanted them to directly 
eliminate that provision, rather than having to take the personal heat 
by standing up and knocking out that provision on a point of order.
  Well, I would suggest the way to correct this problem is to vote down 
this rule, to vote down the previous question so that we can bring to 
the House a bill which protects this provision. The rule provided 
waivers for all kinds of other provisions in the bill. Why did it 
exempt from that protection military families who need our help the 
most?
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would announce to my colleagues, especially on the 
Committee on Appropriations, that I intend to vote for this rule. But 
there is one part of the rule that I do not like. I wish that the rule 
would have protected language relative to military housing.
  I am really proud of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Congress, because we have done an awful lot for the members of our 
military services, as we should; and there is a lot more that needs to 
be done. There are some 24,000 military families anxiously awaiting for 
this bill to pass so that they can get in line to receive one of those 
new housing projects.
  Some of our military families live in great housing that has been 
produced through this public-private venture system and at a very low 
cost to the government, I might say. For every dollar it costs the 
government, there is $11 of private money invested, and these kids have 
great places to live. But there are at least 24,000 of our servicemen 
today who still do not have a decent place to live, and that is what 
this bill seeks to create and to fix housing for them.
  The amendment that is in question does not appropriate any money. I 
do not see why the budget chairman is so exercised. We did not 
appropriate any additional money. The amendment that was offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and by the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), was strictly to raise 
the limit on the amount of money the government could enter into with 
the contractors. We did not appropriate a single additional dollar; and 
we did not need to, because of the great way this program works.

[[Page 16831]]

  The chairman of the Committee on the Budget also said, why do this? 
It has already been done.
  That is not true. It has not been done. The authorizing committee 
would like to do it, but they face the same budgetary constraints that 
we face--not dollars, not money being spent by the Federal Government, 
just to raise the limit on the amount of money that the Federal 
Government can enter into contracts with private contractors.
  It was suggested that we should have made changes in the budget 
process, and I agree with that. Let me tell you what one of the changes 
ought to be: the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget is basing his 
position on scoring by CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. I would 
like to base mine on OMB, the Office of Management and Budget.
  OMB likes this provision, and they say that it is not going to cost 
any more money. The Administration in their Statement of Administration 
Policy, and the President, strongly support the provision that we are 
talking about. They say OMB would not score any additional cost to this 
provision because it does not increase the amount of budget authority 
available to the Department of Defense.
  So, yes, we need budget process reform. We need to have the people 
that are scoring our appropriations bills reading from the same page. 
You cannot have CBO scoring something one way and OMB scoring it 
another way. That is one of the process changes that we need to make 
and that we will offer at a later date.
  Mr. Speaker, this is important to our kids that serve in the 
military. As I said, we have done a lot for them, and we sent them to 
war. Most of the people that are concerned about this budget situation 
voted to send them to war. And when you go to the hospitals, as I do on 
a regular basis, to visit the kids, they want to get better, they want 
to get back to the fight, but they also want to know, if someone is 
taking care of their family. Are they going to live in decent housing? 
Are they going to have enough money to buy food for the kids, and 
things like this.
  We owe these kids decent places to live. If we are going to send them 
to war, we owe them a quality of life that is better than so many of 
them are living today.
  So we have a lot of work to do. The Committee on Appropriations, I 
believe, has made a great step forward in this bill by adding this 
language to allow the Department of Defense to increase the amount of 
authority that they would give to the private-public venture that 
provides housing for our military families.
  There is a lot more that we have to do for these kids. They are 
paying a lot. The sacrifice is great, the separation from family, the 
facing of an enemy that is not even known in most cases, the problems 
they are facing in trying to secure America and our interests against 
terrorism and the terrorists who would threaten our very way of life. 
We owe them a lot more than we are doing for them now.


                     military housing privatization

  The Military Housing Privatization Initiative was started in 1996. 
This program has successfully converted 62,000 units and I have seen 
most of them. The program is extremely popular with military families 
who are clamoring to get out of the rat traps and into new homes.
  The program is extremely fiscally conservative. Every $1 of federal 
money leverages $11 of private investment.
  The provision in the Military Construction bill enhances the 
privatization program. Without it, the Department of Defense will have 
to forgo the creation of 24,000 additional homes.
  This provision simply raises the cap on the amount the Federal 
Government can contribute to the program. It does not appropriate one 
single additional dime for the program. The administration strongly 
supports this provision. Let me read from the Statement of 
Administration Policy on the bill. I quote, ``The administration 
strongly supports the provision that would increase the military 
housing privatization cap from $850 million to $1.35 billion. This 
increase will improve the quality of life of our military families.'' 
OMB estimates that if this cap is not lifted the program will shut down 
in November of this year.
  For 6 years CBO scored this provision the same as OMB. For some 
reason, this year they have changed their position. Their explanation 
is long and exceedingly complex. OMB disagrees totally with this 
interpretation. If there ever is a case to be made for directed 
scorekeeping, this is it.
  I am extremely disappointed that this provision was not protected by 
the rule and will probably be struck by a point of order. It has been 
said we will fix it later--why wait--now is better than later.

                               Fact Sheet

       Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) began in 
     1996. As of February 2004, DOD privatized over 55,000 units 
     through 27 projects--the current plan is for 171,000 units, 
     probably more.
       DOD projects that it will privatize over 43,000 units in FY 
     2005. Of these, DOD estimates that 24,000 units are 
     threatened by the cap.
       Affected installations include Fort Drum (2,272 units), 
     Fort Bliss (2,752 units), Eglin AFB (2,155 units), McGuire 
     AFB/Fort Dix (2,592 units).
       DOD estimates that about half of current housing inventory 
     is still inadequate (too small, inferior to current design 
     standards, etc.).
       Secretary of Defense has established goal of eliminating 
     inadequate housing inventory by 2007 (with exception of four 
     Air Force installations by 2008 and Air Force overseas by 
     2009). This goal is impossible without MHPI.
       Average ratio of private to Federal dollars is 11:1.
       Privatization is undertaken only where housing market and 
     life cycle analysis indicate that it is the best option. DOD 
     will still rely primarily on existing housing market to meet 
     service members' needs.

                              {time}  1100

  The least we can do is give our military servicemen a nice place to 
live, for them and their families.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a slap in the face to 
America's military families. They have a right to be outraged, and they 
will be when they find out what happens on the House floor today.
  This rule says to our military families, many of them who have loved 
ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the House Republican 
leadership has made tax cuts for Members of Congress this year a higher 
priority than better housing for military families.
  With this rule, we put at risk the most important military housing 
program in American history, the public-private initiative. To do so 
any time would be wrong. To do so during a time of war is 
unconscionable.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) owe our military families and all who respect them an 
answer to one question: Why is it that you can support just 2 months 
ago on this House Floor a $69 billion tax break that benefits Members 
of Congress, but today, we cannot afford to continue our military 
housing program for 50,000 military families?
  Perhaps the answer was given by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
in his speech to bankers in March of 2003, just 1 week before the Iraqi 
war began, when he said this: ``Nothing is more important in the face 
of war than cutting taxes.'' Nothing is more important in the face of 
war than cutting taxes.
  I would like to invite the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) to Fort Hood in my district, 
which has sent nearly 40,000 Army soldiers to Iraq this year alone, to 
explain why they can bring to the House Floor 2 months ago a bill that 
cut taxes for Members of Congress making $157,000-plus a year, but they 
cannot find a way today to protect the most important military housing 
program ever for service men and women making $20,000 and $30,000 a 
year. Where is the fairness in that?
  Is cutting taxes for Members of Congress while freezing military 
housing improvements for our troops the leadership's new definition of 
shared sacrifice during time of war? If so, it is a flawed definition.
  Have our military families not sacrificed enough already? Why should 
50,000 military families in 22 States now have to sacrifice their dream 
of better military housing so we can help pay for a self-serving tax 
cut for Members of Congress?
  What is happening today on this floor is an insult to the incredible 
sacrifices made by our service men and women.

[[Page 16832]]

  Oh, and how times have changed for the worst. Instead of President 
Franklin Roosevelt asking all Americans to sacrifice after Pearl 
Harbor, the House leadership, in the midst of our war on terrorism, is 
saying with its words and its deeds that nothing is more important in 
the face of war than cutting taxes.
  We are going to hear a lot of excuses today. We are going to hear 
that technicalities prevent us from preventing a freeze on the most 
important military housing program ever. Baloney. The House Committee 
on Rules, with one phone call from the Speaker, could have done what it 
has done repeatedly in this Congress on 25 occasions: protect an 
important provision in this bill from a technical point of order. 
Unbelievably, unbelievably, that call was not made.
  Unfortunately, the same House leadership that told the Committee on 
Rules to bring a tax cut, helping Members of Congress, to the floor 2 
months ago, could not make that phone call to protect military families 
today. We will hear a lot of excuses about how, well, there are other 
ways to solve the military housing program crisis. Well, that is 
exactly what they are, excuses.
  Those same Committee on the Budget members failed to solve this 
problem in the Committee on the Budget. Then they failed to work with 
the Committee on Armed Services to solve the problem for fiscal year 
2005 in the Committee on Armed Services bill. That was two strikes. 
Now, when the Committee on Appropriations is trying to solve the 
problem in a bipartisan way and support our military families, these 
same folks want to prohibit us from doing so. Three strikes, and they 
are out.
  Sadly, though, the people who will be left out in the cold are not 
Members of Congress who pretend to be fiscal hawks when it comes to 
funding military housing improvements, but turned into fiscal doves 
when it came to passing a $69 billion tax break that put money in our 
pockets. These same people will be leaving 50,000 military families in 
22 States out in the cold.
  We will hear excuses that military families will just have to wait 
for Members of Congress to have our 5-week vacation in July and August, 
and maybe the same House leaders we have who have ignored this housing 
crisis for the last 6 months will find a way to solve the problem, 
after campaign trips in August and beach vacations.
  I would suggest that leaders in Congress who found the time to rename 
dozens of post offices this year and schedule tax cuts, votes on tax 
cuts for Members of Congress like me, maybe they should find the time 
to solve the military housing crisis now, before they go on vacation, 
before they make their dozens of campaign stops and fund-raising events 
in the month ahead. When it comes to solving a serious military housing 
crisis, the House Republican leadership has been AWOL.
  Fortunately, there have been many Members such as the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and 
others who have tried to come together to do the right thing.
  Let me be clear. I am not asking the House Republican leadership, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) to put themselves today in harm's way like so many of the 
soldiers from Fort Hood in my district are in Iraq today. However, in 
all due respect, I would hope the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) would support our troops by 
saying that, Do my colleagues know what? The military housing crisis 
should be solved before, not after, we take our 5-week August vacation.
  Perhaps a little bit of shared sacrifice during a time of war is not 
too much to ask for our military families who have already made 
incredible sacrifices on behalf of the American family. After all, 
despite the statement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that 
nothing is more important in the face of war than tax cuts, the vast 
majority of Americans would agree that there is something far more 
important than tax cuts, and especially tax cuts for Members of 
Congress during a time of war. It would be more important to support 
our troops and to support their loved ones, their families, to allow 
them to live in decent housing while they are giving up so much for our 
country.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me finish with this. There are moments when 
support for our military families ought to be more important than 
loyalty, blind loyalty to the House Speaker and the majority leader. I 
would suggest today is one of those times. During a time of war on 
terrorism, let us send a bipartisan vote and a message to our military 
families by saying, we are not going to go away on vacation in August 
until we solve the military housing crisis; and that, yes, the House 
leadership is not perfect, and today it is wrong to bring a rule to 
this floor that would help one person defeat the most important 
military housing program in American history.
  The vote is what really counts, not our speeches today, and the vote 
will say this: What is more important, loyalty to the House Republican 
leadership or loyalty to the military men and women who are making such 
tremendous sacrifices on behalf of all Americans?
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is obviously political season, and when it is politically 
convenient, deficits are a huge problem on the other side of the aisle, 
but they are not willing to make any sacrifices in any other areas to 
be fiscally responsible to all of our citizens.
  There is no one in this House who does not support our troops and 
wants to see more military housing. But I really feel that today, in 
this debate I am listening to, our troops are being used as a pawn, and 
that is very disturbing to me. Yes, this is an agenda of our President, 
but I would also like to remind the other side that tax cuts were also 
a priority of our President.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in very reluctant support of this rule. I am eager to see this 
bill move forward. It is my bill. It is our committee's bill. But I am 
disappointed in one particular aspect of this rule.
  The rule does not protect section 129 of the bill from a point of 
order. Section 129 raises the cap on the military family housing 
privatization program. This provision does not appropriate one dime in 
any new money; it merely increases the authorization level in order to 
allow fiscal year 2005 projects to proceed.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Budget referenced the defense 
authorization bill. It does not even touch on 2005. It talks about 
2006. This money, if the cap is not removed, is going to disappear by 
about November.
  Unfortunately, CBO has decided that this provision should be scored. 
Its rationale for doing so is a little strange and thoroughly 
unconvincing. The crucial point is this: If the developer cannot 
service the debt on a project, the Federal Government is not on the 
hook. This has been stated over and over. There is no backing of any 
kind for the developer's private debt.
  The bottom line is that this is a bookkeeping dispute with CBO, 
nothing more. But because of the decision of the CBO, this provision is 
vulnerable to a point of order, and I was hoping that this rule would 
waive that point of order.
  By the way, CBO and OMB scored this the same way since 1996, but this 
year CBO decided to change it. Nothing in the program has changed, but 
CBO decided to change the scoring.
  The housing privatization program is an enormously successful and 
popular program. I cannot think of a single person, including the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget himself, who has expressed 
opposition to this program. The administration put out a statement on 
the bill that strongly, strongly supports the provision. They do not 
agree with CBO's scoring.
  Earlier this year, my subcommittee heard from military spouses who 
testified to the positive difference that this

[[Page 16833]]

program made in their lives. Let me just quote from one spouse, Mrs. 
Susan Sinclair of Fort Rucker, Alabama.
  ``Thank you for your efforts to improve our housing. The Residential 
Communities Initiative, RCI, has made many of our government 
neighborhoods look like civilian communities. My neighbor received a 
letter from her daughter stating that Camp Humphreys, Korea,'' we are 
talking about Korea now, ``had the best housing in the Army. What a 
change. As many of you know from my testimony 3 years ago, when my 
husband and I were stationed in Camp Humphreys, we lived in a condemned 
Quonset hut.''
  By the way, that still exists around the world, around this country 
in many ways, too.
  ``This new housing is a testament to your committee's desire to 
improve the quality of life of our soldiers and their families. I want 
you to know how much we appreciate your efforts.'' By the way, we have 
many of those.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard positive comments like this all the way up 
to the Joint Chiefs level. I really want to identify, too, with the 
comments of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), because I 
think he had some very, very significant points.
  I have personally seen this housing program and many members of this 
subcommittee have done so as well, and they have done some great work. 
Some new communities have been built, and this is a vast improvement.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I again say that I will support this rule, 
but only with serious reservations.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no way I can support 
this rule.
  Last night, the Republican leadership of this House once again turned 
its back on military families trying to find a decent place to live. On 
bill after bill after bill, this Republican majority has chosen to 
waive all points of order, but on this bill, the Speaker and the 
majority leader refused to protect the Military Housing Privatization 
Initiative provision in the Military Construction bill from a point of 
order, despite the support of the President of the United States and 
the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
  The leadership's decision dooms the important military housing 
provision, and it is wrong; and it is wrong particularly in a time of 
war.
  The housing initiative is a public-private partnership that allows 
developers and property managers to build or renovate homes for use by 
military personnel. It is extremely successful. In fact, it has already 
provided decent housing to more than 60,000 military families, 
exceeding all expectations. If adequately funded, this initiative will 
enable the military to eliminate nearly all inadequate units within the 
U.S. by 2008.
  Unfortunately, the law establishing the initiative limits total 
Federal spending on this program.

                              {time}  1115

  This limit will be reached by this November, effectively sounding the 
death knell for the expectations of 50,000 military families at 27 
military bases in 22 States who are desperately waiting for these homes 
over the next 2 years.
  Now, faced with this housing catastrophe, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Chairman Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), with 
the bipartisan support of their committee, increased the MHPI cap by 
$500 million, the amount needed this year to continue upgrading and 
building military housing under this program.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the Republican leadership in the 
Committee on Rules to allow points of order to be raised if the 
chairman of the authorizing committee objects to the inclusion of any 
provision legislating on an appropriations bill. The chairman of the 
Committee on Rules consistently explains this whenever Democrats on the 
Committee on Rules ask why a rule does not protect a certain provision. 
Yet in this case, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the 
authorizing committee, supports raising the MHPI cap in this bill.
  Not only that, the President of the United States supports the 
raising of the cap in this bill; but the Republican leadership, despite 
all their rhetoric about supporting our troops, has once again turned 
their backs on our troops and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of those defining moments. If Members of 
this House want to support our troops and their families, then they 
will reject this rule. If Members of this House want their actions to 
match their rhetoric, then they will reject this rule. Each year I have 
watched the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) do their best for our military 
personnel and their families with one of the most inadequate 
allocations in the budget. This year they tackled the difficult 
challenge of providing decent housing for our military families around 
the country. They did the right thing in this bill and in return only 
ask for protection for this important provision, and what they got from 
the Republican leadership was a slap in the face.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, support our 
troops, and support the families of our troops.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Generally speaking, the authorizing committee, the Committee on Armed 
Services in this case, would be heavily attending this particular 
debate to object to the appropriators making policy on an 
appropriations bill. In this case, we are not doing that. We do 
strongly support raising this cap, and the reason we want to do that is 
because for over the last several years, we have played by the rules. 
We have done everything, I think, according to the rules. We have 
engaged with the Committee on the Budget, and the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget is a very fine individual and has worked hard 
and diligently with us over the last many years to put together good 
defense budgets, as has the Republican leadership. We have got a very 
good package this year; but the one thing we have not been able to 
accomplish is to raise this cap, and at risk right now are some 24,000 
units.
  Now, I would just implore the Committee on the Budget and their very 
distinguished leader, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), to work 
with us on this one. Let us pull together on this one. This is one time 
when the authorizers are willing to not protect their turf, because 
things do not come wrapped in neat packages; and this is one of those 
times when we are going to have to make a package that is a little bit 
different from the standard package. That means doing everything with 
very vigilant protection of turf by authorizers during the 
appropriations process.
  We support this, and in the end we have got lots of folks that are 
serving in theatre right now. Quality of life is still a major, major 
issue with our military families; and we have seized on this new 
method, this privatization of vastly increasing that quality of life. 
In the interest of doing that, we are willing to give up this piece of 
turf at this time and go forward with this fix on this very difficult 
problem so that we can get more military housing for our military 
families, and I would just implore the Committee on the Budget to hang 
with us on this one. Let us all pull together, let us get this thing 
through, and I would hope that no one objects when it gets to the 
appropriate point in the debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, about 2,500 military families at Fort Bliss, Texas, 
which is in my district, are planning, or were planning, to live in 
new, improved homes thanks to the military housing privatization plan 
that is scheduled, or was scheduled, to start this year.
  However, because of this rule, this rule will prevent these families 
and

[[Page 16834]]

thousands of others across the country from receiving the same improved 
housing they desperately need and they deserve. The Residential 
Communities Initiative, RCI, is a Military Housing Privatization 
Initiative that aims to eliminate inadequate housing on Army bases by 
2007.
  I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) who have worked 
very hard to support our troops and to get a provision in the MILCON 
appropriations bill to increase the cap for the MHPI program.
  But this irresponsible rule would effectively strip that provision 
from the bill. So today I want to ask and urge my colleagues to vote 
against this rule so that military families across the country can 
receive improved housing that they so desperately need and so much 
deserve. At a time when our men and women in uniform and their families 
are sacrificing so much for our Nation, this, I think, is the very 
least we can do.
  And I want to remind all of you, all of you, my colleagues, that it 
is not enough to say that we support our troops. It is not enough to 
say that our troops are performing professionally. It is not enough to 
say that our troops are performing heroically and then turn around and 
shaft their families by eliminating this critically needed military 
housing initiative.
  Our troops, their families, and America are watching what we do here 
today. If you vote for this rule, you are voting against our military 
families. Let us reject this rule and put our money where our mouths 
have been. Let us not just talk the talk time and time again on this 
floor, but it is time to walk the walk. Support our military families. 
They are watching what we do, and they will hold those responsible 
accountable, as they should.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very reluctant support of this 
rule and with great concern about the provision that would permit an 
objection to be offered to the military housing provisions in the bill. 
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about this provision already, and I 
would just add this, that many of us, all Members of Congress, work to 
support the men and women who sign up on a volunteer basis to be 
members of the armed services. When they sign up, we spend millions and 
billions of dollars on training, recruitment, trying to make sure that 
the all-volunteer force remains a professional force, and that depends 
on retention. If we do not have the men and women who volunteer to join 
the service and who we spend billions of dollars to train, if they do 
not decide to stay in the military forces, then our all-volunteer force 
cannot work.
  The quality-of-life issues become extremely important, and one of the 
most important quality of life issues is housing. Currently, we are 
behind in providing housing for our military families. If we increased 
our military construction budget by $1 billion a year for 20 years, we 
would catch up. Obviously, we cannot afford to increase our military 
construction budget by $1 billion a year for 20 years to do that 
catchup.
  However, if DOD invests $500 million and leverages the balance of 
what we need to provide housing through this military construction 
program, we will be able to solve this problem in a relatively short 
period of time. The program is working. It has proven to be successful, 
and to remove the legislative cap in fiscal year 2005 is extremely 
important. We on the authorization committee have provided a provision 
to increase it in 2006, but to skip a year, which puts us that much 
further behind. And, therefore, I would urge the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, who has indicated that he is going to raise 
this objection, not to do so.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, this is not brain surgery. I for myself 
will vote against this rule, because to vote otherwise would be to vote 
against the wonderful troops and their families. I just cannot do that.
  Let me explain. At the start of fiscal year 2004, the services 
reported that almost half of the military families' houses were 
inadequate. We know that they deserve better. The Military Housing 
Privatization Initiative has an innovative way to address the problem, 
and when we started the program we made sure it would work.
  I am speaking for the troops and their families, and everybody ought 
to listen today as we speak. Nothing is more important than those young 
people, those young families that we are charged with raising and 
supporting. It is more than having a bumper sticker on your car that 
says, ``Support the troops.'' Right here today by voting against this 
rule that does away with the opportunity for a clear shot at additional 
housing is most important.
  So what we have to do is to allow this rule to be put back, that we 
have the opportunity to submit, as the committees intended to do but 
could not do for the year 2005, all because of the CBO scoring.
  We need not go into the complexities of the rule. We need not go into 
how it was drafted or the point of order that many of us are fearful 
will be raised. It boils down to whether we support the troops, not 
just by a bumper sticker, but whether we support them with our votes, 
because they deserve it so much.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Total Force, I just wanted to rise and associate myself, really, with 
the comments of all of us who have stood up and talked about the 
importance of our military housing program. It has been a money saver. 
I think, frankly, Mr. Speaker, the problem is less with the rule than 
any Member who may exercise the authority given under the rule. If, in 
fact, this bill goes forward and no one stands to rise in objection, 
this program that needs to go forward is a taxpayer savings; and most 
importantly, as everyone has said, placing our military family in much 
better and much more attractive housing is the right thing to do.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and I understand the position he has 
taken; but let me suggest that this is a case where an exception should 
be made and to explain why, let me go quickly through the history of 
this program.
  The Military Housing Privatization Program was established in 1996 
and 1997. OMB established how the program should be scored, how it 
would reflect the cost to the government.
  From 1997 until and through this year, OMB has stood by that 
methodology. If we follow that methodology, we would not be having this 
debate. In 1996, the committee established a cap of $850 million to 
make sure that the program worked as intended, and the program has 
worked as intended. It has exceeded the expectations.

                              {time}  1130

  The cap, $850 million cap, was based on OMB's method of scoring. And, 
once again, if we used that method of scoring, we would have no problem 
today.
  In 2002, we asked OMB and DOD to reaffirm the methodology, and OMB 
and DOD came back and reaffirmed the methodology. CBO only changed its 
notion of how these scorings should be done in this year, midstream.
  November of this year, the cap we set several years ago will be 
reached. In the Committee on Armed Services we abided by this fact, and 
using the revised CBO scoring, we provided an offset of $6.5 billion. 
The problem is, that will not kick until 2006. Over 2005 and 2006, the 
DOD has planned to build 50,000 units. If we cannot do what the bill 
does today, or would do today, that will leave 24,000 military families 
out in the cold because of an arcane scoring difference between OMB and 
CBO.

[[Page 16835]]

  Let me simply say in conclusion, we are not calling for free-lancing. 
We are not calling for some pull-it-out-of-the-sky number. We are 
simply saying we will stick with the scoring this program has used 
since its inception, still used by OMB, as opposed to having CBO's 
scoring. If we do that, we do not have a problem here.
  There is no need for a point of order. The bill should be passed as 
is. But the rule, if it does not protect that provision, should be 
voted down.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one very important part of this 
debate that we have not gotten to: Most Members of the House support 
this provision for family housing. The President of the United States 
supports this provision for family housing. The members of our military 
who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places support this 
provision for family housing. But if we do not pass the rule, if we 
shoot the rule down, then nothing happens, including family housing.
  If, in fact, the rule passes and we get to the bill, maybe we can 
prevail upon everyone not to raise that point of order so that they do 
not appear to be the Grinch that stole Christmas from our military 
families.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace. I have served on the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations for 26 
years, the Subcommittee on Military Construction for 18 years.
  The administration, the Department of Defense, the House Committee on 
Armed Services, the House Committee on Appropriations and the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction all support raising this 
provision. The Committee on the Budget is coming in here and prevailed 
on the House leadership.
  Now, I have heard a lot of rhetoric in this Presidential Campaign 
about certain votes in the other body where people did not vote for a 
certain supplemental appropriation for our troops. I want to say it 
very clearly. The American people are going to judge the majority party 
here today. If they go out here and vote for this rule that allows this 
provision to be stricken, they are voting against the men and women in 
the military of our country. It is simply that clear.
  I have always believed this House would always rise up in a 
bipartisan way and get the job done, when it counted, for our men and 
women in the field. This will be one of the few times in my 28 years in 
this House where that does not happen because of the Committee on the 
Budget and the CBO.
  OMB supports this. DOD supports it. The President, the Secretary of 
Defense, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young). Come on. Let us support this bill.
  Let us override the Committee on the Budget.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Republican colleagues who 
genuinely supported improving military housing. But today the only vote 
that counts is a ``no'' vote against the rule, a rule that would allow 
one Member of this House to put on freeze during a time of war the most 
important military housing program in American history.
  Let there be no surprise for anyone who votes for this rule that if 
our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), were to use his 
prerogative under this rule to kill this housing program, then, in 
effect, regardless of the good intentions, a ``yes'' vote for this rule 
is a ``no'' vote for better housing for tens of thousands of military 
families, even families who have loved ones serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Let us rise above loyalty to the House Speaker and to the majority 
leader. Let us once say together during time of war on a bipartisan 
basis, we are going to do what is right. And if that means voting 
against a dictate from the Speaker's office on how to vote for this 
rule so that we can join together to improve housing for military 
families, then that is the right thing to do.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  If I understand what is going on on the other side during the last 30 
minutes, several Republican Members, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), basically urged 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) not to shoot the wounded. They 
have basically urged him not to try and strike this provision by 
objecting to it as a violation of the Rules.
  What we want to do, of course, is take the gun out of the gentleman 
from Iowa's (Mr. Nussle) hand by protecting this provision so that he 
will not be able to shoot the wounded.
  Mr. Speaker, I will call for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. 
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that will protect the section of the bill that raises the cap on 
the Military Housing Privatization Program and ensures that more of our 
troops and their families will be able to live in good housing.
  I offered this same amendment in the Committee on Rules last night, 
where it was defeated on a straight party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I have served in Congress for 26 years now. In all those 
years, I have thought that one thing that both sides of the aisle could 
agree on was our support for our troops and making sure that their 
needs will always be addressed. I guess what I thought was wrong.
  Now we will be able to go forward. If we defeat the previous 
question, then we will be able to offer it. We will be able to protect 
this provision, and this bill will be able to be voted on. A vote 
against the previous question is the only way you protect our troops 
and the only way you protect the military housing provision in this 
bill.
  If we succeed on the previous question, then there will be a vote on 
the rule with our protection of that provision, and this bill can be 
brought to the floor.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Could I ask the gentleman to make it clear now to all 
House Members?
  What the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has said is that if we 
defeat the previous question, then we can bring back the Military 
Construction appropriations bill today and pass it out of this House 
today in a way that protects this vitally important military housing 
improvement program. Is that correct? We were not talking about a 1-
week or 2-week delay.
  Mr. FROST. That is correct.
  Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, to close.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  It has been just a few weeks since we memorialized Ronald Reagan. His 
body was lying here in state in the Rotunda, and we had people on both 
sides of the aisle talk about the legacy of Ronald Reagan. And one of 
the things that Ronald Reagan succeeded in doing was

[[Page 16836]]

getting both sides of the aisle to talk about deficit spending and 
fiscal responsibility.
  I think it is very important for us to note that as we deal with this 
issue, everyone else, everyone else on both sides of the aisle, along 
with the leadership, supports the Ronald Reagan vision of ensuring that 
we have a defense capability that is second to none; ensuring that, as 
my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) said earlier, we 
have the opportunity for an incentive for people to maintain their 
service in the military.
  What does that mean? It means ensuring that we take care of families 
and provide that housing.
  My friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is absolutely 
right that there is strong bipartisan consensus on that. But there is 
also a responsibility that we have here to live within our budget. It 
is wrong to make the claim that it is impossible to deal with the issue 
of family housing if we all of a sudden do not do exactly what my 
friend, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Frost) is arguing.
  I believe that we are in a position now where we can be fiscally 
responsible. At the same time, we can comply with the rules of the 
House, and we can ensure that we deal with this very important issue of 
housing for our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the appropriate thing for us to do is to 
move ahead, support the previous question; support this rule; allow us 
to, in a fiscally responsible way, deal with what obviously is a 
challenging situation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

 Previous Question for H. Res. 732: Rule for H.R. 4837, FY05 Military 
                      Construction Appropriations

       In the resolution strike the following: ``except: section 
     129''

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. 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.

                          ____________________