THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

[Page: S6972]  GPO's PDF
---

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 5011, which the clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   A bill (H.R. 5011) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona controls 5 minutes of debate on this pending measure.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for my 5 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that the managers are not in the Chamber, but I will proceed with my statement.

   Regretfully, I rise yet again to address the Senate on the subject of military construction projects added to an appropriations bill that were not requested by the Department of Defense and are strongly opposed by the Office of Management and Budget.

   This bill contains over $1 billion in unrequested military construction projects and includes hundreds of millions of dollars for Army and Air Force infrastructure projects relating to Interim Brigade Combat Teams, IBCTs, and C -17 Globemaster aircraft bed-down military construction projects that the Senate Armed Services Committee has neither approved nor authorized for this purpose.

   There are 29 members of the Appropriations Committee. Only one committee member has not added projects to this appropriations bill. Those numbers, needless to say, go well beyond the realm of mere coincidence. Of 116 projects added to this bill, 91 projects, representing 80 percent of all projects, are in the States represented by the Senators on the Appropriation Committees, totaling over $728.1 million.

   Every year, I come to the Senate floor to highlight programs and projects added to spending bills for primarily parochial reasons. While I recognize that many of the projects added to this bill may be worthwhile, the process by which they were selected is not.

   By adding over $1 billion above the President's request, the Appropriations Committee is further draining away funds desperately needed for transformation. But such short-sightedness is pretty much the norm for Congress. Common-sense reforms--closing military bases, consolidating and privatizing depot maintenance, ending ``Buy American'' restrictions, and ending pork-barrel spending--that I have long supported would free up nearly $20 billion per year which could be used to begin our long-needed military transformation.

   But all too often Congress fights these reforms because of home-State politics. As a result, the Defense Department looks elsewhere to find the resources. For example, according to a Baltimore Sun article, ``Pentagon To Consider Large-Scale Troop Cuts,'' the Department is considering cutting nearly 100,000 troops ``to free up money'' for transformation. I would oppose this and we will debate this another day, but I certainly understand the pressure that Secretary Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs are under because of Congress' continuing parochialism as evidenced once again by the military construction bill before us.

   Included in the Senate Appropriations Committee's report are the words: ``The Committee strongly supports the authorization-appropriation process.'' That is news to many of my colleagues. If that statement is true why would over $550 million in military construction projects be added without prior Senate Armed Services Committee authorization. It could be that many of these projects would be acceptable after going through the normal, merit-based prioritization process. But the Appropriations Committee decided to do otherwise.

   Two rather large additions--totaling $200 million--for large military construction projects for Interim Brigade Combat Teams, IBCTs, facilities and the C -17 Air Mobility Modernization Program are examples of the committee's disregard for the authorization process. The committee report justifies these add-ons on the grounds that ``the war on terror has placed new demands on all elements of the military'' and ``military construction timetables developed prior to September 11 are no longer sufficient.'' War profiting is what it is all about. Because of this, the report continues, ``the committee believes that it is imperative to accelerate the Army and Air Force transformation programs.'' There is no mention of Navy and Marine Corps transformation programs. The committee report leads one to ask how the Navy and Marine Corps got it right and the Army and Air Force missed the boat.

   The committee's justification for adding $200 million for the IBCTs facilities and new hangars for C -17s, C -5s and C -130s under the Air Force Air Mobility Modernization program is at odds with the facts. The President's budget was sent to the House and the Senate in February--a full 5 months after September 11. Since September 11, the President and his Secretary of Defense have officially forwarded to Congress the Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations bill--which we have not passed--and recently a formal description of how the Defense Department will spend the $10 billion war reserve fund set-aside in the Defense Emergency Response Fund that the President requested for the war on terrorism. Let me ask: did anyone on the Appropriations Committee inform the President that his budget proposal was not ``sufficient''? I know the answer is no.

   Let me share some critical facts that were left out of the committee report related to the $200 million in additional funding added for these key programs. It is common knowledge that nearly all the IBCTs will initially be stationed in Alaska and Hawaii and will require a significant increase of infrastructure. General Shinseki has supported testing the IBCT concept in Alaska and Hawaii and then expanding the concept elsewhere. However, in putting together the Army budget, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of Defense weighed all the other Army priorities and decided that their were more critical funding issues than to accelerate an already robust IBCT program and adding $100 million more for facilities construction.

   Likewise, other facts left out of the Appropriations report related to the $100 million in accelerated funding for the Air Force Air Mobility program should be known:

   The Air Force did not request this funding;

   The requirement for accelerating funding is not on the Air Force Chief of Staff's ``Unfunded Requirements List'';

   Nor does it appear in the Secretary of Defense's Wartime Fiscal Year 2002 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations request;

   Nor does the requirement to accelerate funding for C -17 hangars show up on the war reserve fund set-aside in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) that the President recently submitted to Congress as an Fiscal Year 2003 budget amendment for the Department of Defense for expenses relating to the war against terrorism; and

   Moreover, over 80 percent of the total $1.6 billion military construction projects under the Air Force C -17 Air Mobility Modernization program will be built in just 4 states: surprise, surprise California, West Virginia, Alaska, and Hawaii--how surprising.

   Funding $200 million for IBCTs and C -17, C -5 and C -130 hangars--as part of a larger 4-5 billion dollar program--was simply not authorized by the Armed Services Committee in its recently passed bill. I attended more than 10 hearings on Armed Services this year, and I cannot remember a single instance in which an argument was made in support of accelerating this funding.

   Separately, I am at a loss as to the rationale for including in this bill certain site-specific earmarks and directive language. For example, in time-

[Page: S6973]  GPO's PDF

   Up to $1.5 million in funding for a storage facility for military police emergency vehicles in Fort Wainwright, AK;

   Up to $1.5 million in funding for a similar storage facility in Fort Richardson, AK;

   $1.5 million in funding for a Kinetic Energy Missile Complex at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico;

   $1.5 million in funding for a force protection facility at the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, TX;

   $1 million in funding for a training facility at the Corpus Christi Army Deport in Texas;

   $1.5 million in funding for a UAV facility at the Fallon Naval Air Station in Nevada;

   $1 million in funding to replace and bury electrical infrastructure at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas;

   $1.5 million in funding for a barracks for the Army National Guard in Chillicothe, OH;

   $1.5 million in funding for Federal Scout Readiness Centers/Armories for the Army National Guard in Alakanuk, Quinhagak, and Kwigillingok, AK;

   $1.5 million in funding for a maintenance facility for the Army National Guard at Fort Harrison in Montana;

   Up to $2.5 million in funding for various facilities for the Army National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Teams;

   Up to $1 million in funding for a warehouse for the Air Force Reserve at the Lackland Air Force Base in Texas;

   $1 million in funding for a Multiple Threat Emitter System, MUTES, Facility for the Army National Guard at the Smoky Hill Range in Kansas;

   $1.5 million in funding for a Bachelor Officer/Enlisted Quarters for the Army National Guard at Fort Meade in South Dakota; and

   $1.5 million in funding for an ammunition supply plant for the Army National Guard at Camp Grafton in North Dakota.

   I could go on and on. Without a doubt, each of these provisions unabashedly expands the definition of unspecified minor construction. Sadly, yet significantly, the American taxpayer is once again at the losing end of such reckless congressional action.

   I also find objectionable language in this bill requiring that only American firms, or American firms in joint venture with host nation firms, be eligible for architecture and engineering contracts for all overseas projects exceeding $500,000. Similarly restrictive language bans the awarding of any contract over $1 million to any foreign contractor in U.S. territories and possessions in the Pacific, on Kwajalein Atoll, and in countries bordering the Arabian Sea. American firms are among the best in the world; advocating a level playing field for them to compete overseas is appropriate. However, it is both inappropriate and harmful to the best interests of our Armed Forces to mandate that construction projects overseas not be subject to the kind of competitive process that best serves the taxpayer and the service member by providing the best product at the lowest cost.

   We are waging war against a new enemy and at the same time undertaking a long-term process to transform our military from its Cold War structure to a force ready for the challenges of tomorrow. A lack of political will had previously hamstrung the transformation process, but the President and his team have pledged to transform our military structure and operations to meet future threats.

   The reorganization of our armed services was, of course, an extremely important subject before September 11, and it is all the more so now. The threats to the security of the United States, to the very lives and property of Americans, have changed in the last decade.

   In the months ahead, no task before the administration and the Congress will be more important to require greater care and deliberation than making the changes necessary to strengthen our national defense in this new, uncertain era. Needless to say, this transformation process will require enlightened, thoughtful leadership, and not the pork-barreling of military funds if we are to best serve America in this time of rapid change in the global security environment.

   I thank the President for this opportunity to address the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the list of unrequested military construction projects that were added by the Appropriations Committee be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   In an effort to contain the wasteful spending inherent in member requested construction projects, I sponsored, and the Senate adopted, merit based criteria for evaluating member adds as a part of the fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization Act. The criteria are: (1) The project is in the service's future years defense plan; (2) the project is mission essential; (3) the project can be put under contract in the current fiscal year; (4) the project does not conflict with base re-alignment proposals; and (5) the service can offset the proposed expenditure within that year's budget request.

   FY2003 Military Construction Add-Ons

   Alabama:
Army: Fort Rucker Physical Fitness Center

   $3.5
UH-60 Parking Apron

   3.1

   Alaska:
Army: Fort Richardson: Community Center

   15.0
Air Force: Eielson AFB Blair Lakes Range Maintenance Complex

   19.5

   Arkansas:
Defense-Wide: Pine Bluff Arsenal Non-Stockpile Ammunition Demolition Shop

   18.0
Air National Guard, Little Rock AFB: Operations And Training Facility

   5.1

   California, Navy:
Camp Pendelton Marine Corps Base: Child Development Center

   8.2
Port Hueneme: Seabee Training Facility

   10.2

   Colorado:
Defense-Wide, Pueblo Depot: Ammunition Demilitarization Facility (Phase IV)

   36.1
Air National Guard: Buckley AFB Control Tower

   5.9
Florida, Navy: Panama City Naval Surface Warfare Center: Special Operations Facility

   10.7
Georgia, Air Force, Robins AFB: Corrosion Paint/De-paint Facility

   24.0

   Hawaii:
Army: Pohakuloa Training Area Access Road (Saddle Road) Phase I

   13.0
Navy:

   Ford Island Site Improvements (Utility System)

   19.4

   Marine Corps Base/OAHU Religious Ministry Facility (Chapel)

   9.5

   Idaho:
Army National Guard, Gowen Field/Boise: Readiness Center

   1.5
Air National Guard: Gowen Field/Boise Air Support Squadron

   6.7
Iowa, Air National Guard, Des Moines: Airfield Facilities Upgrade

   9.2
Kansas, Army: Fort Riley Combined Arms Collective Training Facility, PH 1

   13.8

   Kentucky:
Army, Fort Knox: Child Development Center

   6.8
Defense-Wide, Bluegrass Army Depot:

   Ammunition Demilitarization Facility (Phase II)

   9.8

   Ammunition Demilitarization Support (Phase III)

   7.9

   Louisiana:
Air Force: Barksdale AFB Parking Apron

   12.0
Air National Guard: New Orleans Joint Reserve Base Belle Chasse Vehicle Maintenance Support Equipment Shop

   5.5
Maine, Navy: Brunswick Naval Air Station Control Tower Upgrade

   9.8

   Maryland:
Navy: Carderock (NSWC): National Maritime Technical Information Center

   12.9
Defense-Wide, Aberdeen Proving Ground: Ammunition Demilitarization Facility (Phase V)

   29.1
Massachusetts, Air Force: Fourth Cliff Recreation Area: Erosion Control/Retaining Wall

   9.5

   Michigan:
Army National Guard: Joint/Multi-Unit Readiness Center, Phase 1

   17.0
Air National Guard, Selfridge ANGB: Joint Dining Facility

   8.5

   Mississippi:
Navy:

   Meridian Naval Air Station: Control Tower and Beacon Tower

   2.9

   Pascagoula Naval Air Station Bachelor Enlisted Quarters

   10.5
Defense-Wide, Special Operations Command: Stennis Space Center, Land/Water Ranges

   5.0

[Page: S6974]  GPO's PDF

   Missouri:
Army National Guard, Fort Leonard Wood: Aviation Support Facility

   14.8
Air National Guard, St. Louis/Lambert Field: Base Relocation/Facilities upgrade

   4.0
Montana, Air National Guard: Gore Hill/Great Falls: Load Crew Training Facility

   3.5
Nebraska, Air Force: Offutt AFB: Fire Crash/Rescue Station

   11.0
Nevada, Air Force: Nellis AFB Land Acquisition

   19.5
New Hampshire, Air National Guard: Pease Air Base Fire Station

   4.5
New Jersey, Navy: Lakehurst Naval Air Warfare Center Structural and Aircraft Fire Rescue Station

   5.2

   New Mexico, Air Force:
Holloman AFB: Survival Equipment Shop

   4.7
Kirtland AFB: Visiting Airmen Quarters

   8.4
New York, Air Force Reserve: Niagra Falls Air Reserve Station Visiting Airmen Quarters, Phase I

   9.0
North Carolina, Air Force: Seymour Johnson: Fire/Crash Rescue Station

   10.6
North Dakota, Air Force: Minot AFB Cruise Missile Storage Facility

   18.0

   Ohio, Air Force, Wright-Patterson AFB:
After Graduate Education Facility

   13.0
Consolidate Materials Computational Research Facility

   15.2

   Oklahoma:
Army: Fort Sill Logistics Maintenance Facility, Phase I

   10.0
Air Force:

   Altus AFB: Consolidate Base Engineer Complex, Phase I

   7.7

   Vance AFB: Road Repair (Elam Road)

   4.8
Pennsylvania, Air National Guard, Pittsburgh: Squadron Operations and Support Facility

   7.7
Rhode Island, Navy: Newport Naval Station: Consolidated Police/Fire/Security Facility

   9.0

   South Carolina:
Air Force, Shaw AFB: Fighter Squadron Maintenance Facilities

   6.8
Air National Guard, McEntire Air National Guard Base: Replace Operations and Training Facility

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display