[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 98 (Thursday, July 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6972-S6976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

  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]]

honored fashion, the Appropriations Committee continues to earmark 
projects under the heading ``Unspecified Minor Construction.'' 
According to Title 10, Section 2805 of the United States Code, these 
``military construction projects are intended solely to correct a 
deficiency that is life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-
threatening.'' However, I believe that certain earmarks in this 
Appropriations bill are in violation of this statute, including 
provisions that would provide:
  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 Facil5.1
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]]

Missouri:
  Army National Guard, Fort Leonard Wood: Aviation Support Facility14.8
  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 Stati10.6
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...............................10.2
South Dakota:
  Air Force: Ellsworth AFB Operations Facility.....................13.2
  Army National Guard, Camp Rapid: Barracks/Dining/Administration and 
    Parking, Phase I...............................................10.6
Texas:
  Navy: Ingleside Mine Warfare Training Center......................5.5
  Air Force: Goodfellow AFB: Wing Support Complex..................10.6
Utah, Air Force: Hill AFB: Consolidated Software Support Facility..16.5
Vermont, Army National Guard: South Burlington Readiness Center, Phase 
  I................................................................11.2
Virginia, Navy: Norfolk Naval Shipyard: Ship Component Service Faci16.8
Washington, Army National Guard: Spokane Readiness Center (Phase I)11.6
West Virginia, Air National Guard: Martinsburg Airbase Site Improvement 
  and Utilities....................................................12.2
Wyoming, Air Force: Warren AFB Stormwater Drainage System..........10.0
Worldwide Unspecified:
  Army: IBCT Transformation, various facilities...................100.0
  Air Force: C-17 Transformation, various facilities..............100.0
  Defense-Wide:
    Planning and Design:
      Tricare Management Activity...................................3.0
      Special Operations Command....................................0.1
      Undistributed.................................................8.6
    Base Realignment and Closure Account..........................100.0


                           Minor Construction

Alaska:
  Army:
    Fort Wainwright: Military Police Emergency Storage Facility.....1.5
    Fort Richardson: Military Police Emergency Vehicle Storage Facil1.5
  Army National Guard: Federal Scout Readiness Centers.................
Kansas, Air National Guard: Smoky Hill Range Threat Emitter System..1.0
Montana, Army National Guard: Fort Harrison Engineer Maintenance 
  Facility Construction.............................................1.5
Nevada, Navy: Fallon Naval Air Station: UAV Facility................1.5
New Mexico, Army: White Sands Missile Range: Kinetic Energy Missile 
  Complex...........................................................1.5
North Dakota, Army National Guard: Camp Grafton Ammunition Supply Point 
  Construction......................................................1.5
Ohio, Army National Guard: Chillicothe Barracks Construction........1.5
South Dakota, Army National Guard: Fort Meade Bachelor Quarters.....1.5
Texas:
  Army: Corpus Christi Army Depot: Training Facility................0.9
  Navy: Corpus Christi: Force Protection Facility...................1.5
  Air Force:
    Laughlin AFB: Railroad Crossing Gates...........................0.2
    Lackland AFB: Replace and Bury Electrical Infrastructure........0.9
  Air Force Reserve: Lackland AFB Warehouse Renovations.............0.8
Army National Guard Wide: Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 
  Teams Facilities..................................................2.5


                          Planning and Design

Alabama, Army National Guard: Haleyville Joint Readiness Center Desi1.1
Alaska:
  Army, Donnelly Training Area: Training & UAV Maintenance Support 
    Facility........................................................1.5
  Air Force, Elmendorf AFB: Wide-Body Aircraft Hangar...............2.7
  Army National Guard: Bethel Readiness Center Design...............0.5
  Air National Guard: Kulis ANG Base Pararescue Training Complex Des0.7
California:
  Navy: North Island Naval Air Station..............................0.4
  Air Force, Travis AFB: Replace C-5 Squadron Operations Facility/
    Aircraft Maintenance Facility...................................0.9
Connecticut, Army National Guard: New Haven Readiness Center Design.1.4
Delaware, Air Force, Dover AFB: Control Tower.......................0.7
Hawaii, Army National Guard: Barbers Point Naval Air Station Relocation 
  Design............................................................2.0
Massachusetts:
  Air Force, Otis ANG: Fire/Crash Rescue Station/Control Tower......1.7
  Army Reserve: Hanscom AFB Armed Forces Reserve Center Design......2.6
Mississippi, Army National Guard:
  Clarksdale Readiness Center Design................................0.3
  Gulfport Munitions Complex Design.................................0.7
Missouri:
  Army, Forest Leonard Wood: WMD First Responder Training Facility..0.5
  Army National Guard:
    St. Peters Readiness Center Design..............................0.3
    Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Depot Design.........1.2
Nevada:
  Army National Guard: Henderson Readiness Center Design............0.9
  Air National Guard: Reno Security Complex Design..................0.9
New York, Army National Guard: Fort Drum Equipment Maintenance Site 
  Design............................................................1.5
Pennsylvania, Army: Letterkenny Depot: Storage Igloo Upgrade........0.4
South Dakota, Army National Guard:
  Rapid City Readiness Center STARC Design..........................1.2
  Pierre Organizational Maintenance Shop Consolidation Design.......0.3
Texas:
  Army, Camp Bullis: Vehicle Maintenance Facility...................0.9
  Navy, NAS Kingsville: Replace Fuel Farm...........................1.0
  Air Force, Brooks AFB: Tri-Service Research Facility..............1.0
West Virginia, Air National Guard: Martinsburg Air National Guard Base, 
  C-5 Support Facilities Design.....................................3.0
Wisconsin, Army Reserve: Eau Claire Armed Forces Reserve Center Desi0.9
Total MILCON Members Add-Ons=
    $1.1 Billion
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that at a time when our defense 
dollars need to be spent efficiently, we now continue the pork-
barreling of the military construction appropriations bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the 2003 Military Construction 
Appropriations bill provides over $10 billion in funding for planning, 
design, construction, and improvements for military bases around the 
world. A long neglected priority, the bill would provide $4.2 billion 
for family housing, much of which is substandard right now. Many armed 
forces personnel have suffered a declining quality of life in recent 
years despite rising Pentagon budgets. The pressing needs of dedicated 
men and women in uniform and their families must be addressed, 
especially as they continue to be mobilized for duty in response to the 
attacks of September 11.
  I want to highlight two provisions in this bill that are of 
particular importance to my home State of Minnesota. For a very long 
time, I have said that there would be an increased reliance by the 
Defense Department on the National Guard as budget pressures and force 
structure realignments continued. Since the attacks on America on 
September 11, the men and women of the National Guard have flown air 
missions to secure our skies, and they have protected airports and 
other vulnerable public facilities. I am pleased that we were able to 
include in this bill $15 million for the Duluth Air National Guard Base 
for an airport maintenance facility at the 148th Fighter Wing, which 
will provide maintenance and repair of 15 F-16 fighter aircraft. 
Further, the bill contains $1.45 million for the Harden Naval Reserve 
Center in Duluth. I am pleased that these projects

[[Page S6975]]

are receiving the funds they deserve, and I appreciate the opportunity 
to work in this area with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, 
who, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, is especially 
attentive to such needs. The bill goes far in addressing many vital 
national needs, and I am voting for it today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking Republican on 
the committee that has the bill before us for military construction, 
and I am pleased to have worked with Senator Feinstein, chairman of the 
subcommittee, to bring out a bill that does address the priorities of 
the Defense Department.
  I noticed that the Senator from Arizona targeted the Appropriations 
Committee, saying that a large percentage of the Appropriations 
Committee were taken care of, as if this were some pork-barrel 
spending.
  The fact is, the Senate Armed Services Committee has authorized every 
project in this bill. We don't have projects in the appropriations bill 
that have not been authorized by a completely different committee that 
focuses totally on defense and has determined that these projects 
should be authorized.
  I am very pleased to support this bill. It provides new mission 
facilities for the Department of Defense consistent with the 
Department's request. The priorities are articulated by the military 
departments. It also enhances quality of life for servicemembers and 
their families--a commitment we made to these people who are 
representing our country and fighting for our freedom on the plains of 
Afghanistan and in Kuwait today, based there for us. We are going to 
take care of them. Finally, it makes a significant downpayment on 
renewing the Department of Defense aging infrastructure.
  Every project in the military construction appropriations bill is 
authorized in the Defense authorization bill, a completely separate 
bill. Two committees have looked at these priorities. Every project in 
the bill is on the Pentagon's future year defense plan, and every 
project the committee added was the base commander's highest priority.
  The committee added funds to the military construction bill because 
we were concerned with the sharp drop in funding, particularly for the 
Guard and Reserve forces. That is where much of the funding we have 
added is focused. Our Guard and Reserve forces are fighting side by 
side with our active-duty forces in Afghanistan and providing the bulk 
of our homeland security forces here at home.
  Adequate training and readiness facilities are essential for the 
Guard and Reserve, particularly during this time of increased demand on 
their skills and services. The bill provides greatly needed facilities 
for the Guard and Reserve and will help them prepare for and execute 
their missions.
  The bill also provides funding for two key transformation initiatives 
in support of President Bush's strategic vision for transforming the 
Department of Defense: $100 million for Army transformation, and $100 
million for Air Force mobility transformation.
  Earlier this year, both the Army and the Air Force identified 
unfunded transformation military construction requirements to the 
Congress. Many of these requirements were refined after development and 
presentation of the 2003 President's budget, so we added them because 
they are critical to the Army and the Air Force to make them more 
mobile and capable to face the 21st century battle conditions.
  The committee funded another initiative, the BRAC environmental 
cleanup initiative, which provides $100 million to accelerate the 
cleanup of dangerous environmental contaminants at closed and realigned 
bases throughout the Nation. Until the cleanup of these bases is 
completed, the properties cannot be returned to productive use in these 
communities.
  In my own State of Texas, we have terrible environmental bills, both 
at the former Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio and the former Navy 
Air Station in Dallas. There are reports like this across the country, 
and we are trying to address those concerns wherever they may be, so 
that these closed bases can be returned to productive use, as we have 
promised these communities they would be.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill. It is a bill that stresses the 
priorities of the Department of Defense and the President. It also has 
added areas that were not able to be added earlier because the 
Department of Defense wasn't ready, and we certainly added more than 
the President's budget allowed for Guard and Reserve units.
  I think the priorities are right, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill so we can get on with the business of revamping our aging 
military infrastructure and increasing the quality of life for those 
who are fighting for us as we speak on this floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as chairman of the subcommittee, I 
thank the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Texas, for her 
help on this bill. She has been a wonderful colleague with whom to 
work, and I am very grateful for that.
  Mr. President, essentially, this bill, as Senator Hutchison said, 
provides $10.6 billion in new budget authority. That is a tenth of 1 
percent over last year's appropriation. It is 10 percent over the 
President's appropriation. The reason for this is that the President 
cut the Guard and the Reserve 52 percent from last year's budget 
request. We do not believe they can sustain their infrastructure 
requirements with that kind of a funding shortfall.
  As Senator Hutchison mentioned, every project is in the 5-year 
defense plan. Every project has been authorized. Every project is the 
base commander's priority. With respect to the transformation 
initiative, we didn't decide the locations, the services decided the 
locations. Both the Army and the Air Force have identified the 
locations for their transformation initiatives. The Army involved 13 
active and Guard installations in six States, plus Germany. The Air 
Force's transformation involves 53 active, Guard, and Reserve bases in 
32 States, plus Germany, Japan, and Puerto Rico.
  The Appropriations Committee is not--and I stress that--attempting to 
divert funding from any of these planned locations or to influence 
where the money will go. These decisions have been and will be made by 
the services. The purpose of the transformation initiative is to 
accelerate the process. Infrastructure is a long lead time item, and we 
need to start investing more in this transformation infrastructure now 
to meet the service requirements.

  Essentially, 53 percent of this bill is for military construction for 
the active and Reserve components. It is $610 million for the Guard and 
Reserve, $1.1 billion for barracks, $26 million for child development, 
$137 million for medical facility, and $159 million for chemical 
demilitarization. The remaining 40 percent--$4.23 billion--is for 
family housing, including new housing, housing improvements, and 
operation and maintenance of units.
  At the BRAC cleanup, as Senator Hutchison stated, I can tell you that 
we have one closing base--McClellan Air Force Base--in northern 
California, where plutonium has badly contaminated the ground. Senator 
Hutchison, in her State, has toxic materials that are seeping into 
residential areas from Kelly Air Force Base. There is no question in 
either of our minds that the BRAC rounds we have completed were not 
sufficiently funded with environmental remediation dollars. The proof 
is in the pudding, and that pudding is that many bases still cannot be 
transitioned into productive civilian use because of the absence of the 
ability to clean them up.
  Mr. President, the MilCon bill is important to the men and women in 
uniform who serve our Nation at home and overseas. We believe it is a 
good bill, it is a bipartisan bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues 
to approve it.
  How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.

[[Page S6976]]

  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas, 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Feingold
     Kyl
     McCain

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The bill (H.R. 5011) was passed, as follows:
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized 
to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Bingaman) appointed Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reid, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Hutchison, 
Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Stevens conferees on the part 
of the Senate.

                          ____________________