Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2005

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 21, 2004)

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let me first take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for the leadership shown by my chairman, Mr. Knollenberg, and my ranking member, Mr. Edwards, on the housing privatization issue. I would also like to commend the leadership shown by Chairman Young, and Ranking Member Obey on this important issue as well.

As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, I know of no other issue which is more important to our military and their families than housing. There is no other issue which has more of an impact on the quality of life of the men and women serving in the military than housing. This year we heard witness after witness testify before our subcommittee-each describing the lack of adequate housing as "the" major quality of life issue facing the military.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have two major military facilities-Ft. Benning and the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia, in my district. However, just as important, I represent thousands of other military personnel who work at Moody Air Force Base and Warner Robbins Air Force Base, both of which are now adjacent to my district.

Unfortunately, according to the Department of the Army's installation status report for fiscal year 2004, approximately 71 percent of the Army's residential quarters located in the United States require some level of improvement or replacement, in order to meet the department's own adequacy standards. If you read literally, this means that seven (7) out of every ten (10) housing units located at our Army installations here in the United States do not meet the current standards for adequacy.

I am particularly concerned about the housing situation at Ft. Benning. According to the most recent data available, it is my understanding that approximately ninety percent (90%) of the family housing at Fort Benning is classified as substandard. Fortunately, Ft. Benning is scheduled to be one of the first bases to participate in the upcoming round of privatization.

Ft. Benning is scheduled to construct 4,055 much-needed family housing units. An additional 872 units are planned in FY 05 for Ft. Gordon, in Georgia as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, if the point of order is sustained against the language in the bill extending the program and we do not raise the cap, the program could be in jeopardy of stalling after November of this year.

That means that the units planned for Ft. Benning and Ft. Gordon in Georgia could be in jeopardy of not moving forward but not just in Georgia. Other bases, including Ft. Riley and Leavenworth in Kansas, West Point in New York, Ft. Rucker in Alabama, Ft. Knox in Kentucky, Ft. Jackson in South Carolina-all are just a few of the facilities which would be in jeopardy for the upcoming round of privatization.

It is important that my colleagues have an appreciation of the practical effects of not acting to increase the cap. Thousands of our officers and enlisted personnel will continue to reside in inadequate family housing. Our national goal of privatizing military housing will not be accomplished. In addition, the existing inventory of housing facilities will continue to deteriorate, resulting in even billions of dollars of more costs for maintenance and operations. Finally, each of the services, particularly the Army, will be unable to meet its goal of eliminating all inadequate family housing by 2007.

Not meeting this goal will further adversely affect the health, safety and quality of life of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and their families occupying these units. Privatization will provide new construction and revitalization of the existing inventory at a more rapid rate than current procedures and funding limits will permit. Privatization will also provide renovated or new quarters for our military and their families, which is comparable to housing of a similar size and quality as would be available in the local economy.

It is critical that our fighting men and women, and their families, have the best quality of life we can offer them. Their sacrifices are too great. This investment is such a small cost given what they are giving to us-putting their lives on the line-day in and day out. A decent place to live is small cost in return for their service to America. We owe them so much more.

Mr. Chairman, housing is at the core of providing a decent quality of life, and I urge the House to allow a lifting of the cap on housing privatization.