this is a good program, too. That is the point we want to make. This is working, and it is not costing the taxpayers money. We are using the payments to work with the private sector. This meets all the tests of a great program. The other thing is, this is not mandatory. I mean, in other words, we can get out of this program. If the military does not need the housing, then the private sector will take the project over and operate it. That is why I am wondering why this big scoring rule when, in fact, we are not putting real money into this, we are just giving a guarantee, and that way we get the housing done and it is much more effective than military construction.
Norman D. Dicks: “this is a good program, too. That is the point we want to make. This is working, and it is not costing the taxpayers…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the effectiveness and funding of a housing program during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Norman D. Dicks
I agree with my colleague and look forward to working with you on this issue. Our National Guard and Humvee ambulances must have the cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment and capabilities needed to respond to terrorist attacks…
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who's the ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee.
I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding on this vital matter, and I completely concur with his stated clarification on this CR's funding and language regarding cybersecurity. I strongly supported the inclusion of this anomaly, and…