Veterans Housing Affordability Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4056) to encourage the establishment of both long-term and short- term programs to address the threat of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADSs) to commercial aviation, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4056, which is entitled the Commercial Aviation MANPADS Defense Act. Again, MANPADS stands for man- portable air defense systems. It is also an acronym for shoulder- launched missiles.

There are two significant threats to commercial aviation today: first of all, there is the threat of explosives carried on board a civil aviation aircraft; and then there is the second significant threat which is shoulder-fired missiles. The legislation before us tonight addresses one of those issues, the growing terrorist MANPADS threat. It addresses four different problems that we face with this threat.

First of all, most of the Members may be aware that the administration has launched, with Congress' urging, an extensive research and development program, and that program has been expedited to develop a shoulder-launched missile defensive system to put on our commercial aircraft.

But the number one problem that we face even if we finish the research and development of that system today, the defensive system, is putting that system on an aircraft and getting it certified. So the first front and first problem that this bill addresses is an expedited FAA certification of an antimissile system that is currently being developed. The second part of this comprehensive piece of legislation deals with increasing multinational treaties and agreements to stem MANPADS and shoulder-launched missile proliferation.

We know and we have been told even with the conflict in the Middle East that there are a great number of

MANPADS available on the world market. We must do everything possible to stop the proliferation of them, and this encourages multinational treaties and agreements.

And, third, encouraging MANPADS market acquisition. This is a buy- back program. This legislation also requests the administration and those involved in buy-back programs to continue and expand those programs. And then the fourth part about this is that we know that these defensive systems that we can put on aircraft are a good step forward, we know that multilateral agreements and cooperation will bring MANPADS out of the market and we know that the buy-back program will work, but we still are at risk and we know that these systems even when fully developed do not cover us for all types of attack and the fourth part of this legislation promotes ground-based systems. So we look at another protective layer in the threat that we face.

While it may be difficult to attack domestic aviation in light of the current security measures that we have put in place, the availability of MANPADS weapons of terror is still a great cause for concern. This has been demonstrated repeatedly, most recently by the November 2002 attack in Kenya, by the 2003 attack on the DHL plane in Baghdad, and also most recently in August of 2003 by the arrest in New York City of three men accused in a plot to smuggle shoulder-fired missiles into the United States.

Last year at the direction of Congress, DHS began an aggressive research and development program to assess the viability of an antimissile technology for use in commercial aviation passenger aircraft. The administration's current $100 million research and development program and efforts to work through issues unique to our commercial aviation system and our commercial aircraft, I am pleased, are making very significant progress. We expect to have a recommendation on the viability, feasibility, and costs associated with these systems sometime next year. After that, these systems will need to be expeditiously FAA-certified for installation on our commercial aircraft.

It is also necessary, I have said, that we keep these destructive weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Other alternatives to protect our airlines and our airports must also be explored. That is why I, along with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), introduced H.R. 4056. This bill now is an interim solution and an interim measure addressing, again, problems that we face with this threat. It encourages continued actions to reduce the number of these weapons that are available to those who would do us harm.

We have worked closely with the Committee on International Relations and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to strengthen and clarify the provisions in the legislation dealing with international cooperative efforts. This bill makes clear that the administration must take additional steps to reduce the security risks created by shoulder- launched missile systems. It also encourages strong international diplomatic and cooperative efforts to limit the proliferation of these MANPADS as well as the continuation of our programs, as I have said, that would help us reduce the number of shoulder-launched missiles worldwide. The bill also requires the FAA to expedite their airworthiness certification of the missile defense systems for our commercial aircraft.

Finally, H.R. 4056 requires the Department of Homeland Security to report back to Congress within a year on the vulnerability assessment reports they are conducting at our airports throughout the United States and on how they are responding to the General Accounting Office's recommendations to prevent the proliferation of MANPADS.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young and International Relations Chairman Henry Hyde for their cooperation and work.

This measure takes several important steps in dealing with the MANPADS terrorist threat. It is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill; and therefore I urge passage and adoption of H.R. 4056, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To close here, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for their work. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue in the best interest of this Nation.

We have done things to make the traveling public who use aviation, which is so important to the economy of this Nation, safe. We have secured cockpit doors. We have air marshals on board. We have trained pilots to arm and defend their aircraft.

So we have taken measures, and I think even passengers who fly would never knowingly allow an aircraft to be overtaken. So the threat is not that type of threat that we faced September 11, and we know terrorists are always looking one step ahead to do damage to us. So this is an important complement to what the administration has done.

We have a $160 million research and development program to expedite producing defensive systems that can be used on commercial aircraft, and that is important. It gives us one more means of defense against a great terrorist threat.

Will we be able to put these on every aircraft? No. Are we able to put an air marshal on every aircraft? No. Does this cost us money? Yes, it is going to cost us money. But stop to think of the cost of one commercial airline being blown out of the sky by a shoulder-launched missile.

Eleven percent of our gross domestic product, the entire economy of this country, is really directly related and indirectly related to our aviation industry, jobs by the millions. And since September 11, we hear 3 million jobs. I guarantee that we could find 1\1/2\ to 2 million jobs that were lost just in aviation by the loss of four commercial aircraft.

So we have lessons to learn, and I have brought to the floor, in closing, the Kenya missile attack in November of 2002 in Mombasa. Not one, but two shoulder-launched missiles were launched on that date against an Israeli commercial charter aircraft; and this was also timed with a ground attack where people were killed, but hundreds would have perished had they been successful here. This is in Kenya on another continent.

However, even more recently, this is a DHL commercial airliner that left Baghdad in November, 2003, and was hit. So far, we have been lucky. So far, we have been fortunate. This aircraft also survived this terrorist attack. But we know there are more of these shoulder-launched missiles available on the open market than ever before.

So the provision of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) helps in getting international cooperation.

And again I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for putting a broad-based measure together that will fill in the gaps to provide us one more layer of protection against a potential terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record at this point an exchange of letters between the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) regarding H.R. 4056.

House of Representatives, Committee on International

Relations,

Washington, DC, June 21, 2004.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 4056,

the ``Commercial Aviation

MANPADS Defense Act of 2004,'' as ordered reported from the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on May 12,

2004. The Committee on International Relations has

jurisdiction under Rule X over certain provisions of this

bill contained in Section 3, International Cooperative

Efforts and Section 5, Programs to Reduce MANPADS.

Recognizing your wish that the House of Representatives

consider this critical bill as soon as possible, and noting

the continued strong spirit of cooperation between our

Committees, I will forego seeking a sequential referral of

H.R. 4056 for the Committee on International Relations.

However, waiving the Committee on International Relations'

right to a referral in this case does not waive the

Committee's jurisdiction over any provision in H.R. 4056 or

similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask that

you support my request to have the Committee on International

Relations represented on the conference on this bill, if a

conference is necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this

letter in the Congressional Record during the debate on this

bill.

I appreciate your leadership and cooperation on this bill,

and I look forward to working with you to ensure that H.R.

4056 is enacted into law soon.

Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, for some time, I have believed that it is essential to transform our military so that the United States is better able to deal with the enormous security challenges of the 21st century. Since my first term in Congress, I have worked to develop a more flexible, adaptable military with a ``culture of innovation'' that will ensure that our security is protected as the threats against us, our allies, and our values grow in number and complexity. But at the same time, I recognize that American national security does not rest solely on the shoulders of the U.S. military.

Based on my work in defense transformation, I became convinced that homeland security was a vital area requiring not just more money, but a major reorganization of the government agencies charged with protecting the American homeland. I introduced the first bill creating a new organization to better protect the homeland on March 21, 2001, and that new Department is now up and running.

I also believe that a transformation is needed at the Department of State so that it is better able to formulate and implement American foreign policy in the coming years. On September 18, 1998, I introduced H.R. 4065 in the 105th Congress to require that an independent, non- partisan panel review all the facets and functions of the Department of State and to provide Congress with its findings and with a plan for reorganizing the Department. The bill was reintroduced as H.R. 106 in the 106th Congress and as H.R. 304 in the 107th Congress.

I believe that the events of the past two years only add a greater degree of urgency to the need for such a transformation. It is time for Congress to take action.

The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Snyder, has also been working on these issues for some time. He has suggested a number of improvements in my previous proposals, and today we are introducing the revised version of the bill. It does not prescribe in legislative language exactly how the Department of State should be reorganized despite the many studies and reports which have recommended various actions. It does establish the framework for a serious study of all of the recommendations and requires that a proposal be submitted to Congress. We would then have to act upon the legislation in the normal order.

There have been a number of outside studies which recommend reform in very strong terms. For example, in January 2001, a study cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies and chaired by former Secretary of Defense and career foreign service officer, Frank Carlucci, issued ``a scathing report,'' warning that ``the United States will soon face serious dangers and enormous costs because its foreign policy establishment has not come to terms with global changes a full decade after the Cold War ended.'' (Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2001). ``No government bureaucracy is in greater need of reform than the Department of State,'' the report found.

In March 2001, the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, better known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, found that ``The Department of State is a crippled institution that is starved for resources by Congress because of its inadequacies and is thereby weakened further. The department suffers in particular from an ineffective organizational structure in which regional and functional goals compete, and in which sound management, accountability, and leadership are lacking (p. 47).'' Other studies and reports have reached similar conclusions.

This bill requires a serious study of the organization of the Department of State and our diplomatic structure. The Commission created by the bill will examine all levels of the Department, from the organization chart of bureaus and offices to staffing at embassies around the world. It will also look at issues such as public diplomacy--whether we are organized to wage the battle over ideas, which is so critical to the ultimate success of the war on terrorism-- and use of foreign assistance--whether we are prepared to use effectively innovative new programs, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.

There may be a variety of opinions on what the Department of State should be doing and on exactly what organizational and process changes should be made, but we should all be able to agree that how decisions are made, and especially how they are implemented, needs drastic improvement.

Mr. Speaker, change is always difficult, and we should not impose change without a good reason for doing so. We also have an obligation, I think, to seek better, more effective ways to advance American interests, and no Department should be exempt from penetrating examination in pursuit of those larger interests.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for his leadership on this issue. He has raised this issue persistently, both in closed and open settings, with any and all officials who might be able to help us begin to deal more effectively with this growing threat.

I also want to thank the gentleman from New York, whom we will hear from in just a few moments, for his leadership and persistence on this issue.

Many Americans are not particularly aware of this threat. We are talking about a threat that can be transported in something not much bigger than a golf bag, and in fact, some of the earlier versions of this weapon are available on the black market for not much more than a cheap set of golf clubs, not even a stand-up set of Calloways, but much less expensive clubs. So the proliferation, the availability, the portability, the concealability of these weapons is a major threat.

We go on from there to the fact that they have been utilized more times than many would know. Over the last 25 years, it is estimated there have been, as mentioned, as many as 35 attempts to shoot down civilian aircraft resulting in the loss of 24 aircraft and 500 deaths, something again little known to most Americans and members of the flying public worldwide.

Last November, a DHL Airbus A300 was severely damaged over Baghdad, actually losing hydraulics and flight controls after being hit by a missile. Having visited Iraq, where I was flown in on a propeller plane because they have less of a heat signature than a jet and having done the spiral-down over Baghdad, and that is an experience that all of our troops who have not come in by land have had in being deployed to Baghdad, one realizes the magnitude of this threat.

The war has unleashed hundreds more of these missiles onto the black market in Iraq and the Middle East. Our friends, the Chinese, are counterfeiting some of the most effective and efficient versions of this missile produced by the Russians and the United States of America. As they are so good at counterfeiting, the Chinese have counterfeited them, and as usual, they are proliferating them into very uncontrolled and potentially problematic markets to clients who might use these in ways that are inimical to commercial aviation worldwide.

So there is a real and growing threat. There is no simple solution. The technology that is being utilized by the military can be quite effective. It is not technology that is immediately transferrable to civilian aircraft, and the chairman has tried to deal with that in two different ways: one, with the development and testing of defensive systems; the other with the mandate that when systems do become available and viable that the FAA not take its usual 3 to 5 years to certify them, but in fact, that these be expedited on a basis far quicker than most technologies are certified by the FAA so they could become available to commercial aviation.

The chairman has already raised the issue of buy-backs, particularly for the older versions of these missiles, not the new Chinese counterfeits, but the others. They could be bought for very little on the market, and that would be a wise way to begin to deal with the proliferation.

International agreements, like other agreements, land mines, which unfortunately neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration has been willing to sign onto, but modeled on other international agreements, we could begin to rein in the proliferation of these weapons and their availability. Perhaps we could even get the attention of the Chinese for once, so that they would not be proliferating them.

The other issue, as I said earlier, is that we need to continue to research new measures. This is not the only threat to civilian aviation, which both the chairman and I recognize. We are very worried about the threat of explosives that are carried or smuggled on

board airplanes, and there is much more that needs to be done there, which we have covered in a number of hearings and it is not appropriate to go into at this point in time. But this is yet another part of the threat which cannot be ignored.

I, again, appreciate the chairman's leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), who has been a leader on this issue; and it was his efforts, in good part, that have led us here this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to adopt this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4345. I would just like to begin by saying that managing this legislation for our side is particularly meaningful for me today because I have fought to improve the VA's home loan program since I was first elected to Congress over 3 years ago.

I also wanted to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Ranking Member Evans) for bringing this legislation before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and for sending it to the House floor.

I certainly want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), with whom I have been honored to serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for working with me over recent months to perfect legislation that brings significant improvements to the home loan program administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many veterans in San Diego about the need to increase the loan amount under the VA's home loan program. Simply put, veterans living in high-cost areas cannot use the VA loan because the current limit of $240,000 is not nearly enough to purchase a home in regions such as San Diego where the median price for a home has now reached $500,000. Far too many of our veterans cannot take advantage of the benefits that come with a VA loan because of this low limit.

I also fear that many veterans in my community will never have the opportunity to buy a home without a subsidized VA loan. My staff heard from one disabled veteran shortly after I was elected who tried to purchase a home in San Diego; and unfortunately, with the low limit in the VA program, he was not able to find anything affordable and still lives in an apartment today.

It is my goal to let veterans know that homeownership is a real possibility for them.

The bill before Congress today, H.R. 4345, introduced by me and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), would not only increase the home loan limit to $333,700, but it would index the amount to the Freddie Mac criteria to guarantee automatic increases annually.

America's veterans deserve to be on an equal footing with the general public in today's competitive real estate markets. The bill before the House accomplishes exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Though passage of H.R. 4345 will be a victory for our veterans, I intend to keep working hard on this issue to ensure that they can continue to achieve homeownership and that the home loan program is effective.

Just last week, I introduced H.R. 4616 to extend a VA home loan pilot program set to expire in September of 2005, which would offer adjustable rate mortgages to veterans. Like the general public, our veterans should have the ability to choose the type of mortgage that will best suit their needs.

After fighting for the United States, our veterans deserve the opportunity to live in their own home. I am hopeful that my colleagues will continue to support improvements to our veterans home loan program.

Again, I am truly honored that the House is considering this legislation so that we may assure meaningful home loan benefits to America's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank my colleagues for their support of this valuable piece of legislation for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of this legislation, which was introduced to improve the VA home loan program. The Veterans Housing Affordability Act, H.R. 4345, is a good government solution which will assist veterans across the Nation at no cost to the taxpayers.

Homeownership is one of the main building blocks of strong communities and also a strong economy. A home is the largest financial investment most American families will ever make, and it allows them to build financial security as the equity in their home increases. Moreover, this tangible asset provides a family with borrowing power to finance important needs such as the education of their children. It is also a nest egg with very reliable and significant returns on investment regardless of race, color, or creed.

The VA has been providing home loan guarantees to men and women who serve our country since 1944. Under this program, the veteran purchases a home through a private lender and the VA guarantees to pay the lender a portion of the loss if the veteran defaults on the loan. Because of this benefit, millions of veterans have been able to realize the American dream of owning their own home.

Since its inception in 1944, the VA has guaranteed $748 billion in loans for 16.9 million homeowners. In 2002, the VA guaranteed more than $40.1 billion

in loans to finance the purchase or refinance 317,250 homes. Obviously, this program is a rip-roaring success. It has been a tremendous asset to veterans and their families at minimum cost to the government.

The first decade of the 21st century, however, has seen an expansive growth in home values. For homeowners this has been a tremendous boon. They have seen their tangible asset increase in value. In some regions, home values have more than doubled in the last 5 years.

However, those not fortunate to already be a homeowner are facing daunting prices for entry-level homes. In New Jersey, median housing prices hover in the 300 to $400,000 range. The same is true for other regions in Connecticut, California, Washington, Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, and even my home State of Florida.

Many soldiers postpone their homeownership until after they are out of the service. For these brave veterans, as median housing prices rise, the VA benefit actually decreases. The rising housing market erodes the purchasing power of the VA home loan. Depending on where the veteran lives, the $240,000 amount is simply insufficient to cover their housing needs.

This is simply wrong. At the very least, we owe our veterans the same chance at the American dream after their service as they had the day that they enlisted.

H.R. 4345 indexes the maximum VA guarantee amount to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan rate. The prevailing VA loan limit would be $333,700, and it would continue to automatically adjust to the market and to the housing needs of veterans.

The good news is that the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill actually saves the government money. Imagine that, helping veterans and saving money. According to the CBO projection, it will save $39 million in 2005 and $208 million over 5 years and a whopping $288 million in 10 years.

We are all very proud of the men and women who serve our Nation past and present, and I hope that the Members will agree that the value of the veterans benefit should not vary depending on where they live or when they purchase a home. I think this legislation is important and very timely, and I urge support of this legislation.

I certainly want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and also the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) for their leadership on issues affecting veterans; and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), who was an original cosponsor on this legislation, should also be recognized for her strong support in bringing about this legislation.

Additionally, Senator Corzine has introduced the bill in the Senate, and we are hoping for some speedy action there. This truly is obviously a bipartisan effort to assist veterans throughout our Nation, and I urge support of this legislation.