[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6462-S6463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address 
the Senate once again on the subject of military construction projects 
added to an appropriations bill that were not requested by the 
Department of Defense. The bill that passed by voice vote prior to the 
July 4th recess contains more than $1.5 billion in unrequested military 
construction projects. More importantly, I would like to spend a few 
minutes discussing Congress's role in the budget process and its utter 
lack of fiscal discipline. There is $4.5 billion in pork-barrel 
spending in this bill, $3.3 billion of that total in the so-called 
``emergency supplemental.''
  Webster's, Mr. President, defines ``emergency'' as ``a sudden, 
generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding 
immediate action.'' What we have here is the antithesis of that 
concept. It is highly questionable whether $20 million for abstinence 
education should be included in a bill the purpose of which is to 
provide emergency funding that will not count against budget caps.
  For months this body made a deliberate decision not to act quickly 
and deliberately with regard to legitimate spending issues involving 
military readiness and the crisis in Colombia. The decision was made 
not to treat these essential and time-sensitive activities as 
expeditiously as possible. Now, after many months and seemingly endless 
legislative maneuvering, we were presented with an $11 billion bill 
replete with earmarks that under no credible criteria should be 
categorized as ``emergency''--and this is in addition to the over $1.5 
billion added to the underlying military construction appropriations 
bill for strictly parochial reasons.
  As everyone here is aware, I regularly review spending bills for 
items that were not requested by the Administration, constitute 
earmarks designed to benefit specific projects or localities, and did 
not go through a competitive, merit-based selection process. I submit 
lists of such items to the Congressional Record, generally prior to 
final passage of the spending bill in question. In the case of the 
Military Construction bill for fiscal year 2001, I submitted such a 
list, along with a statement critical of the process by which that bill 
was put together, particularly the over $700 million worth of military 
construction projects added to that bill that were not requested by the 
Department of Defense--an amount, I reiterate, that was doubled in 
conference with the other Body.
  This is an institution that has proven itself incapable of passing 
legislation on an expedited basis that genuinely warrants the 
categorization of ``emergency.'' Funding for ongoing military 
operations that strains readiness accounts is a case in point. The one 
thing, Mr. President, we can pass without hesitation and consideration 
is money for pork-barrel projects. Just prior to final passage back in 
May of the Military Construction appropriations bill, the 
Appropriations Committee pushed through $460 million for six new C-130J 
aircraft for the Coast Guard--the very aircraft that we throw money at 
with wanton abandon as though our very existence as an institution is 
dependent upon the continued acquisition of that aircraft.
  That funding and those aircraft are in the bill that emerged from 
conference with the House. A consensus exists, apparently, that we must 
have six more C-130Js in addition to the ones added to the defense 
appropriations bill despite a surplus in the Department of Defense of 
C-130 airframes that should see us through to the next millennium and 
beyond. And this, Mr. President, despite the General Accounting 
Office's finding, based upon the Coast Guard's own study, that the 
service's existing fleet of HC-130s will not need to be replaced until 
2012-2027. And this, Mr. President, despite an ongoing Coast Guard-
directed study designed to determine precisely what types and numbers 
of aircraft and surface vessels it will require in the future. Message 
to parents saving up for little junior's college education: invest in 
the stock of the company that makes C-130s; the United States Congress 
will ensure your offsprinq never need student loans.
  Compared to the $460 million for the C-130s, it hardly seems worth it 
to mention the $45 million added to this emergency spending measure for 
yet another Gulfstream jet, other than to point out that it is 
manufactured in the same state as the C-130s. The decision to include 
funding for this jet, intended for the Coast Guard commandant, an 
emergency spending bill lends further credence to the notion that our 
interest in the integrity of the budget process is nonexistent.
  It was reassuring that a compromise was reached on the issue of 
helicopters for Colombia. It is extremely unfortunate, however, that an 
issue of life and death for Colombian soldiers being sent into combat 
to fight well-armed drug traffickers and the 15,000-strong guerrilla 
army that protects them was predicated upon parochial considerations. 
Valid operational reasons existed for the decision by the Department of 
Defense and the Colombian Government to request Blackhawk helicopters, 
and the Senate's decision to substitute those Blackhawks for Huey IIs 
was among the more morally questionable actions I have witnessed within 
the narrow realm of budgetary decision-making by Congress.
  Specific to the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001, it continues to strain credibility to peruse this 
legislation and believe that considerations other than pork were at 
play. How else to explain the millions of dollars added to this bill 
for National Guard Armories, which, in a typically Orwellian gesture, 
are now referred to as ``Readiness Centers?'' Whether the $6.4 million 
added for a new dining facility at Sheppard Air Force Base: the $12 
million for a new fitness center at Langley Air Force Base; the $5.8 
million for a joint personnel training center at Fairchild Air Force 
Base, Alaska; the $3.5 million added for an indoor rifle range and $1.8 
million for a religious ministry facility at the Naval Reserve Station 
in Fort Worth, Texas; the $4 million added for the New Hampshire Air 
National Guard Pease International Trade Port; the $4 million for a 
Kentucky National Guard parking structure; and the $14 million added 
for New York National Guard facilities all constitute vital spending 
initiatives is highly questionable.

  There are one-and-a-half billion dollars worth of projects added to 
this bill at member request. Not all of them, in particular family 
housing projects, warrant criticism or skepticism. There are important 
quality of life issues involved here. The public should be under no 
illusions, however, that over a billion dollars was added to this bill 
solely as a manifestation of Congress' unrestrained pursuit of pork.
  As mentioned, far more disturbing than the pork added to the military 
construction bill is the damage done to the integrity of the budget 
process by the abuse of the concept of emergency spending. Permit me to 
quote from the opening sentence from the Washington Post of June 29 
with regard to this bill: ``Republicans are trying to grease the skids 
for passage of a large emergency spending bill for Colombia and Kosovo 
with $200 million of `special projects' for members, and one of the 
biggest winners is a renegade Democrat being courted by the GOP.''

[[Page S6463]]

  That, Mr. President, summarizes the process pretty well. Military 
readiness and the situation in Colombia are not in and of themselves 
important enough to warrant support for this spending bill. It seems 
this Senate must have its pork. It must have its $25 million for a 
Customs Service training facility at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, a 
site most certainly chosen for its bucolic charm and operational 
attributes rather than for parochial reasons. It must have its $225,000 
for the Nebraska State Patrol Digital Distance Learning project. It 
must have over $3 million earmarked for anti-doping activities at the 
2002 Olympics, in addition to the $8 million for Defense Department 
support of these essential national security activities on the ski 
slopes of Utah. It must have $300,000 for Indian tribes in North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Minnesota. The hard-working taxpayers 
of America deserve better.
  Those of us who had the misfortune of witnessing one of the most 
disgraceful and blatant explosions of pork-barrel spending in the 
annals of modern American parliamentary history, the ISTEA bill of 
1998, should be astounded to see the projects funded in this emergency 
spending bill:
  $1.2 million for the Paso Del Norte International Bridge in Texas;
  $9 million for the US 82 Mississippi River Bridge in Mississippi;
  $2 million for the Union Village/Cambridge Junction bridges in 
Vermont;
  $5 million for the Naheola Bridge in Alabama;
  $3 million for the Hoover Dam Bypass in Arizona and Nevada;
  $3 million for the Witt-Penn Bridge in New Jersey; and
  $12 million for the Florida Memorial Bridge in Florida.
  These, Mr. President, are but the tip of the iceberg--an iceberg that 
shall not stand in the way of the icebreaker added to this bill, albeit 
for more credible reasons than the vast majority of member add-ons.
  As I stated earlier, tracking the process by which the bill came 
before us was a truly Byzantine experience. The addition of $600,000 
for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System in South Dakota serves as 
sort of a tribute to the unusual path down which this legislation has 
traveled. The most skilled legislative adventurers would be hard 
pressed to follow the trail this bill followed before arriving at its 
destination here on the floor of the Senate.
  I cannot emphasize enough the significance of piling billions of 
dollars in pork and unrequested earmarks into a bill that was 
categorized for budgetary purposes as ``emergency.'' Consider the 
distinction between emergency spending essential for the preservation 
of liberty and to deal with genuine emergencies that cannot wait for 
the usual annual appropriations process, and the manner in which 
Congress abuses that concept and undermines the integrity of the 
budgeting process. When I review an emergency spending measure and read 
earmarks like $2.2 million for the Anchorage, Alaska Senior Center; 
$500,000 for the Shedd Aquarium/Brookfield Zoo for science education 
programs for local school students; $1 million for the Center for 
Research on Aging at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in 
Chicago; and $8 million for the City of Libby in Montana, plus another 
$3.5 million for the Saint John's Lutheran Hospital in Libby, I am more 
than a little perplexed about the propriety of our actions here.
  Is the American public expected to believe that a spending bill 
essential for national security should include emergency funding for 
Dungeness fishing vessel crew members, U.S. fish processors in Alaska, 
and the Buy N Pack Seafoods processor in Hoonah, Alaska, research and 
education relating to the North Pacific marine ecosystem, and the 
lease, operation and upgrading of facilities at the Alaska SeaLife 
Center, and the $7 million for observer coverage for the Hawaiian long-
line fishery and to study interaction with sea turtles in the North 
Pacific. Finally, and not to belabor the point, is the $1 million for 
the State of Alaska to develop a cooperative research plan to restore 
the crab fishery truly a national security imperative?
  When the bill was on the floor of the Senate, my friend and colleague 
from Texas, Senator Gramm, referred to the sadly typical smoke and 
mirrors budgeting gimmickrey pervasive in the legislation. I am always 
disturbed when such budgeting gimmicks designed to prevent Congress 
from complying with the revenue and spending levels agreed to in the 
Budget Resolution are employed. While I am grateful that a deal was 
struck by which they will be reversed in another bill, the use of such 
gimmicks is a betrayal of our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' 
dollars responsibly and enact laws and policies that reflect the best 
interests of all Americans. It is a betrayal of the public trust that 
is essential to a working democracy.
  The bill, as currently written and signed into law, waives the budget 
caps to allow for more discretionary spending. It also waived the 
firewall in the budget resolution between defense and nondefense 
spending on outlays. The end result would be that Congress would have 
the freedom to move the $2.6 billion the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee did not spend on much-needed readiness into non-defense 
spending.
  The recently-passed legislation further changes current law and 
shifts the payment date for SSI, the Supplemental Security Income 
program, from October back to September. What that would do is shift 
money into fiscal year 2000. In the process, it would allow $2.4 
billion more be spent in fiscal year 2001 by spending that same amount 
of money in the previous year. The legislation also includes the 
gimmick of moving the pay date for veterans' compensation and pensions 
from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2000. Both of these provisions are 
further examples of the irresponsible budget gimmickry that allows the 
Congress to spend more without any accountability. I am thankful that a 
commitment was made to reverse these decisions in subsequent 
legislation; I abhor the fact that they will almost certainly be used 
again in the future.
  To conclude, the Military Construction and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations bill passed prior to recess, and without members of the 
Senate having a realistic opportunity to review that multibillion 
dollar commitment, is a travesty, a thorough slap in the face of all 
Americans concerned about fiscal responsibility, national security, the 
scourge of drugs on our streets, and the integrity of the 
representation they send to Congress. We should be ashamed of ourselves 
for passing this bill. Unfortunately, shame continues to elude us, and 
the country, and our democracy, is poorer for that flaw in our 
collective character.

                          ____________________