[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16840-16849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 732 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4837.

                              {time}  1247


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4837) making appropriations for military construction, family 
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to present the fiscal year 2005 military 
construction appropriations bill, which was reported out of the full 
committee on appropriations on July 9 by voice vote.
  Let me at the beginning thank all of the people who contributed to 
this bill, the subcommittee staff, and my ranking member, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I want to also call attention to some of the 
staff who did remarkable work to bring this bill forward: Carol Murphy, 
Walter Hearne, Eric Elsmo, Mary Arnold and, of course, Tom Forhan on 
the minority side.
  The ultimate purpose of this bill is to support our service men and 
women by providing a quality of life commensurate with the sacrifices 
they are called upon to make. I want to thank each Member again of the 
subcommittee, because they did contribute greatly via, in some cases, 
CODELs to look at some of the housing, for example, around the country 
and around the world. I thank them for their hard work and support, and 
certainly I add to it again the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who 
has been a strong and vocal supporter of our men and women in the 
service for years.
  The bill totals $10 billion, which is $162 million above the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level and $450 million above the President's request. 
The bill also contains a general provision related to housing 
privatization that CBO scores as additional budget authority. I will 
get to that shortly. But let me emphasize that $10.003 billion is what 
the bill appropriates, and not a penny more.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at war. Many will argue that in such a time as 
this, when so many of our servicemembers and their families are making 
great sacrifices, that this bill does not provide enough. In one 
respect, they are right. There is no question we could do more if we 
had more. But I think this bill does a lot of good things and provides 
our active, Guard, and Reserve servicemembers with critically needed 
infrastructure to meet their mission goals, and it improves housing and 
community facilities for their families.
  That being said, I want to draw some attention now to the highlights 
of this bill. Within the total amount of $10 billion, the bill provides 
$5.3 billion for military construction, including $1.1 billion for 
troop barracks; $833 million for the Guard and Reserve component and 
other facilities such as schools, fitness centers, and child 
development centers.
  The bill also provides $1.6 billion for family housing construction, 
including funding for about 18 to 24 privatization projects, depending 
upon the cost of those projects; $2.5 billion for family housing 
operations and maintenance; $246 million for costs related to past BRAC 
rounds; and $166 million for the NATO Security Investment Program.
  In addition, the bill fully funds overseas military construction; it 
fully funds the chemical demilitarization construction program; it 
provides the requested funds for projects associated with new weapons 
systems, including the Army Stryker vehicle, the F-22 Raptor fighter 
jet, and the C-17 Globemaster cargo plane; and provides much needed 
funding for the Navy to continue replacing inadequate pier 
infrastructure.
  Now I want to say a word or two about the family housing 
privatization program.
  Mr. Chairman, a limitation on budget authority was placed on the 
program when it was first authorized in 1996. This $850 million cap was 
put in as a safeguard for what was then a new and untested program, a 
pilot program, if you will. Eight years later, the program has become 
one of the most successful programs we have ever had for improving the 
quality of life and morale of our troops and families.
  This cap will be reached before the end of this year; and if action 
is not taken to increase the limitation in fiscal year 2005, progress 
on replacing substandard homes will be seriously hampered. 
Unfortunately, we have run into a scoring issue with the CBO, which has 
complicated the solving of this problem.
  To my colleagues who are concerned about the impact that the 
provision would have on our budget deficit, I want to say this, and I 
may have to repeat this: this provision does not appropriate any new 
money. None. All the money that is needed to support privatization is 
already contained within the bill. All this provision does is raise the 
authorization to allow the program to continue. Not a single dime more 
will be drawn from the Treasury as a result of this provision.
  The committee, frankly, disagrees with the new approach that CBO has 
decided to take to score the program. It does not reflect the reality 
of the program. To me, since the provision spends no new money, scoring 
is like building a bridge where there is no water.
  Mr. Chairman, this is truly a vital program. To endanger it because 
of some bookkeeping disagreement would be unwise. I personally have 
seen the homes being built because of the program, and I have talked to 
military spouses about how their lives have improved because of this 
program. You might be interested in knowing twice the percentage of 
families that are in

[[Page 16841]]

the military service are married as compared to, say, during the 
Vietnam War. This is a good program, it is a bipartisan program, and it 
is a necessary program.
  CBO's rationale for how it scores this program is complex, 
convoluted, and unfounded. Every Member of Congress that I have talked 
to strongly supports this program, and I mean every Member. Every 
witness that testified before the subcommittee supports this program, 
including the Joint Chiefs and the military spouses. The chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services supports this program. Even the 
administration, the White House, and the Department of Defense strongly 
support the provision and submitted statements to the committee that it 
would not result in any, any additional cost to the Federal Government. 
I have not heard from one single person that does not support this 
program.
  If the housing privatization cap is not raised, then 16 projects 
covering 23 installations spanning 13 States will be affected in fiscal 
year 2005. The affected projects include major installations in 
California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. A significant number of Members on both 
sides of the aisle will feel the impact on their military constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the gentleman from Michigan 
(Chairman Knollenberg) for his dedication to improving the quality of 
life for our military families. His commitment is genuine, and his work 
on this bill has been thorough and fair, along with the work of his 
staff. At every step of the way, the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman 
Knollenberg) has put the interests of our service men and women above 
all other interests. I commend him for that, and he deserves our thanks 
and respect for that.
  Given what I believe is an inadequate allocation for this 
subcommittee, a 1.6 percent increase in military construction funds 
during a time of war, an allocation that is nearly a half a billion 
dollars below what we spent on military construction before the Iraqi 
war began 2 years ago, given all of that, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Knollenberg), the subcommittee, and I have worked together to try 
to maximize the use of these inadequate tax dollars to benefit our 
troops, and that is why I intend to vote for this bill.
  I am also pleased that we have been able to address, as long as no 
Member of the House objects to it, what could have been a terrible 
injustice to our military families. Eight years ago, we began a new 
approach to military housing. We combined Federal dollars with the 
strengths and resources of the private sector to create public-private 
partnerships to improve military housing.
  This innovative program is saving taxpayers billions of dollars and 
dramatically improving housing for our military families. Housing that 
would have taken 50 years to build under the old system is now being 
done in one-tenth of that time, in 5 years. Through this public-private 
partnership, we are providing military families with housing that they 
can be proud of, and certainly they deserve no less.
  Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office changed the scoring on 
this process. In my opinion, they erroneously are scoring dollars that 
businesses borrow to help build these new homes, even though the 
Federal Government is not responsible for those dollars. OMB disagrees 
with CBO's approach, and so do I.
  Had we, in this committee, on a bipartisan basis under the leadership 
of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) not raised the 
cap on the public-private military housing program, new housing 
projects would have come to a halt this November, just a few months 
away, shutting out over 24,000 military families from new houses in 
fiscal year 2005 and then delaying an additional 25,000 or so, for an 
impact on almost 50,000 military families in the next 2 years. That 
would have sent a terrible message to our military families during a 
time of war. It is also a good reason for no Member to object on a 
procedural basis, a technical point, against this amendment.
  As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I would point out that I 
made an effort this spring to solve this problem. The Committee on the 
Budget refused to solve the problem. I then talked to members of the 
Committee on the Budget and urged them to meet and work with the 
Committee on Armed Services to address the problem. The Committee on 
Armed Services did address it for fiscal year 2006, but did not do it 
for 2005. Had we failed to act in this subcommittee on this bill, it 
would have been the third strike. Instead, this subcommittee took the 
responsibility on a bipartisan basis to address this housing crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman 
Knollenberg) once again for his strong efforts on this particular 
important issue. It also could not have been done without the strong 
leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the 
Committee on Appropriations and its subcommittee staffs.
  If any Member of this House who objects to the increase in the cap on 
military housing and the directed scoring allows that to happen, let me 
explain clearly, Mr. Chairman, what the impact will be. Tens of 
thousands of military families that are planning right now on having 
new housing built starting next year will have those promises broken, 
those promises dashed, even families who have loved ones fighting in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1300

  If we do that, it would be a grave injustice to men and women and 
families who are making incredible sacrifices on behalf of our 
children.
  Considering the fact that the Committee on Rules allows protection 
against technical points of order every week in this Congress, on a 
regular basis, for unimportant issues as well as important issues, 
surely if there was ever a reason to put the interests of military 
families above the interests of technical points of order, today should 
be the day, and better housing for those families should be the reason.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss not to mention my disappointment 
concerning the overall funding level in this bill. Our Nation is at 
war. Our service men and women are risking their lives in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and throughout the world. Military families are making 
great, great personal sacrifices for the American family. Yet, this 
bill spends $420 million less on military construction than we spent 
prior to the Iraqi war. So Congress, in effect, is asking for more from 
our troops and military families, while spending less on military 
construction. That does not make sense.
  It does not pass the fairness test because it means we are 
shortchanging military housing, day care centers, training ranges, and 
military work facilities. That is not right.
  If we can make significant new commitments to defense spending and 
highway spending and countless other programs, why can we not provide 
more than a 1.6 percent increase in military construction, which is so 
important to our troops' quality of life and their training and working 
conditions, especially during a time of war?
  In March of last year, as American troops were making the final plans 
to commence the war in Iraq, the majority leader, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) spoke to bankers and said this: ``Nothing is more 
important in the face of war than cutting taxes.'' In all due respect 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), that flawed ideology would be 
hard to explain to the nearly 400,000 Army soldiers I represent at Fort 
Hood, Texas, nearly 40,000 soldiers who have been asked to serve in 
Iraq just this year. It would be hard to explain to their spouses and 
children who have to worry every day whether their loved ones will ever 
return home.
  I believe most Americans, as they did after Pearl Harbor would say, 
you know what? Supporting our troops and their families during a time 
of war is

[[Page 16842]]

far more important than tax cuts, especially if some of those tax cuts 
benefit Members of Congress, like us. Unfortunately, the inadequate 
allocation in this bill reflects the ideology of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) rather than the quintessential American value of 
shared sacrifice during a time of war.
  By increasing defense construction spending by only 1.6 percent, not 
even enough to keep up with inflation, in effect, in that way, it is a 
real cut in military construction and quality-of-life programs. It 
spends $420 million, as I said, less than we spent 2 years ago before 
the Iraq war even began, and even $900 million less in this bill that 
the administration, the Bush administration, said was needed for 
military construction just 12 months ago.
  If anyone thinks this allocation was not decided by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) or me or this committee, but was 
decided by a higher pay grade in this House leadership, if anyone 
thinks this allocation we had to deal with is adequate, let me remind 
them of some of the facts provided by the Department of Defense: Number 
one, 39,000 Army families live in inadequate housing; number two, 
34,000 Army barracks do not meet even basic Department of Defense 
standards; number three, 16,000 Navy and Marine Corps families live in 
inadequate housing; number four, 31,000 Air Force families live in 
inadequate housing; number five, 70 percent of Army facilities are C-3 
or C-4, which means mission impaired; number six, 66 percent, two-
thirds, of Air Force facilities are C-3 or C-4, again meaning that the 
mission of those facilities could be impaired.
  Just a month ago, the House voted for a new $69 billion tax break 
that will not help our military families, but it will just happen to 
provide a $1,000 tax credit to Members of Congress such as myself for 
every child that we have. So I will receive a $2,000 tax credit as a 
result of that bill that the House voted for, over my objection, 2 
months ago.
  Now, how can we look today in the faces of our service men and women, 
look them in the eye and say, last month we could afford to pass a $69 
billion child tax credit that applies to people making between $110,000 
and $250,000 a year, but today, we cannot even afford 5 percent of that 
amount to provide a decent increase in military construction funding 
for military families making $20,000 and $30,000 a year. I just do not 
see the fairness in that.
  Every one of us, Mr. Chairman, Democrat and Republican alike, 
genuinely respects the service and sacrifices of our troops and their 
families. No one, no one should doubt that. But I strongly believe that 
it is time that our budget priorities in Congress should better reflect 
that respect. Our service men and women deserve no less.
  Despite the objections I have to the underfunding of this, despite my 
concern that perhaps a Member of Congress, for whatever reason, well-
intentioned or not, might strike an amendment that would literally 
freeze the most important military housing program ever, because of the 
strong leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), 
because of the bipartisan way in which he worked this bill, because of 
his deep commitment and our committee's work to spend an inadequate 
amount of dollars as efficiently as we possibly could, I intend to vote 
for this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Granger), who is also a member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important 
bill that provides for our military and their families. First, I want 
to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for 
putting together a great bill, and I also want to commend the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for his work on the 
bill.
  The military construction bill for fiscal year 2005 provides just 
over $10 billion for construction at our military bases here at home 
and overseas, and also for important family housing projects and 
quality-of-life initiatives at our military installations. Among other 
things, the bill provides funding for new barracks, medical and dental 
facilities, and fitness centers and child development centers for our 
troops and their families. The bill also provides funding for 
construction projects that support major weapons programs like the F/A-
22 Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter.
  I strongly support the inclusion of the provision in this bill to 
raise the cap on the Military Family Housing Privatization Initiative. 
If we do not raise this cap, this privatization initiative will come to 
a halt in November of this year and jeopardize projects to build or 
renovate 50,000 housing units for our military families. This program 
is simply the best way to improve housing for our troops and their 
families.
  Additionally, the bill includes several important construction 
projects for Naval Air Station/joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, in my 
district.
  It is absolutely essential that we pass this bill to support our 
military men and women and their families during this time of war. 
Again, I thank the chairman for his great work on this bill.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), a very effective and hard-working member of the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) 
for his leadership on this bill.
  We have just had a long debate on this military housing issue, and I 
think what is missing in it is a little bit of understanding of what it 
is all about.
  Several years ago, Congress authorized that instead of designing 
military housing, instead of funding and building it, essentially 
putting up taxpayers' money and then going out to bid and building it 
to a military plan, we decided why not allow the private sector to 
build this housing, build it more like the housing that is in the 
communities, higher quality housing, and build it to the standards that 
are normally found in the private sector in housing; and this was 
called the RCI, Residential Community Initiative. It has been a very 
effective program because we do not have to put up taxpayer money to do 
it.
  Through that, what we have found is that the private sector rushed in 
and put together these consortiums of developers and have done a job 
that is more attractive than anything we could have done under the old 
sort of public-military housing concept.
  And the soldiers and the wives of the soldiers are very, very 
interested. In fact, they came to our committee and said of all of the 
issues affecting the military, of all of the issues affecting families 
in the military, the number one issue was adequate housing. Not 
surprisingly, it is probably the same question on the private side. And 
they applauded us for addressing the issue, but they asked us to make 
sure that we do not get stuck in these internal budget rules.
  What we are talking about is an internal rule. It is our own rule, we 
can waive it if we want to, and that is the issue. We should be waiving 
it. Why should we be waiving it? Because we do not have to put up the 
money; the private sector does it. Why should we waive it? Because it 
is all about investment. It is the ounce of prevention that is worth a 
pound of cure. What is the investment in? It is in quality homes built 
to code standards in the community, the highest standards we have ever 
had in this country. It is built to the kind of quality that the 
housewives and soldiers, the men and women in uniform like.
  And what does it do? It helps us, one, go out and recruit people, and 
we are in an all-voluntary military. We cannot force them to join. They 
want to join, and part of it is the benefit package that is offered to 
you while you are in the military, including the housing.
  The second is, once you get in, if you are assigned to bases that 
have the inadequate housing that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
talked about, and there is a lot of it out there, people living in 
Quonset huts, we should not allow that. If these were

[[Page 16843]]

local homes, they would be shut down by the building inspectors, yet we 
allow military families to live in them when the private sector can 
build new homes. So we need to do that for retention.
  Once we have these well-trained people in the military, we want them 
to stay. One of the biggest attractions of staying is you get to live 
in a quality community.
  So this internal budget rule makes no sense, and I hope that nobody 
raises an objection.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is a member of the subcommittee as 
well.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation for a lot of reasons. 
Most important, I think, is that of all of the bills that we pass that 
relate to defense, this is the only piece of legislation whose main 
theme is the betterment of the lives of the men and women who wear our 
uniform; and it does it primarily in the area of housing in terms of 
their quality of life.
  For too long, we have put the priority in terms of the weapons 
systems, in terms of the tanks that they drove, and for the first time 
in modern history, we are now saying that quality of life, living 
conditions are very, very important to our men and women.
  So in this bill we spend over $1 billion of new money to provide for 
that kind of housing, and we do it in creative, innovative ways, 
something like a Ship-to-Shore program.
  Right now, our sailors, when they are at sea being deployed, they 
live in very cramped situations, and that is a real sacrifice that they 
make, and it is part of the sacrifice they make overall. But when they 
come back to their home port, it is inexcusable that they have to 
continue to live on these ships in these cramped conditions, and that 
is what the Ship-to-Shore program helps to solve. It gives them a place 
to live on their base, more living room, a better way to live; and that 
is important.
  Then we have heard a lot of discussion about housing privatization. 
This is revolutionary, and it is crazy that somebody has decided that 
when the Federal Government spends no money whatsoever that somehow, 
that is counted against Federal spending. So we have this new program 
that is innovative, creative, where the private sector comes in, builds 
new housing, takes the kinds of risks that they ought to take because 
they know it is going to be a profitable situation. So we have that as 
well.
  Most of all, this bill recognizes the most important asset we have 
are our men and women in uniform, and this goes a long way towards 
providing a better quality of life for all of them. I urge the adoption 
of this legislation.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I applaud this subcommittee for addressing a 
very serious crisis in military housing that will occur just a few 
months from now if we do not include the language that was added in the 
amendment.
  To be specific about it, let me just say to my colleagues, Mr. 
Chairman, some of the families and the numbers of families, the 
different locations of military installations that will be affected if 
a Member of the House were to raise a point of order against this 
housing measure that we added: In New York at Fort Drum, 2,272 families 
would have their new housing put on hold. I believe Fort Drum has 
played an important role in the Iraqi war.

                              {time}  1315

  In Pennsylvania, 316 families at the Carlisle Barracks would have 
their new housing put on hold. At Fort Bliss in Texas, 2,776 families 
would have their housing put on hold. At Eglin Air Force Base in 
Florida, 2,739 military families would see the promise of new housing 
for them broken. At Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, 914 families 
would lose the promise of new housing. At Langley in Virginia, the 
State of Virginia, 1,268 families would have their new housing denied 
them.
  Sheppard Air Force Base, 1,288 families in Texas would lose that 
improved housing. New Jersey, 2,415 at McGuire Air Force Base in Fort 
Dix. Those are not numbers. That is 2,415 military families making 
sacrifices for our country who would see their housing dreams go down 
the tubes.
  Let us look at Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, the Southeast and 
Eastern Navy projects: 6,076 families would have a ``no'' said to them 
in regard to new housing. How about Twentynine Palms in California, 
1,382 families. Well, let us look at Camp Lejeune. Obviously they have 
made tremendous sacrifices, those machines, that installation as part 
of our war on terrorism; 3,516 of those families would be told no. 
Congress could afford to vote in the month of May for a $69 billion tax 
cut that gave Members of Congress a tax break, but we cannot afford to 
give you new housing this year during time of war; we have got to put a 
freeze on your new housing.
  Well, let us go down to Georgia. People at Fort Benning have made 
tremendous sacrifices for our country. They would actually lose 4,055 
new military housing under the freeze if any Member of this House 
objects to the amendment we put in the bill.
  At Fort Benning, actually they would not lose it this year. They are 
planning on getting their new housing next year. They have been told 
they will not even get their new housing next year, because that will 
have to be pushed back a year because of the freeze that would occur on 
military housing this year. Fort Knox, Kentucky, would be in that 
similar situation. Their new housing for 3,380 military housing would 
be pushed back a year if any Member objects to what we did on a 
bipartisan basis in this committee.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to just say the Military Officers 
Association of America, the Association of the United States Army, the 
Air Force Association, the National Military Family Association have 
all written letters asking this House on a bipartisan basis to protect 
the increase in the cap for military housing so we can show respect to 
our military families during time of war, not just with our words and 
our rhetoric but with our deeds and better housing.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the committee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this military construction 
appropriations bill and would like to commend the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
for their good work on this legislation.
  I would also like to voice my specific support for those provisions 
of this bill which continue the critical ongoing renovation of military 
housing. In my district in northern New Jersey, the Army through its 
Residential Communities Initiative has selected a developer to 
privatize and revitalize military housing at Picatinny Arsenal. Looking 
at the larger RCI program, Picatinny's participation is relatively 
small. We have approximately 113 affected families, but the 
refurbishment of their houses and homes will have a deep impact on 
their quality of life. For them this debate and the chairman's 
leadership has indeed a very human face. These military families care 
about leaky roofs, substandard plumbing, and ancient electrical wiring.
  Mr. Chairman, we in Congress can do several things to support our 
young fighting men and women who serve our country with such 
dedication, because literally we are a Nation at war. We can make sure 
they have adequate pay and benefits. In this regard, we have made 
significant progress in recent years. We can also ensure that their 
retirement benefits meet their needs when their service is over. Again, 
we continue to work to improve veterans programs, but we can and must 
work to improve the day-to-day quality of life that they have. In this 
regard, there are few things more important to military personnel than 
where they live and the quality of the roof over their heads.

[[Page 16844]]

  This legislation contains important provisions which will allow the 
continued revitalization of military housing. I would urge the 
Committee on the Budget to allow this program to continue and to 
support the bill as it was drafted.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), a tremendous leader in this Congress on defense 
issues and an important member of the Committee on Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Military Construction.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we did not have much time on the rule to 
discuss this issue on the cap on family housing, and I want to first of 
all congratulate the chairman (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards) for working together in a very bipartisan basis in 
our committee. The chairman could not have done more to help bring this 
provision to the floor of the House. We all regret, and I think it was 
a mistake in judgment for the Committee on Rules, to make a decision to 
not protect this provision, and this provision which raised by $500 
million the cap on family housing was sought by the administration.
  Each of the services testified before our subcommittee. The Secretary 
of Defense and his people supported it. The White House supported it. 
OMB supported it. The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
supported it. Of course our distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations also supported it. And we are going 
to make a decision based on an arcane rule coming out of CBO that is in 
conflict with OMB.
  Now, my view in this situation, if I were in the majority party and 
the administration wanted this done, I would be trying to find a way to 
make it happen; and this is a big problem, because there are, I think, 
about a dozen projects.
  Here are the projects that will not go forward this year if the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has his way: Fort Drum, New York; 
Dover Air Force Base, Delaware; Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina; 
Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico; Fort Monmouth/Picatinny Arsenal, New 
Jersey; Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; Fort Bliss, Texas; White Sands 
Missile Range, New Mexico; Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma; Eglin/
Hurlburt Air Force Base, Florida; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; 
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas; 
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma; McGuire Air Force Base/Fort Dix, New 
Jersey; MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, California; MCSA Kansas City, 
Missouri; Camp Lejeune/MCB Cherry Point, North Carolina; Stewart Army 
Subpost.
  Those projects will all be delayed because of this decision; and as 
has been suggested, we are in a time of war. We are in a war on 
terrorism, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan. We have our troops 
deployed all over the world.
  The one thing the people who are deploying say and their spouses say 
is one thing we really would like to see an improvement in, in the 
services, is military housing; and we have worked at Fort Lewis. I have 
a major project out there that is going forward. It is one of the 
greatest successes. We can get more housing, new housing and more 
restored housing faster under this public-private sector project; and 
usually the majority party is thrilled about public-private projects.
  In this case, this decision will adversely affect the quality of life 
of men and women serving in the military and their families, and this 
is over an arcane budget rule. To me, the insistence on striking this 
out is one of the worst mistakes I think we have made around here in a 
long time.
  One thing I have always been proud of, this House has always been 
able to rise above partisan or short-term considerations and work 
towards a bipartisan cooperation on defense. Let us not ruin that 
today.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goode), who is a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I too want to salute our Chair, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I agree with them. I do not agree 
with CBO as other speakers have so indicated. I agree with OMB, I agree 
with the President, and I agree with our subcommittee on this issue of 
caps. I cannot understand how CBO scores it as it does.
  Let me mention briefly the impact in Virginia. An additional 39 units 
are planned for privatization in fiscal year 2006 and 2007. This 
includes 22 projects in 16 different States. In Virginia at Langley Air 
Force Base, we are talking about 1,400 units. I can tell you the 
quality of life of those at Langley would be significantly enhanced if 
this could go forward.
  One gentleman on the other side said we have got to find a way to 
make it happen. I believe the best thing to do is vote for this bill, 
send it forward. This is just part of the process through which 
Military Construction will go before it is finally adopted by both the 
House and the Senate and signed by the President.
  So I would urge a ``yes'' vote, go forward with the process, and I 
think positive things will happen throughout that process.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in yielding me time.
  I, too, was saddened by the decision of the House Republican 
leadership, so ably articulated by my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards); and I appreciate the service you are doing for our 
servicemen and -women, training the spotlight on this.
  But I would like to speak briefly, if I could, Mr. Chairman, to a 
specific area. Historically, I have come before this subcommittee 
talking about the problems of military cleanup. I did not this time, 
because I appreciated what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the members of 
the committee, were faced with. And I think they have done a good job 
under difficult circumstances, trying to put a little bit of money into 
the BRAC cleanup; but I would like to serve notice that I am hopeful 
that this is the last time that we place this low degree of priority.
  I appreciate the imperative that you are facing, but we have a long-
term time bomb, literally, that is ticking. The presence of unexploded 
ordnance and other contaminants on transferred military property limits 
our use of hundreds of thousands of acres of closed military bases from 
prime real estate to scenic open space. That is one of the reasons why 
we have such great apprehension about the BRAC process that is working 
its way forward. People are afraid that they are going to be left with 
a toxic white elephant.
  And, indeed, the BRAC situation is just the tip of the iceberg, 
because we have between 10 and 50 million polluted acres; and at the 
rate of the spending that we are embarked upon now under the MILCON and 
the Department of Defense, we are going to take in the neighborhood of 
300 years or more to clean up this responsibility that will be 
skyrocketing in costs over time. And these things get worse as the 
explosives, as the military equipment deteriorates, polluting 
groundwater, migrating to the surface. This is a problem that we cannot 
continue to sweep under the rug.
  The Federal Government should be leading by example, cleaning up 
after itself, making sure we are not leaving an expensive, toxic legacy 
for the future.
  Last but not least, this subcommittee can help by providing more 
leadership with local communities to provide a framework to the 
cleanup. I have been impressed with what happened in the State of 
California, recognizing that long-term operation of military 
installations must involve a partnership between the State, the local, 
the Federal Government; in some areas, tribal authorities.

                              {time}  1330

  I would hope that we could work together in a cooperative fashion 
with

[[Page 16845]]

these other entities to be able to have a framework that will promote 
the clean-up because, ultimately, not only will this improve the 
quality of life of our military families, it will hasten the day that 
we solve this problem, saving billions of long-term dollars.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  I thank the gentleman for having produced an excellent bill with 
limited funds available; and I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), the ranking member, for his partnership in making this a very 
good bill. It is a good bill.
  We are focusing on one part of the bill, and I think that is 
appropriate. We should focus on that one part of the bill, but all of 
the items included in this appropriations bill for military 
construction are needed. They are cost effective and they are very good 
projects. But the one that we are vitally concerned about today, the 
one that we fear might have a point of order raised against it, is the 
military family housing issue.
  I have not found anybody, Mr. Chairman, that is opposed to doing what 
we want to do. We want to provide decent housing for the members of our 
military and their families. We do not want a soldier or a Marine to be 
in Iraq or Afghanistan and have in the back of his mind that his family 
is living in a rat-trap condition back home. That soldier, that Marine, 
has to be paying full attention to the mission and to accomplishing the 
mission, and also to providing some protection for himself or herself 
while they do this mission.
  Congress needs to be totally supportive of the troops; and Congress 
has done a really good job. I am proud to say that we have identified, 
just during this year alone, many areas where the government is not 
taking proper care of military members and their families, and we are 
fixing them.
  And, Mr. Chairman, we ought to do that. We need to fix these issues. 
We need to provide what our troops need and we need to protect them 
while they are doing it. And we need to have their families have a 
quality of life while they are out fighting that war. They do not need 
to be worried about what conditions the folks are living in back home.
  The reason we need to do this is because this Congress voted to send 
them to the war. Now, maybe everybody did not vote for it, but most of 
us did, and we have an obligation to the men and women who protect this 
Nation and protect our national interests, wherever they might be, and 
who are on the front line in the war against terrorism and the threats 
of terrorists. A world that is controlled by terrorists or their 
threats of violence is not acceptable, and I do not know of anyone who 
would disagree with that except the terrorists.
  This Congress has stepped up to the plate before, and we need to step 
up to the plate today. I am not exactly sure what the issue is on 
military family housing. Everybody is for it, but there are some who 
want to strike it from this bill and do it at a later time. What I 
cannot understand is, if we are going to do it at a later time, why not 
do it now?
  There may be some other bills that could solve this same problem, but 
this bill is here and fixes it today. Some other bill that might solve 
this problem of family housing for the military, but it may not have to 
pass. This bill has to pass. Before this Congress can leave its 
business, this bill and all of the other appropriations bills have to 
pass.
  That is an interesting point. A lot of folks do not understand that. 
Appropriations bills have to pass because if they do not, the 
government shuts down. Now, who wants to shut down the government? I do 
not know of anybody who wants to shut down the government. There may be 
some.
  But this bill has to pass, and that is why we ought to solve the 
problem of military housing for families in this bill today, while we 
are here on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Now, there is a scoring issue. We have had many bills come to the 
floor where the Committee on the Budget could have raised points of 
order--issues like the farm bill that exceeded the budget resolution; 
like the Medicare reform bill, where costs far exceeded the estimate; 
and this afternoon we are going to consider a highway program that 
exceeds the authorizing committee allocation by $400 million. And I 
have heard nothing about raising points of order on those bills.
  I have not heard anyone from the Committee on the Budget state a 
concern about those bills. No points of order were raised against the 
farm bill or against the Medicare reform bill. It is my understanding 
that none are going to be raised against the highway bill today. That 
may change now that we put a little pressure on the issue, but as of 
this morning that was not intended.
  But, for years, OMB and CBO have scored the military housing program 
the same way, 6 years. But for some reason, all of a sudden, CBO 
decided to score it differently. I do not know why. Maybe there is some 
good reason, but if there is, I do not know what it is.
  I want to take just a couple of minutes to read what the President of 
the United States thinks about this provision in the appropriations 
bill. He supports this very strongly, as do most of the Members of this 
House and the Senate, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the chiefs of 
the services. They all support it. But you know who really supports it? 
The military troops who are defending our Nation support this because 
it gives their families some quality of life.
  I am quoting now from the letter from the Administration. ``The 
administration strongly supports the provision that would increase the 
military housing privatization cap from $850 million to $1.35 billion. 
This increase will help improve the quality of life of our military 
families. Furthermore, without this increase, the current limit would 
be reached by November of 2004 and the program would be over. OMB would 
not score any additional costs to this provision because it does not 
increase the amount of budget authority available to the Department of 
Defense.'' And it goes on for about five more sentences expressing 
strong support for this provision and, expressing no concern whatsoever 
for the scoring.
  I just think that it is so important to those Americans serving in 
our military, doing whatever they are asked to do, going wherever they 
are asked to go, making whatever sacrifice they must make. If we cannot 
today, in this bill that must pass, take care of their concerns for the 
way their families have to live, shame on us. But I would tell you that 
of the 435 Members of this House, I will bet if this was put to an up 
or down vote, there probably would not be five votes against it.
  It is just too bad that a procedural situation, that is not even 
consistent, can derail this extremely important issue.
  Let us not shoot Santa Claus on the floor of the House today.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) for his eloquent comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Ortiz), a senior and respected member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) that this bill has some good items in the bill, but I think that 
the heart of the bill was in housing. And I do not know whether we have 
thought about what are we going to do with reenlistments? How are we 
going to do with retainment?
  The first time the young men and women enlist in the military they 
enlist on their own. Once they serve 2, 3 years in the military, then 
they marry. Then the second time they are going to reenlist, they 
reenlist their families. That is why this bill, the family housing 
portion of this military construction bill, was the very center of this 
bill.
  The idea was born about private-public housing in my district in 
Kingsville because we saw the need to free loose

[[Page 16846]]

some of the moneys for other purposes, and this is where this came 
about. In Kingsville, Texas, this idea was born, and we have been able 
to save millions and millions and millions of dollars.
  I am concerned about whether we are going to be able to retain these 
young men and women if we do not provide adequate housing for their 
wives, for their children.
  I have four military bases in my district. Thank God that we do not 
have a seriousness yet in housing. But right before 9/11, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and myself, we visited 25 bases in 4 
days. I hope that some of the Members have been with us to see the 
deplorable conditions of the housing that we have throughout this 
Nation.
  I think that we are beginning to see retention numbers coming down. 
We are going to be able to see within the next few months that 
reenlistment will come down.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 8\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD 
and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, and a 
member of this subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for the remarkable work product that he has 
provided to us.
  The subcommittee worked very hard to meet the needs of our military. 
This is our highest priority, and this bill comes in $450 million above 
the President's budget request. It supports our active duty forces. It 
supports our Guard and Reserve. It is building housing, hospitals, 
schools, public safety and, most importantly, our national security. It 
is improving our bases.
  Personally, in my home, the district in central New York, the Air 
National Guard base, not 5 years ago, the commandant came through and 
said, This is one of the sorriest looking bases I have ever seen.
  These are soldiers who fought in the Gulf War, who have flown air CAP 
in Iraq, both north and south, some of the most dangerous duty of any 
of our soldiers in the country. And what we have done through this 
bill, through the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Knollenberg) 
leadership, is made that one of the finest looking bases in America to 
make sure that our troops have the very best facilities and equipment 
and quality of life that this Nation can afford.
  I also rise in strong support of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. 
Knollenberg) manager's amendment regarding raising the cap on 
privatization of military housing. This provision has outlived its 
usefulness. The provision was put in place to make sure this program 
worked. Well, the jury is in. The program works. It works so well that 
we now need to continue it. And this cap is no longer needed to provide 
insurance that the program works. It does work. It works better than 
most.
  Our soldiers and their families are benefiting. They deserve good, 
quality housing and they need it. Let us raise the cap. Let us build 
more housing and let us support the bill.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) who was previously the chairman of this 
committee for 4 years.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I can think of no bill more important than 
this bill, especially at this time. And I want to thank the committee 
on both sides for doing great work on this.
  The quality of life for our troops is very important. Their ability 
to come home and live in appropriate housing is of the highest need.

                              {time}  1345

  When I was the chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations 
Subcommittee, we began in earnest to do the privatization of housing on 
our bases because we realized that we did not have enough money to 
build housing under the old MILCON way.
  I can tell my colleagues that as we go around and visit the bases 
today where we have gotten these programs going, people are thrilled at 
the quality of the housing that is now there.
  I think CBO has done a very great disservice to this country in not 
understanding how these deals are put together. These deals are put 
together at no risk for the most part to the Federal Government. There 
is only a couple who have a BRAC guarantee. All the rest of them are a 
simple, lease-back proposition with no guarantee by the Federal 
Government.
  So let us take a base that has been done. Let us go to Fort Hood, 
Texas. If we go to Fort Hood, Texas, we have a company that has built 
this housing, and they have agreed that they will provide this housing 
to the military; and the military has said we will rent it, we will 
rent it from you, but if it at some time Fort Hood does not need the 
housing, the government does not pay for it. The risk of the private 
financing on this is in the private sector, not to the Federal 
Government; and I do not think CBO understands that. We do not have to 
pay for it, if we do not need it.
  That is the best deal for the taxpayer. That is the best deal for the 
troops. He is getting housing that he is entitled to, that is the same 
type of housing if he were in the private sector, and that is the kind 
of housing our troops are entitled to; and we are giving it to them.
  I urge the support for this bill and to keep this provision in this 
bill.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I would just like to go back to the issue of the military housing 
program that is being protected in this bill unless a Member of the 
House objects to it.
  I want, Mr. Chairman, all Members and all those watching to 
understand what is going to happen if anyone objects. First of all, 
24,000 servicemen and -women and their families will have a promise 
broken to them. A promise to provide them with new housing is a show of 
respect for the tremendous sacrifices they are making for our country 
and the American family.
  Secondly, and this I do not think has been discussed, while the 
present bill provides a 1.6 percent increase over military construction 
spending compared to a year ago, not even enough to keep up with 
inflation, the fact is that many of those dollars being appropriated in 
this bill will be prohibited from being spent if one Member of this 
House stands up and objects to our having solved the military housing 
cap problem.
  So, in effect, you are not only saying, no, you are not only going to 
break the promise to 24,000 military families across this country; you 
are actually saying that in a time of war it is okay with you if the 
effect of your action is to actually cut military construction funding 
this year compared to last year because literally millions and millions 
of dollars that look like they are being appropriated will be nothing 
but an illusion, nothing but a false promise to our servicemen and -
women, 40,000 of whom live in my district, nearly 20,000 of whom are in 
Iraq today.
  No, Mr. Chairman. When our troops are asked to go into combat, they 
do not have an option of saying I will take care of that later. That is 
called AWOL.
  Well, today, let us as Members of Congress not go AWOL when we have 
an opportunity to step up to the plate, and right now, not a week from 
now, not a month from now, not some false promise, let us vote now to 
support our military men and women and the better housing they deserve.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who is a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I appreciate the time and wanted to stand in support of the 
chairman's mark on this important bill.
  We have been working in the Subcommittee on Military Construction for 
many years to get this housing privatization project going. To date, we

[[Page 16847]]

have got about 60,000 houses that are under this program. It has been a 
huge success. Yet we have something like 160-odd thousand to go. That 
would be our goal. That would give us about 70 percent of the existing 
housing units. Big step.
  It has been a very, very positive program from Fort Meade to Fort 
Stewart. Here is a quote that one of the soldiers in our area at Fort 
Stewart actually wrote us: ``There is a maintenance manager here at 
Fort Stewart, who is undoubtedly the best I have seen in my 20 years in 
the military. He is responsible for Marne Homes. He is personable, 
kind, and most of all a man of his word. If he says he'll fix 
something, he will fix it and he will fix it fast. He'll fix the root 
of a problem and not just put a Band-Aid on it. I feel better'' and 
perhaps this is the key sentence, ``I feel better going to Iraq in a 
few months knowing he will be here to take care of my family.''
  That is a strong statement for our soldiers back home, and yet what 
is the problem here? We have two scoring agencies. One is the 
Congressional Budget Office. One is the Office of Management and 
Budget. And this year, for some reason, the CBO, the Congressional 
Budget Office, changed the way they want to score this.
  In essence, what they did is they charged all the money up front. It 
is the equivalent of going to a soldier and saying, instead of your 
annual pay being scored on a 1-year basis, we are going to multiply it 
by the 20 years you are going to serve in the military and we are going 
to score your pay against you for the whole 20 years. That is what the 
Congressional Budget Office did. That does not make any sense, but the 
Office of Management and Budget did not change its scoring. The program 
has not changed, nor has the committee position changed.
  So we should not change as Members of the House. We need to stand 
with our military. The manager's amendment has fixed this problem for 
right now. We have got good bipartisan support on it, and we need to 
move forward on this bill.
  So, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that already have been 
said, which I would like to repeat in my own words, but I am sure my 
fellow Members of Congress would not mind if I spoke for a little less 
period of time; but I just want to say that this is what we need to do 
for our soldiers.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on his 
statement; and when he is right, he is really right. I thank him.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I appreciate that. Thanks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise that each side has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  This subcommittee worked on a genuine bipartisan basis to provide a 
better quality of life for military families. It worked on a bipartisan 
basis to address a looming crisis in military housing. Now the moment 
has come for us to decide if we want to support our troops, including 
troops in combat, with our rhetoric and with our hearts and with our 
deeds.
  With all due respect to our hearts and our intentions and our 
goodwill, what matters to the 40,000 soldiers I have the privilege to 
represent at Fort Hood, Texas, is what Congress does with its deeds. 
Our responsibility today should be to say that in a time of war, it is 
of the utmost national priority and responsibility to take care of our 
military families who are sacrificing so much for all of us.
  We need to pass this subcommittee bill as it was drafted and passed 
out of subcommittee, now out of full committee. We need to pass this 
bill on a bipartisan basis; and for that reason, I ask my colleagues 
not only to support this bill but to ask all of their colleagues not to 
be the one person in this House who stops the most important housing 
program ever for our military.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask one question to any Member who 
would have the gall to stand up and strike out this issue, and that is, 
2 months ago, how did you vote on the $69 billion tax cut which 
included tax breaks for Members of Congress?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I believe my colleagues can tell from the input that has been brought 
forward this afternoon and the contributions from everybody that 
everyone here feels very strongly about this issue, extremely strongly. 
In fact, I think about the work that this subcommittee has done. We 
have always striven to do things in a fashion that represents actually 
what ends up being a bipartisan effort, but we actually do not seek 
that necessarily. It is just that what we are doing is for the common 
good of our military, and it seems to be appropriate then that it all 
works out in our favor.
  This, I believe, is a fair bill. It is a good bill. We worked with 
some monetary restrictions. That is something that has to happen over 
here. It happens all the time.
  The other thing I would say, this is, as the chairman has mentioned, 
a must-pass bill. We cannot think about it and talk about it, but it 
has got to pass. It is one of the requirements of this committee.
  So I would simply say that this, with input that we have got, with 
the feeling being 100 percent in terms of supporting this measure, that 
we are in a position to carry out what it is that the troops want. They 
deserve better housing. This bill promises better housing; and in fact, 
it does something about the inadequate housing, too, that has become a 
major problem because the goal of the military is to get those 
inadequate housing situations out of the picture by 2007. To crimp 
this, it would simply crimp what we are trying to do here.
  So I would urge everybody to support this bill. It is a good bill, 
and I thank everybody.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly is pleased that 
H.R. 4837 provides appropriations for a very important project in 
Nebraska's 1st Congressional District. The bill includes $614,000 for a 
national guard and reserve center headquarters building at Lincoln 
Airbase, Nebraska. This is the second year that this Member has 
requested this funding for this necessary project. This Member would 
like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Military Construction (Mr. Knollenberg) and the 
distinguished Ranking Member (Mr. Edwards) for their assistance in this 
important matter.
  These funds will be used to complete the design process associated 
with the construction of a new headquarters and emergency operating 
center for the Nebraska Army National Guard. This existing headquarters 
facility must be relocated due to the new Antelope Valley highway/flood 
control infrastructure project in the city of Lincoln, Nebraska.
  While this project was included in the Department of Defense's (DoD) 
FY2009 Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP), it needs to be accelerated due 
to the unanticipatedly expeditious progress on the Antelope Valley 
Freeway and Flood Control project, which will very soon necessitate the 
abandonment of the current headquarters. It appears that the National 
Guard Bureau agrees, since initial design funding was allocated last 
year from existing funds, even though it was not authorized or 
appropriated.
  The new facility will house the Joint Forces Headquarters, the Army 
National Guard Emergency Operating Center, the 24th Medical Company, 
the 105th Personnel Service Detachment, the Nebraska State Patrol 
dispatch and communications systems and the Nebraska Emergency 
Management Agency. Building a multipurpose facility on an existing 
military installation increases security for all of the components. 
Furthermore, housing several Federal, State and local agencies in one 
facility allows the Department of Defense to save scarce military 
construction funds. Also, bringing those various components within 
close proximity will facilitate better coordination among the agencies 
on issues of national and homeland security. Indeed, it is critically 
important to enhance these relationships in the current post-September 
11th environment. This appropriation will allow this important project 
to move forward.
  In addition, this Member is pleased that $497,000 in design funds is 
appropriated in H.R. 4837 for a critically important runway repair at 
Offutt Air Force Base, which is immediately contiguous to the 1st 
Congressional District of Nebraska. This repair project has

[[Page 16848]]

been championed by the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry), who represents Offutt, with this Member, and the two U.S. 
Senators from Nebraska.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
H.R. 4837.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let me first take this 
opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for the leadership shown 
by my chairman, Mr. Knollenberg, and my ranking member, Mr. Edwards, on 
the housing privatization issue. I would also like to commend the 
leadership shown by Chairman Young, and Ranking Member Obey on this 
important issue as well.
  As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military 
Construction, I know of no other issue which is more important to our 
military and their families than housing. There is no other issue which 
has more of an impact on the quality of life of the men and women 
serving in the military than housing. This year we heard witness after 
witness testify before our subcommittee--each describing the lack of 
adequate housing as ``the'' major quality of life issue facing the 
military.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have two major military facilities--Ft. 
Benning and the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia, in my 
district. However, just as important, I represent thousands of other 
military personnel who work at Moody Air Force Base and Warner Robbins 
Air Force Base, both of which are now adjacent to my district.
  Unfortunately, according to the Department of the Army's installation 
status report for fiscal year 2004, approximately 71 percent of the 
Army's residential quarters located in the United States require some 
level of improvement or replacement, in order to meet the department's 
own adequacy standards. If you read literally, this means that seven 
(7) out of every ten (10) housing units located at our Army 
installations here in the United States do not meet the current 
standards for adequacy.
  I am particularly concerned about the housing situation at Ft. 
Benning. According to the most recent data available, it is my 
understanding that approximately ninety percent (90%) of the family 
housing at Fort Benning is classified as substandard. Fortunately, Ft. 
Benning is scheduled to be one of the first bases to participate in the 
upcoming round of privatization.
  Ft. Benning is scheduled to construct 4,055 much-needed family 
housing units. An additional 872 units are planned in FY 05 for Ft. 
Gordon, in Georgia as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, if the point 
of order is sustained against the language in the bill extending the 
program and we do not raise the cap, the program could be in jeopardy 
of stalling after November of this year.
  That means that the units planned for Ft. Benning and Ft. Gordon in 
Georgia could be in jeopardy of not moving forward but not just in 
Georgia. Other bases, including Ft. Riley and Leavenworth in Kansas, 
West Point in New York, Ft. Rucker in Alabama, Ft. Knox in Kentucky, 
Ft. Jackson in South Carolina--all are just a few of the facilities 
which would be in jeopardy for the upcoming round of privatization.
  It is important that my colleagues have an appreciation of the 
practical effects of not acting to increase the cap. Thousands of our 
officers and enlisted personnel will continue to reside in inadequate 
family housing. Our national goal of privatizing military housing will 
not be accomplished. In addition, the existing inventory of housing 
facilities will continue to deteriorate, resulting in even billions of 
dollars of more costs for maintenance and operations. Finally, each of 
the services, particularly the Army, will be unable to meet its goal of 
eliminating all inadequate family housing by 2007.
  Not meeting this goal will further adversely affect the health, 
safety and quality of life of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines 
and their families occupying these units. Privatization will provide 
new construction and revitalization of the existing inventory at a more 
rapid rate than current procedures and funding limits will permit. 
Privatization will also provide renovated or new quarters for our 
military and their families, which is comparable to housing of a 
similar size and quality as would be available in the local economy.
  It is critical that our fighting men and women, and their families, 
have the best quality of life we can offer them. Their sacrifices are 
too great. This investment is such a small cost given what they are 
giving to us--putting their lives on the line--day in and day out. A 
decent place to live is small cost in return for their service to 
America. We owe them so much more.
  Mr. Chairman, housing is at the core of providing a decent quality of 
life, and I urge the House to allow a lifting of the cap on housing 
privatization.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
severe disappointment of the military housing provisions in H.R. 4837 
the Military Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 2005. While 
this legislation as a whole will support important military 
construction projects, it is absolutely shameful that Members of this 
body would seek to block lifting the cap on military housing 
privatization in this legislation. It is clear from the facts, which 
were agreed to by the Appropriations Committee, that if we do not take 
action now in regards to lifting the cap, then we will experience a 
crisis in military housing. I want to thank the ranking member from the 
subcommittee Representative Chet Edwards for all his work and 
dedication on the issue of military construction specifically his 
determination to do justice to our Nation's military families by 
lifting the cap on military housing privatization. It is because of his 
tremendous effort that the Appropriations Committee as a whole agreed 
that this cap must be lifted in this legislation. Again, I will say 
that it is shameful that we would try to undo this bipartisan effort in 
order to maintain a cap that can only hinder military families from 
finding affordable and quality housing.
  By not lifting the cap on military housing privatization we will in 
effect stop developers and property managers from building and 
renovating homes that are used by military personnel. Not lifting the 
cap in this legislation will affect 50,000 military families. Since its 
establishment in 1996, the Military Housing Privatization Initiative 
has been the most successful military housing program ever. In less 
than 10 years it has already helped over 60,000 military families, and 
would help an additional 50,000 military families at 27 military 
installations in 22 States if the cap is lifted. Under the Military 
Housing Privatization Initiative, the Government creates public-private 
partnerships to construct, renovate, and maintain military family 
housing. Not only has the program provided better housing for military 
families more quickly, this innovative military housing program has 
actually saved billions of taxpayer dollars. The Government saves up to 
10-15 percent over the life of the project and military families are 
receiving improved homes in one-tenth of the time it would take using 
old methods of family housing construction. I find it repulsive that at 
a time when we are asking so much from our military families that we 
would try to undermine such a necessary program. It is imperative that 
we keep our promises to provide better and more affordable housing for 
our soldiers and their families. If we do not lift the cap in this 
legislation then a great deal of military home construction will be put 
on hold and many of the hopes of our brave military families will be 
put on hold as well.
  Many efforts have been made to lift the cap on military housing 
privatization, first in the Budget Committee and then in the House 
Defense Authorization bill, however it is vital that we lift this cap 
now because it is just plain wrong to compromise good and affordable 
housing for our military families. This provision was supported on a 
bipartisan basis when it came through the Appropriations Committee; it 
is also supported by the Bush administration and a large number of 
organizations including: the Military Officers Association of America, 
the Association of the U.S. Army, the Air Force Association, and the 
National Military Families Association. I believe it must be clear to 
the entire body the need to lift this harmful cap now. The true of the 
matter is that our men and women of the military have always been ready 
when called upon and their families have always stood by courageously. 
How can we now turn our backs on them by compromising a tremendously 
successful program?
  I would also like to stress my dismay that funding for existing 
military family housing will be $231 million less than the current 
level. These funds are used for maintenance and repair, furnishings, 
management, services, utilities, leasing, interest, mortgage insurance, 
and miscellaneous expenses of already existing family housing units. In 
2001, the Department of Defense estimated that 180,000, 60 percent, of 
the 300,000 housing units it operates were substandard. While I applaud 
the committee's commitment to the goal of eliminating inadequate 
housing by fiscal year 2007, we must take significant steps to address 
this problem now. Clearly, by cutting hundreds of millions of dollars 
from the funds used to maintain existing family units, this will only 
magnify the problem. Again, we turn our backs on our military families 
when we compromise funding that is used specifically to improve their 
living conditions.
  Again, I want to thank Ranking Member Edwards for his valiant efforts 
on this legislation under difficult conditions. It is truly disgraceful 
that there are those in this body who seek to undo the ranking member's 
work to craft an effective and bipartisan piece of legislation. It

[[Page 16849]]

is also truly unfortunate that this appropriation had to be stretched 
so tight because of the administration's insistence on large tax cuts 
for the wealthiest Americans. Once again, we see how these reckless 
policies have led us to restrict funding to groups of Americans who are 
in need of it. In this case it is our military families who will have 
to suffer because tax cuts for the rich apparently trump any other 
consideration. Even though I have always worked against these reckless 
tax policies I want to apologize to our military families because as 
Members of Congress we have failed them, even though they have never 
failed us. It is my sincere hope that by next year's Military 
Construction Appropriations we will be able to do real justice for the 
sacrifice made by our military families.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground a quorum 
is not present and make the point of order a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and I withdraw my 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, well, then, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A quorum is not required to adopt a motion for the 
Committee to rise. The Chair will advise it takes 25 to support the 
request for a recorded vote. An insufficient number having risen, the 
request is denied; and the motion is adopted by voice vote and the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4837) 
making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and 
base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________