the Air Force and the Navy together requested $55.9 million for base exchange projects at Keesler Air Force base, and the Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport in Mississippi. The request for Keesler was $40 million. The request for two projects at Gulfport, $15.9 million. The committee has not included funding for these facilities. Base exchanges, including construction, are typically resourced through non appropriated funds. The exchanges use their sales revenue to fund their operations as well as their capital costs. Congress provided $3.8 million to construct a temporary exchange at Keesler in December in the December supplemental. But now we are being asked to build a permanent facility at over 10 times that cost. The committee is concerned about setting a precedent for using military construction funds for exchanges. We have been told that the Army and Air Force Exchange Service has a $251 million capital budget for Fiscal Year 2006, and the Navy Exchange has a capital budget of $68 million. We believe that they should first look to their capital budgets to prioritize and fund these projects. The committee is also concerned about the exchanges policy of self insuring these facilities. This means that when a disaster happens, like Hurricane Katrina, a fire and so forth, the taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill. That is why we had directed the Department of Defense to take a hard look at the possibility of privately insuring these facilities.…
Jerry Lewis: “the Air Force and the Navy together requested $55.9 million for base exchange projects at Keesler Air Force base, and…”
Share
More from Jerry Lewis
Madam Speaker, before we continue with a stimulus policy that has consistently failed to stimulate anything other than the government, I think the supporters of this program need to answer some very simple questions. For example, the…
I will be voting ``no'' on this legislation. Over the next few minutes, I would like to share my concerns about this bill as it is currently written. The President, whom I respect a great deal, is a fine salesman. But as I have said on…
But in the meantime, we are talking about regular order, trying to change the appropriations process so it makes sense, not destroy our committee. I would suggest we are on a pathway to destroy this committee.
Well, just out of curiosity, Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Obey, I wonder if there are any earmarks in this massive package that went unidentified in the true spirit of that earmark disclosure rule.





