Providing For Consideration of H.R. 4837
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4837, -- (House of Representatives - July 21, 2004)
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 732 and ask for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Last night the Committee on Rules met to report a rule for the Military Construction Appropriations bill for 2005. The bill has wide bipartisan support. It provides sufficient funding for America's military construction needs and includes funding to improve facilities and family housing on reserve and active duty installations around the world. The bill also includes a provision that protects the most successful military housing project in history, the Military Housing Privatization Initiative.
Under this program, the Federal Government creates public-private partnerships to construct and renovate military family housing. The current state of military housing is a disgrace. It is often old and dilapidated. Under this program, quality homes for our troops and their families are constructed more affordably and more quickly. It is estimated that the government saves 10 to 15 percent over the life of the project, and military families receive improved homes in one-tenth of the time it will have taken using old methods of family housing construction.
When the program started in 1996, it was tied to a cap of $850 million in government investment. The Department of Defense will reach this cap in November. The Military Construction bill contains a provision to raise the cap and ensure that the most successful military housing program ever will be able to continue.
And herein lies the problem, Mr. Speaker. The rule that we are considering today puts this program in danger. It allows a point of order on the section of the bill raising the cap on the Privatization Initiative that would allow it to be completely stripped from the bill. If that happens, the program would be unable to continue past November of this year, and almost 50,000 military families would pay the price and continue to live in substandard housing.
I made a motion last night in the Committee on Rules to protect this section of the bill so that it could not be stripped out, but it was defeated on a party-line vote. I just do not understand that, Mr. Speaker, because perhaps more than anything else in this bill, this provision will help raise the quality of life for our troops and their families.
Perhaps worst of all is the fact that this is the only provision in the Military Construction bill that can be stripped out on a point of order. I think that shows real disregard and disrespect for our soldiers, and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I find it disgraceful. We in this House are constantly talking about the need to support our troops, and yet when the time comes to actually vote on a substantive issue that could really help our fighting men and women and their families, some Members of this House are not following through.
I, for one, am proud to support our troops. As a Nation, we continue to ask more and more of them, especially in this time of war and uncertainty. Our brave soldiers and their families deserve to live in quality housing, not slums. It should be their right, not their privilege; and that is why today I will attempt to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to protect the military housing cap in the bill from being stripped out on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, countless military families and military organizations, and the President of the United States-let me repeat that, and the President of the United States, all support raising this cap. This House should too. America's troops and their families deserve to have our unconditional support as they continue to fight the war on terror. Vote "no" on the previous question and vote "no" on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Will the chairman of the Committee on the Budget please remain for a question? Will the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) please remain for a question? I do not think he meant to intentionally misstate a fact.
I would point out that the authorization bill lifts the cap for 2006. It does not lift it for 2005. In fact, the administration has asked for the $500 million.
I do not think the gentleman intentionally meant to misstate the fact, but he did make a misstatement of fact on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
If I understand what is going on on the other side during the last 30 minutes, several Republican Members, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), basically urged the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) not to shoot the wounded. They have basically urged him not to try and strike this provision by objecting to it as a violation of the Rules.
What we want to do, of course, is take the gun out of the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Nussle) hand by protecting this provision so that he will not be able to shoot the wounded.
Mr. Speaker, I will call for a "no" vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will protect the section of the bill that raises the cap on the Military Housing Privatization Program and ensures that more of our troops and their families will be able to live in good housing.
I offered this same amendment in the Committee on Rules last night, where it was defeated on a straight party-line vote.
Mr. Speaker, I have served in Congress for 26 years now. In all those years, I have thought that one thing that both sides of the aisle could agree on was our support for our troops and making sure that their needs will always be addressed. I guess what I thought was wrong.
Now we will be able to go forward. If we defeat the previous question, then we will be able to offer it. We will be able to protect this provision, and this bill will be able to be voted on. A vote against the previous question is the only way you protect our troops and the only way you protect the military housing provision in this bill.
If we succeed on the previous question, then there will be a vote on the rule with our protection of that provision, and this bill can be brought to the floor.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Could I ask the gentleman to make it clear now to all House Members?
What the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has said is that if we defeat the previous question, then we can bring back the Military Construction appropriations bill today and pass it out of this House today in a way that protects this vitally important military housing improvement program. Is that correct? We were not talking about a 1-week or 2-week delay.
Mr. FROST. That is correct.
Again, vote "no" on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.