Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4837) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring Members back up to date on what has happened on the legislation which we started considering yesterday.

This bill funds military construction, which includes a lot of quality of life programs for our military men and women and their families. The funding level is $10 billion, and I am disappointed that the actual funding level is only a 1.6 percent increase over military construction last year, which after inflation is actually a real cut in military construction funding during a time of war.

I think that is inexcusable given our war in Afghanistan and Iraq. This bill appropriates $489 million below what we actually spent for military construction 2 years ago before the Iraqi war even began. And even worse, it is $900 million below what President Bush said would be needed this year, just 12 months ago when he made that prediction.

Despite the fact that we are actually increasing military construction, not even enough funds to make up for inflation, we have 39,000 Army families living in inadequate housing, 34,000 Army barracks are inadequate, 70 percent of Army facilities are C-3 or C-4, which means they are mission impaired, 16,000 Navy and Marine Corps families live in inadequate housing, 31,000 Air Force families live in inadequate housing.

Given this inadequate allocation to address the real priority of military housing and construction and quality of life programs, I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). He has worked in a thorough and fair manner to take what is a wholly inadequate amount of funding for military construction and to spend that money as wisely and fairly and as carefully as possible, and I salute him in that effort.

The best thing about this bill, at least in this moment, is it prevents a looming crisis in military housing construction. That crisis is, if we do not allow an amendment passed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) in this bill to stay in this bill, this November we are going to put a freeze immediately on 24,000 new military homes throughout the United States, and that will delay by another year homes for another 26,000 military families next year.

So we are going to basically either freeze or delay new housing for 50,000 military families across 22 States, even recognizing some of those families have loved ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To recap further, unfortunately yesterday the House leadership strong-armed an atrocious rule through this House, a rule that I consider to be a slap in the face of every military family in America, a rule that took 20 to 25 minutes of extra arm twisting so it could pass by one vote. That rule, pushed by the Speaker and the majority leader, will allow one Member out of 435 in this House in the next few moments to basically kill our effort to resolve the military housing crisis, and every Member of the House who voted on that rule knew exactly what was going to happen when they voted for it.

I find it unbelievable that the same House leadership that just 2 months ago on the day that the Armed Services bill put a cap on this bill at the same level that will force this crisis, on that very same day the House leadership supported a $69 billion tax cut that will give Members of Congress a tax cut.

So here we are, the leadership is pushing tax cuts for Members of Congress, they can find time to rename dozens of post offices, they can find the money to push the $69 billion tax cut, but when it comes to protecting a promise of better housing for our military men and women and their families, the House leadership sadly and unfairly said, no, we cannot do that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Six thousand new Army homes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his eloquent comments and his leadership and strong support for better quality housing for our families.

I want to summarize where we are. Basically, the same House leadership that said just 2 months ago on the same day we refused to increase the cap so 50,000 new military families over the next 2 years could get new housing, in the same day they push through a $69 billion tax cut that is going to give me a $2,000 tax break.

We could afford the tax break for Members of Congress but we could not afford to take care of our promise of better housing for military families.

Now, the gentleman talked about a poke in the eye. The final poke in the eye is this is not the only bad news that the servicemen and women and veterans are going to hear today, because the same leadership that could support the tax cuts for Members of Congress could not find a way to improve housing and fund that program for military families, the most important effective housing improvement program for our military in our Nation's history. Guess what, in the Committee on Appropriations today we voted out a veterans' health care appropriations bill that basically, well, let me tell you what the National Commander of Disabled American Veterans says about it.

``To the veterans of this Nation it is incomprehensive that our government cannot afford to fund their medical care and benefits programs at a time it can afford generous tax cuts costing hundreds of billions of dollars more.''

The American Legion, the DAV, the VFW all went on to say that the leadership-pushed veterans' health care bill today is going to cut, after inflation, real veterans' health care services by $1.3 billion.

Now with the action of the leadership yesterday on the rule and one Member of the House today, we will say to 50,000 military families, we will break our promise to you of better housing.

I think that is a terrible message for us to send our military families. While we go on a month long recess and vacation they are sitting there looking at veterans' health care cuts and frozen programs.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Let me put a face on these people.

We are talking about 1,194 military families at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska will next year have their housing delayed. In New York at Fort Drum, 2,272 military families, many of whom had loved ones that had already served in Iraq, will have their housing program this year frozen. In Florida, Eglin and Hurlburt Air Force Bases 2,739 military families will have their housing promises broken. In Virginia 1,268 families at Langley. In Texas, Sheppard Air Force Base 1,288 families.

This is one more broken promise to our military families at a time when they are making incredible sacrifices to our country.

What it does, we talked about a 1.6 percent increase for military construction in this bill, but the truth is that once this objection is raised then that will not allow us to even spend that meager amount of funding for our housing program. So we could end up with an actual cut not only in veterans' health care during a time of war this year, we could end up with an actual cut in military construction during a time of war. That is unconscionable coming from a leadership that said we could afford to give Members of Congress a tax cut just 2 months ago.

Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I worked for 6 months on a bipartisan basis, talking to everyone from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget; and the chairman of the authorizing committee to try to solve this in a bipartisan manner behind the scenes. At every step of the way for 6 months people said, well, it will get done, it will get done.

The problem is, we are about to take our August recess and it is not done.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me respond to the gentleman from California's (Mr. Lewis) comments that both parties, every Member cares about our troops. I absolutely agree with that. In fact, let me repeat the statement I made on the floor yesterday on this subject, and I quote myself, ``Every one of us, Democrat and Republican alike, genuinely respects the service and sacrifice of our troops and their families. No one should doubt that fact, but I strongly believe our budget priorities should better reflect that respect.''

Those were my comments. Let me talk about partisanship.

It was the Republican leadership that shoved through a rule last night or on the floor yesterday that was done on a partisan basis. In fact, it was so partisan they had to leave the vote open an extra 20, 25 minutes to, on a partisan basis, force Republicans or convince Republicans to vote against their own interests in their own districts to support a rule that is allowing 50,000 military family housing to be put at risk.

Secondly, the Committee on the Budget, as I last recall, and I am a member of that committee, put together its budget on a partisan basis. That is where the partisanship came in, if it came in at all.

But to totally put to bed any idea that this is a partisan issue, I have letters.

Mr. Chairman, the Air Force Association sent a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Rules asking them to not pass the rule that they did.

The Association of the U.S. Army, a letter signed by General Gordon Sullivan, former chief of staff for the Army, put in there that ``RCI,'' the Army's housing program, ``has a tremendous positive impact on quality of life for our soldiers.

``I would ask that you work to ensure the amendment'' to protect housing ``is protected by the Rules Committee and reaches the House floor.''

The Military Officers Association of America asks that the House leadership not shove through a partisan rule that would be unfair to military families.

So did the National Military Family Association.

I do not think any of our colleagues would suggest that the Association of the U.S. Army and the Military Officers Association of America and these other military organizations are acting out of a partisan basis. This does not have anything to do with partisanship. It has to do with standing up for fairness for military families who are making an incredible sacrifice for the American family during a time of war; and in doing so, I will not hesitate to stand up to the Republican leadership of this House which shoved through a rule that is going to allow this housing to be put at risk, and I will not hesitate to stand up to any Democrats who would hesitate in fully supporting military housing.

We all support our troops, but we have an opportunity by passing this bill without a point of order to do something tangible about it. Good intentions, goodwill do not provide better housing for 50,000 military families. Passing this bill, as we passed it out of committee in a bipartisan fashion, that is the way to make a difference for military families who are so deserving of this support.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, what a difference 1 hour makes. Less than 1 hour ago on this floor the House of Representatives passed a rule for the defense appropriations bill which waives all points of order against that bill, and yet because the House leadership instructed the Committee on Rules and twisted arms to force many Republican House members to vote on a bill that does not protect a point of order on this, because of that decision, inconsistent with a rule we just passed in this House by unanimous vote less than 60 minutes ago, because of that we are basically going to put at risk the most important military housing improvement program in American history, a program that does not only improve housing and show respect in a tangible way to men and women and families, to children who are making incredible sacrifices for our country, but a measure that is saving taxpayers billions of dollars by building these houses more efficiently.

In a House that ignores technicalities every single day to carry out priorities much less important than quality military housing for our families during a time of war, we are going to put this incredibly important program at risk.

Finally, I want to say this. Let us be clear, this is not today just an action of one person, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). I respect the gentleman. He is a person of principle. I might disagree with the debate on fiscal responsibility when we voted 2 months ago for a $69 billion tax cut that helps Members of Congress and today we cannot afford to take care of a few thousand military families' housing, but I do respect him. He is a person of deep principle.

This is not just an action of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). This was an action which was allowed and encouraged by the House leadership by forcing an unfair rule through this House, a rule that was opposed by the Military Officers Association of America, the Association of the U.S. Army, the Air Force Association, and the National Military Family Association.

This action is also something that was allowed by 212 votes, a passage of that rule by one vote, 212 to 211. One Member changing his or her vote, and we could have prevented this tragedy from happening today.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to consider not recognizing the technicality raised here that will harm tens of thousands of military families during a time of war.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to read into the Record the States and the specific military installations that have just had a guarantee of new housing for their military families taken away from them. Perhaps we will solve this another day. I have been trying to work for 6 months on a bipartisan basis to get this resolved. I am not sure this late in the Congress I have tremendous confidence that it will get resolved, but the real pity is that we could have resolved it today if the leadership had let go through the Committee on Rules the exact same rule we unanimously approved on the military appropriations bill just an hour ago.

The States that have just lost a chance because of this technicality that were allowed by the rule pushed by the leadership that will lose a guarantee to have new military housing for their service men and women are Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming.

To add to the military installations I had already mentioned a few moments ago that will either have their housing frozen this year and, in fact, a promise broken to those military families or have their housing expected in 2006 to be delayed a year would include Fort Knox, Kentucky, 3,380 military families affected by this technical ruling. Fort Rucker in Alabama, 1,516 military families. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1,580 military families. Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, 1,682 military families. New Mexico, Holloman Air Force Base, 1,440. Fort Gordon, Georgia, 872 families. Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, 475. MCB in Hawaii, Phase 1, 1,377 families will have their hopes for better housing dashed or delayed for a year or more. Camp Lejeune, an important Marine Corps installation in North Carolina, 838 families. In addition to an additional 3,516 families at Camp Lejeune that this year will have their new housing put on hold.

These are not just numbers and names, these are real men and women, real military families making unbelievable sacrifices in behalf of every family in this House and in our Nation that have just lost the opportunity because of an unfair rule opposed by numerous military organizations exercised, as the gentleman had the right to exercise, just a moment ago a technicality to kill that dream of a new home.

It is a shame that dream has been killed today. I certainly urge those who perhaps did not want it to be taken care of today to work together, and I will pledge to work together in good faith with them to try to solve it in the months ahead, but there was no reason not to give this promise today to our military people. They do not ask to be delayed when they are asked to serve their country. When they are asked to go to combat, they go. When we had an opportunity to stand up for them, we should not have been AWOL. We should not have delayed. We should have taken action. That is what is the most shameful thing about what has happened today on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Just a few minutes ago my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said we should work together in the days and months ahead to try to ensure the promise to our military families of better housing. I suggest we start right now, and it would be very simple, and we can send a clear message out to our families who have loved ones in harm's way that right now we are going to guarantee them the quality housing they are expecting.

All we need to do is take basically the exact same language that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) put together in the bill he wrote yesterday and passed yesterday, which, by the way, was an example of what the leadership in this House can do when it wants to do something. Let us just adopt that same language in the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion to recommit. It is the same language. What is the difference?

I tell the Members what the difference would be. If we would work together on a bipartisan basis right now not to object to this, we can send an important message to our troops out there and their loved ones that we are going to support them with better housing, especially during this time of war.

The language is the same. The gentleman's bill, H.R. 4879, that we passed yesterday that he talked about says we strike the number $850 million and insert $1.350 billion. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion to recommit that is now before the floor says let us go from $850 million to $1.3 billion on the limitation of military housing privatization programs. What is the difference?

Let us work together right now. Let us do the right thing. Let us not let a technicality prevent us from doing the right thing for tens of thousands of military families. We can do it together. We do not have to wait a week, a month, and the possibilities of what might or might not happen then. We can doing it right now. I urge this House to do so.

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.

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 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 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. 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 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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), who is also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is a member of the subcommittee as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman

from Virginia (Mr. Goode), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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. 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who is a member of the subcommittee.

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. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a slap in the face to America's military families. They have a right to be outraged, and they will be when they find out what happens on the House floor today.

This rule says to our military families, many of them who have loved ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the House Republican leadership has made tax cuts for Members of Congress this year a higher priority than better housing for military families.

With this rule, we put at risk the most important military housing program in American history, the public-private initiative. To do so any time would be wrong. To do so during a time of war is unconscionable.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) owe our military families and all who respect them an answer to one question: Why is it that you can support just 2 months ago on this House Floor a $69 billion tax break that benefits Members of Congress, but today, we cannot afford to continue our military housing program for 50,000 military families?

Perhaps the answer was given by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) in his speech to bankers in March of 2003, just 1 week before the Iraqi war began, when he said this: ``Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.'' Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.

I would like to invite the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) to Fort Hood in my district, which has sent nearly 40,000 Army soldiers to Iraq this year alone, to explain why they can bring to the House Floor 2 months ago a bill that cut taxes for Members of Congress making $157,000-plus a year, but they cannot find a way today to protect the most important military housing program ever for service men and women making $20,000 and $30,000 a year. Where is the fairness in that?

Is cutting taxes for Members of Congress while freezing military housing improvements for our troops the leadership's new definition of shared sacrifice during time of war? If so, it is a flawed definition.

Have our military families not sacrificed enough already? Why should 50,000 military families in 22 States now have to sacrifice their dream of better military housing so we can help pay for a self-serving tax cut for Members of Congress?

What is happening today on this floor is an insult to the incredible sacrifices made by our service men and women.

Oh, and how times have changed for the worst. Instead of President Franklin Roosevelt asking all Americans to sacrifice after Pearl Harbor, the House leadership, in the midst of our war on terrorism, is saying with its words and its deeds that nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.

We are going to hear a lot of excuses today. We are going to hear that technicalities prevent us from preventing a

freeze on the most important military housing program ever. Baloney. The House Committee on Rules, with one phone call from the Speaker, could have done what it has done repeatedly in this Congress on 25 occasions: protect an important provision in this bill from a technical point of order. Unbelievably, unbelievably, that call was not made.

Unfortunately, the same House leadership that told the Committee on Rules to bring a tax cut, helping Members of Congress, to the floor 2 months ago, could not make that phone call to protect military families today. We will hear a lot of excuses about how, well, there are other ways to solve the military housing program crisis. Well, that is exactly what they are, excuses.

Those same Committee on the Budget members failed to solve this problem in the Committee on the Budget. Then they failed to work with the Committee on Armed Services to solve the problem for fiscal year 2005 in the Committee on Armed Services bill. That was two strikes. Now, when the Committee on Appropriations is trying to solve the problem in a bipartisan way and support our military families, these same folks want to prohibit us from doing so. Three strikes, and they are out.

Sadly, though, the people who will be left out in the cold are not Members of Congress who pretend to be fiscal hawks when it comes to funding military housing improvements, but turned into fiscal doves when it came to passing a $69 billion tax break that put money in our pockets. These same people will be leaving 50,000 military families in 22 States out in the cold.

We will hear excuses that military families will just have to wait for Members of Congress to have our 5-week vacation in July and August, and maybe the same House leaders we have who have ignored this housing crisis for the last 6 months will find a way to solve the problem, after campaign trips in August and beach vacations.

I would suggest that leaders in Congress who found the time to rename dozens of post offices this year and schedule tax cuts, votes on tax cuts for Members of Congress like me, maybe they should find the time to solve the military housing crisis now, before they go on vacation, before they make their dozens of campaign stops and fund-raising events in the month ahead. When it comes to solving a serious military housing crisis, the House Republican leadership has been AWOL.

Fortunately, there have been many Members such as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and others who have tried to come together to do the right thing.

Let me be clear. I am not asking the House Republican leadership, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to put themselves today in harm's way like so many of the soldiers from Fort Hood in my district are in Iraq today. However, in all due respect, I would hope the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) would support our troops by saying that, Do my colleagues know what? The military housing crisis should be solved before, not after, we take our 5-week August vacation.

Perhaps a little bit of shared sacrifice during a time of war is not too much to ask for our military families who have already made incredible sacrifices on behalf of the American family. After all, despite the statement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that nothing is more important in the face of war than tax cuts, the vast majority of Americans would agree that there is something far more important than tax cuts, and especially tax cuts for Members of Congress during a time of war. It would be more important to support our troops and to support their loved ones, their families, to allow them to live in decent housing while they are giving up so much for our country.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me finish with this. There are moments when support for our military families ought to be more important than loyalty, blind loyalty to the House Speaker and the majority leader. I would suggest today is one of those times. During a time of war on terrorism, let us send a bipartisan vote and a message to our military families by saying, we are not going to go away on vacation in August until we solve the military housing crisis; and that, yes, the House leadership is not perfect, and today it is wrong to bring a rule to this floor that would help one person defeat the most important military housing program in American history.

The vote is what really counts, not our speeches today, and the vote will say this: What is more important, loyalty to the House Republican leadership or loyalty to the military men and women who are making such tremendous sacrifices on behalf of all Americans?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Republican colleagues who genuinely supported improving military housing. But today the only vote that counts is a ``no'' vote against the rule, a rule that would allow one Member of this House to put on freeze during a time of war the most important military housing program in American history.

Let there be no surprise for anyone who votes for this rule that if our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), were to use his prerogative under this rule to kill this housing program, then, in effect, regardless of the good intentions, a ``yes'' vote for this rule is a ``no'' vote for better housing for tens of thousands of military families, even families who have loved ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let us rise above loyalty to the House Speaker and to the majority leader. Let us once say together during time of war on a bipartisan basis, we are going to do what is right. And if that means voting against a dictate from the Speaker's office on how to vote for this rule so that we can join together to improve housing for military families, then that is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Could I ask the gentleman to make it clear now to all House Members?

What the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has said is that if we defeat the previous question, then we can bring back the Military Construction appropriations bill today and pass it out of this House today in a way that protects this vitally important military housing improvement program. Is that correct? We were not talking about a 1- week or 2-week delay.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to this rule, and I do so without disrespect at all to the gentlewoman. She is a very valuable Member of this Congress and a friend and someone who has worked hard to make sure that when we write budgets, when we determine spending priorities, that we adhere to them. And that is why I rise in opposition to this rule.

This bill breaches the spending limit made under the budget. There will be people who come to the floor today who will claim that the only issue today is military housing when, in fact, the issue today is an $800-plus billion budget from which we can find many puts and many takes in order to adjust priorities here and adjust priorities there in order to make sure all priorities fit within a budget.

How does this process work? The Committee on Appropriations, appropriately and in a way that we all appreciate, filed their bill meeting what is called the 302(b) number for military construction, meaning that it fit within the budget when the committee process began. But there were amendments that were made in order to increase the amount of spending over the budget and over the amount that was prioritized.

Why was that done? It was done for political purposes. It was done to make points because, as everyone knows, in the Department of Defense authorization bill, the cap that we will be talking about today for military housing was lifted. So it is being taken care of. It is being taken care of in the authorization process, which is the appropriate way to handle it, the appropriate direction to take, and a way that does not bust the budget and allows all of us to do this within a responsible process.

This Military Construction bill breaches the allocations that the Committee on Appropriations established for the Subcommittee on Military Construction by $1.2 billion as a result; that is 10 percent of the allocation. We are not just busting this by a couple of bucks here. We are not just saying it is okay to go over by a little. I mean, there have already been three bills that have left the House floor as appropriations that busted their allocations, three bills that we voted on on the floor here, that were sent to the other body, that busted the budget.

So it does happen. It does happen by a few hundred thousand here, hundred million there, but rarely have we ever seen the chutzpa of coming to the floor with a bill that busts it by over 10 percent of the allocation.

How does the Committee on Appropriations usually deal with this? Very typically, very routinely, the Committee on Appropriations comes to the floor and they make an adjustment to their 302(b) allocations. In fact, they can even make an adjustment to a bill that has already left, and they have done that in the past. And in fact, as I understand it today, they will make adjustments to their 302(b) allocations in order to make the three bills that left here, busting the budget, fit, something that they routinely do currently and totally within their jurisdiction and something that we, as fiscal hawks and people that want to make sure that we adhere to the budget, appreciate.

The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has never brought a bill to this floor that busted the budget. Unfortunately, today this rule would allow that to happen. And that is why I rise in opposition, because we should not allow that to happen.

Military housing is an effective program, so important that I am disappointed that the Committee on Appropriations did not offset the additional cost with a spending reduction in other bills from lower- priority items, which is fully within their jurisdiction. Do they mean to tell me there is nothing else within any of the 13 appropriation bills that are lower priority than the military housing for our families who are fighting to defend our freedom? Nothing? Absolutely nothing? We cannot look for anything?

Just waive the rules, and not only waive the budget and the budget rules, but to do so almost 2 weeks after we had a debate on this floor saying the budget process is broken, we have got to come up with new rules. Why do we have to come up with new rules if we break the rules that we already have? Why do we adhere to the rules that we already have? Such as we write a budget, we allow the Committee on Appropriations to make their allocations within the discretionary accounts. They make that decision and bring bills to the floor to fit within that budget so that in final analysis we are able to stay within that budget overall and not increase the deficit and not borrow more money and not add to the national debt.

But we will continue to hear today that this is an important program and it needs our support. And it does need our support and it already has our support because it is moving through in the Department of Defense authorization.

The House should not be in a position of having to take up this bill. Under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, it is not in order for the House to even consider a measure that breaches the 302(b) allocation, Mr. Speaker. It is not even in order to consider this bill. And there are all sorts of mechanisms available to the Committee on Appropriations prior to bringing this bill to the floor, to make their adjustments to ensure that this bill meets its allocation.

The purpose of this rule is not to put a burden on enforcing the budget on the committee while it is moving the bill. Nevertheless, in a dramatic lapse of what I would call parliamentary responsibility and budget discipline, the rule waives this point of order. The rule shifts the burden for bringing the bill into compliance with the resolution away from the committee that is responsible, away from the Committee on Appropriations that we ask to make the tough decisions, to make the tough political decisions when they are political, like this one will have to be because people will make political points about this, about people not caring, about people not supporting, about people not wanting our military families to live in decent housing.

Well, there is not a Member of this body, not a Member of this body on either side, who should be accused of that or who would suggest that the men and women who serve in our military, who fight for freedom, should live in sub-quality housing. That is why we have the program. That is why the Department of Defense authorization lifts the cap and works to ensure that our men and women in the military have the ability to do just that.

Faced with the choice, and it is an unfortunate choice that I believe we are faced with today, of enforcing the budget resolution or supporting this rule, I believe it is my job as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to enforce the budget; to listen to the men and women in the military who think their choice is more important than all sorts of choices that have been made and are going to be made in subsequent appropriation bills, number one, and also listen to the unbelievable amount, it should not be unbelievable,

it is actually believable to me, but the growing chorus of people across this country that say you in Congress spend too much money. Set your priorities. Determine what is important. Support our military families, and find something that is not quite as high a priority to cut out of the budget, to postpone until next year, to eliminate entirely.

The waste, fraud and abuse that is going on in this budget, that is going on in this government, that goes on as a result of what we continue to perpetuate without making those tough choices, is what we have to come through. Are the choices tough? Of course they are tough. But remember 2 weeks ago when we had that budget debate; when everybody said please, take away those tough choices for me. Come up with new rules that have commissions, outside commissions, to make these decisions. Or let us do something so that I do not have to make these tough choices, so I do not have to choose between military families and waste within other Departments of the government.

I know what my choice is. My choice is let us eliminate the waste. My choice is let us support those families, just like everybody else here on the floor would choose.

Instead, unfortunately, what happens today is we have a bill that comes to the floor that not only busts the overall budget, but busts its total allocation for this bill alone by 10 percent. That is irresponsible to our military families, and that is irresponsible to the fiscal integrity of this government.

We should not adopt this rule. If it is adopted, I will move to strike this provision. I ask for people to vote in opposition to this rule.