[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7791-7792]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S. 
2521, which the clerk will report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2521) making appropriations for military 
     construction, family housing, and base realignment and 
     closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am reluctant to proceed on this bill, 
although I think we will hold it. My ranking member, Senator Murray 
from Washington, will not be back in town until 5 o'clock this 
afternoon. This was the weekend her son was married in Seattle. She is 
returning from her State. I have no comments to make. If Senators want 
to make comments on the bill, they are free to do so. In the meantime, 
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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. This bill contains almost $900 million in 
unrequested military construction projects.
  What makes this bill even more offensive than most pork-laden 
military construction bills is the fact that, while the Senate is 
willing to act swiftly to approve these pork-barrel projects, we have 
failed to act to end the disgraceful situation of more than 12,000 
military families forced to use food stamps to make ends meet. For the 
second year in a row, Congress is on the verge of spending hundreds of 
millions of dollars for purely parochial reasons, while rejecting a 
proposal that would cost just $6 million per year to take care of those 
military families most in need.
  I am appalled at the extraordinary and inexplicable resistance I have 
encountered to enacting legislation to get these brave young men and 
women and their families off food stamps. I am ashamed that the Senate 
would put hometown construction projects ahead of desperately needed 
relief for our most junior enlisted personnel.
  I appreciate the Senate's unanimous expression of support during 
consideration of the budget resolution for additional funding for food 
stamp relief in the defense budget, and I hope my colleagues will 
reiterate that support when I offer an amendment to the defense 
authorization bill to end the food stamp Army once and for all.
  Every year, I come to the Senate floor for the express purpose of 
highlighting 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 violates at least one, if not several, of the 
criteria set out several years ago to limit just this sort of wasteful 
spending.
  I will address the Kosovo language included in this bill at another 
time. Suffice to say for now that this language, grounded though it may 
be in an understandable frustration with the Administration and our 
allies' handling of that contingency, represents foreign policy making 
by Congress at its worst. This language, certain to prompt a veto of 
the bill, constitutes a highly questionable approach to solving the 
problem of burden-sharing and

[[Page 7792]]

sets a precedent that will damage our credibility abroad for years to 
come.
  Particularly objectionable, apart from the obvious funding issues 
already alluded to, is the addition to this bill of funding provisions 
and legislation having nothing to do with military construction and 
clearly not an emergency requiring immediate redress. In this regard, 
note must be made of Section 2109, which legislates a funding profile 
for a ship that has not been requested by the Navy and that cannot be 
built under the expedited process the ship's congressional sponsor 
seeks to impose. The $8 million added by the Appropriations Committee 
for the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, with the proviso that the 
funds be designated as an ``emergency requirement''--$8 million for the 
year 2002 Olympics designated as an ``emergency''? It continues to 
stagger the imagination. It compels a reference to the old Yogi Berra 
malapropism about experiencing deja vu all over again.
  I am also at a loss as to the rationale for including in this bill 
certain site-specific earmarks like the $300,000 to transfer excess 
housing to Indian tribes of North and South Dakota. And mention should 
be made of the usual Buy America restrictions included in the bill, 
with a notable exception when it is in the interest of important 
Members of Congress. Section 112, for example, prohibits the use of 
funds in the bill to award contracts worth more than $1 million to 
foreign contractors, except when a Marshallese contractor is seeking 
contracts at Kwajalein. The $7 million in the bill ``to ensure the 
availability of biometrics technologies'' will require more research.
  It will be very interesting to discover the motivation behind that 
little phrase.
  I would like to point out that the report on this bill was filed 
late, and thus the information available to Senators about specific 
projects included in this bill is somewhat limited.
  We get into an interesting habit of taking up legislation around here 
without a report available for the Members to read. If history is any 
guide, however, skepticism regarding many items added to this bill is 
warranted. Enough is known about the process by which appropriations 
bills are put together to justify continued outrage at abuse of the 
system to satisfy parochial considerations.
  Mr. President, the abuse of the Future Years Defense Plan as a 
criteria for adding projects to military spending bills is seriously 
out of control. Witness, for example, the number of projects in this 
bill that are in the fourth or fifth year of the FYDP and that have had 
no design work done. At least 17 such projects were added to the bill. 
While they are listed as executable, should we really be advancing 
unrequested projects by four and five years at the same time we 
continue to ignore the disgrace of 12,000 military families on food 
stamps?
  It was interesting to see, Mr. President, that the authorization bill 
for military construction includes a provision equating the term 
``Readiness Center'' to the term ``Armory.'' We all enjoy semantic 
gamesmanship now and again, but if we are going to continue to funnel 
money back home to National Guard Armories, let's just say so. Let's 
not exploit the legitimate issue of military readiness that we are 
finally focused on in order to conduct the same old pork-barrel 
spending practices that are as much a part of this institution as the 
collegial colloquialisms that characterize our demeanor on the Senate 
floor.
  There are 28 members of the Appropriations Committee. Only two do not 
have projects added to the appropriations bill. I wonder what happened 
to the other two. Perhaps the manager of the bill can tell us what 
occurred there.
  Those numbers, needless to say, go well beyond the realm of mere 
coincidence. Of 145 projects added to this bill, 111 are in states 
represented by Senators on the Appropriations Committee, totaling over 
$700 million. The $12 million added to the bill for the first phase of 
an access road in Hawaii, the $25 million added for a Joint Mobility 
Complex in Alaska, the $4 million added for Army National Guard parking 
in Kentucky, the $14 million added for a fuel cell maintenance dock in 
Louisiana, the $4.5 million added for an Army National Guard 
administration building in Nevada, the $10 million added for an Army 
National Guard Readiness Center (read: Armory) in North Dakota, the $10 
million added for the first phase of a base civil engineer complex in 
South Dakota, and the $1.4 million for channel dredging in Mississippi, 
are just a handful of the projects added by members that were not in 
the budget request. Forts Richardson and Wainwright, both in Alaska, 
fared particularly well, the latter receiving $300,000 for a trail and 
$900,000 for a biathlon live fire course--which could only be 
considered a close cousin to the previously mentioned money for the 
upcoming Winter Olympics.
  Yet, many of the Senators whose projects are included in this bill 
continue to oppose spending just $6 million a year to remove military 
families from the rolls of those eligible for food stamps. If I sound 
repetitive, Mr. President, it is out of frustration--frustration at the 
ability of my colleagues to close their eyes to the disgraceful plight 
of thousands of our enlisted personnel who don't make enough money to 
feed themselves and their families.
  I believe I have made my point. As usual, I labor under no illusions 
regarding the impact my comments will have on the way we do business 
here. I have in the past attempted legislative recourse to pork-barrel 
spending, and I will do so again. But the history of votes on such 
efforts causes me to exercise that right sparingly. My self-restraint 
is simply an acknowledgment that I represent a small minority of this 
body. Wasteful and unnecessary spending continues because most Members 
of Congress truly believe that it is one of their primary reasons for 
being here. I submit, Mr. President, that a wide line exists between 
serving one's constituents in the context of our nation's best 
interests and simply funneling money back home because that's how we 
remind our constituents to vote for us again.
  About 2 weeks ago, there was a study completed concerning the 
deplorable state of the U.S. Army. More captains are leaving the U.S. 
Army than at anytime in history. We will shortly have a Senate 
authorization bill, as well as this and other appropriations bills. 
They don't address this problem. I can guarantee those captains aren't 
leaving the Army because they need $12 million for the first phase of 
an access road in Hawaii, or $25 million for a joint mobility complex 
in Alaska, or $4 million for Army National Guard parking in Kentucky.
  If the Republican leadership and the chairmen of these committees 
continue to spend taxpayers' dollars in this profligate manner, sooner 
or later the American people will repudiate those actions. I hope it 
will be sooner rather than later.
  The thing that is particularly appalling to me is that this 
appropriations profligate spending of unauthorized, unnecessary, 
wasteful pork barrel spending continues at a greater rate every year 
than the previous year. It will stop sooner or later. I believe it will 
stop sooner because this bill is a classic example of the abrogation of 
our responsibilities to average taxpayers, those who are not 
represented here in Washington, DC.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________