[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 28566-28568]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
2559, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2559) making appropriations for military construction, family 
     housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and 
     for other purposes, having met have agreed to recommend and 
     do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
       That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an 
     amendment, signed by all of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in 
the Record of November 4, 2003.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 4 minutes, equally divided.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am pleased to present the fiscal 
year 2004 military construction appropriations conference report for 
the Senate's consideration. This bill provides $9.316 billion for 
military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure 
activities for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2004.
  The negotiations over this conference report were 
uncharacteristically long and difficult for a military construction 
bill. This difficulty stemmed from two sources. First, and quite 
simply, there is less money this year for military construction. The 
administration's request was $1.6 billion below the amount appropriated 
last year. Even with an allocation slightly above the President's 
request, this conference agreement provides $1.4 billion less than last 
year.
  Compounding this difficulty were two very different points of view 
about military construction on the part of the Senate and House this 
year. The administration is in the midst of the most sweeping 
restructuring of our overseas basing structure since the end of World 
War II. This restructuring will

[[Page 28567]]

involve the closure of hundreds of installations, the construction or 
expansion of perhaps dozens more, the return of significant numbers of 
U.S. troops to the continental United States, and major changes to the 
way our Nation stations and deploys its armed forces. This plan is 
still very much a work in progress. In testimony and briefings by 
Defense Department officials and military commanders this year--at this 
time--the scope, timing, and cost are not yet determined.
  In the face of this uncertainty, the Senate was unwilling to commit 
prematurely to all of the new construction proposed for U.S. facilities 
in Europe and Korea, and instead chose to shore up badly needed 
investment in U.S. military facilities in the United States.
  The House chose a different approach, voicing many of the same 
concerns as the Senate but agreeing nevertheless to fund most of the 
overseas construction. To pay for that construction the House made 
significant cuts to the President's priorities for domestic military 
construction spending, including nearly $50 million from already 
underfunded programs for the National Guard. These different priorities 
set the stage for the difficult conference we have just concluded.
  Fortunately, I believe we have crafted a conference agreement that 
accommodates the most pressing authorities of both chambers and the 
administration within the funding we were allocated. The Senate agreed 
to reinstate a number of projects in Europe for which our commander 
there, General Jones, made personal appeals. After hearing from General 
LaPorte, we also provided funding for two additional barracks projects 
in Korea on the condition that a facilities master plan and cost-
sharing arrangements with the Korean government are completed before 
construction on these projects begins. Funding for domestic projects 
was decreased somewhat but we were successful in reinstating $108 
million in cuts made by the House to the President's budget request, 
including over $42 million for sorely needed Guard projects. The 
conferees also agreed to create a commission that will study the 
structure of our overseas bases in light of changing political and 
military circumstances and provide Congress an independent assessment 
of our future basing requirements overseas.
  In short, the conference agreement represents what conference 
agreements usually do--a respectable compromise among competing 
priorities.
  I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the ranking member 
on the military construction appropriations subcommittee, Senator 
Dianne Feinstein of California. We have worked extraordinarily closely 
throughout this process--and through two supplemental appropriations 
bills passed this year--and I have appreciated her counsel as we have 
faced these difficult issues. Her staff, Christina Evans and B.G. 
Wright, worked hand in hand with my staff, Dennis Ward and his 
assistant, Sean Knowles. I don't think a better cross-party working 
relationship exists in the Senate. This truly has been bipartisan 
effort. They have worked together to make the very best military 
construction bill that could possibly be made.
  I thank Senator Feinstein for her engagement and willingness to work 
together for our military.
  I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2004 Military Construction 
appropriations conference report and recommend its adoption by the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the 
committee with whom I have had the pleasure of working now for a number 
of years. I want to say this: She has done a fine job. There was a very 
difficult conference situation. The House and the Senate bills were 
very different. In the first place, we received $1 billion less in 
allotment to work from; that is, 14 percent less. In the second place, 
the House bill went in one direction and our bill went in another. It 
is really thanks to the chairman for her very shrewd bargaining with 
the House that we have a bill and that we have a bill as good as this 
bill is.
  This is a difficult time. We try to do the most we can with barracks 
and schools and centers for our troops both in this country and abroad.
  I want to say to those Members who had adds and had to have those 
adds cut that I am very sorry. We had to reconcile the two bills, and 
that was very difficult.
  But Senator Hutchison did a super job. I thank her very much.
  At a time when American troops are continuing to fight the enemy in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, it is imperative that Congress do its part and 
provide the funds necessary to support the infrastructure requirements 
of our service members and their families.
  I wish we could do more. The 2004 military construction conference 
report provides $9.3 billion for a myriad of mission-critical and 
quality-of-life construction projects in the United States and 
overseas, including barracks, schools, hospitals, and family housing 
units. That is the good news. The bad news is that this conference 
report is more than $1 billion below the amount Congress appropriated 
for military construction last year. And yet, as old infrastructure 
continues to deteriorate and new missions require new facilities, the 
military's infrastructure requirements are growing, not declining.
  In the process of completing this bill, the Senate conferees had to 
balance a number of meritorious projects against available funds and 
military priorities, and we had to make some tough cuts. Because of the 
scarcity of resources made available by the administration for military 
construction, and the differing philosophies between the House and 
Senate military construction subcommittees, this has been an especially 
difficult year. However, the House and Senate conferees were able to 
bridge most of their differences and provide the best package possible 
under the circumstances, and I commend Senator Hutchison for her 
perseverance in achieving that goal.
  There are many good items in this legislation. The conference report 
provides more than $5 billion for military construction, including $730 
million for the Guard and Reserve components, nearly double what the 
President had requested. The bill includes $1.2 billion for barracks, 
$176 million for hospitals and medical facilities, and $3.8 billion for 
family housing construction and maintenance.
  The legislation also establishes an Overseas Basing Commission to 
assess the adequacy of U.S. military installations overseas and to 
review the Defense Department's planned restructuring of the deployment 
of U.S. forces overseas. This could not be a more timely initiative, 
given the Defense Department's plans to make sweeping changes in the 
U.S. military footprint in Europe and Korea.
  Overseas basing issues were among the most difficult that the 
conference had to deal with this year. In the middle of the budget 
cycle, the Defense Department announced a sweeping restructuring of 
U.S. installations in Europe and Korea. I support the Defense 
Department's review of our overseas installation requirements--it is 
probably long overdue--but there are many, many elements to a 
restructuring of the magnitude envisioned by the Secretary of Defense, 
and it is not something that should be rushed. Senator Hutchison and I 
have discussed this issue at length, and I believe we both have strong 
reservations about committing billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to a 
new overseas basing structure that is a radical departure from the 
existing footprint without first seeing a comprehensive plan for the 
redeployment of U.S. troops, and the impact it will have on 
installations here at home.
  Given the current precarious state of America's diplomatic relations 
with a number of our traditional allies, I also think the 
administration should redouble its efforts to work with governments in 
Europe and Korea to gain their support--both political and financial--
for such a massive reshuffling of U.S. bases before embarking on this 
effort.
  Even with those reservations, this conference report includes $354 
million for projects at enduring installations

[[Page 28568]]

in Europe, $169 million for the NATO Security Investment Program, which 
provides the U.S. share of funding for NATO construction projects, and 
$89 million for U.S. military projects in Korea.
  As I said before, I wish we had more resources to devote to 
infrastructure requirements for our military. The need is real, and I 
hope that the administration will request more money for military 
construction next year, so that we do not have to continue to juggle 
priorities and postpone funding urgently needed facilities.
  Again, I thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on this 
subcommittee, and I also thank the subcommittee staff, including 
Christina Evans and B.G. Wright of the minority staff, Dennis Ward and 
Sean Knowles of the majority staff, and Chris Thompson of my staff.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
2559, the 2004 Military Construction appropriations bill, provides $9.4 
billion in discretionary budget authority and $10.3 billion in 
discretionary outlays in fiscal year 2004 for Military Construction and 
Family Housing appropriations. The $10.3 billion in outlays includes 
outlays from previously enacted legislation.
  The bill is $112 million in budget authority and $38 million in 
outlays above the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. These totals result 
from the $112 million in non-emergency funds enacted in P.L. 108-106, 
the 2004 Iraq supplemental, that count against the bill's 302(b) 
allocation. The bill provides $193 million more in budget authority and 
$15 million more in outlays than the President's budget request. The 
bill provides $1.3 billion in budget authority less and $226 million in 
outlays more than the 2003 enacted level.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee 
scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 2559, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS, 2004.--SPENDING TOTALS--
                            CONFERENCE REPORT
                     [Fiscal Year 2004, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
             Category                purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report:\1\
    Budget authority.............        9,428            0        9,428
    Outlays......................       10,285            0       10,285
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.............        9,316            0        9,316
    Outlays......................       10,247            0       10,247
2003 level:
    Budget authority.............       10,751            0       10,751
    Outlays......................       10,059            0       10,059
President's request:
    Budget authority.............        9,235            0        9,235
    Outlays......................       10,270            0       10,270
House-passed bill:\1\
    Budget authority.............        9,308            0        9,308
    Outlays......................       10,320            0       10,320
Senate-passed bill:\1\
    Budget authority.............        9,308            0        9,308
    Outlays......................       10,311            0       10,311
 
  CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.............          112            0          112
    Outlays......................           38            0           38
2003 level:
    Budget authority.............       -1,323            0       -1,323
    Outlays......................          226            0          226
President's request:
    Budget authority.............          193            0          193
    Outlays......................           15            0           15
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............          120            0          120
    Outlays......................          -35            0          -35
Senate-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............          120            0          120
    Outlays......................          -26            0          -26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes $112 million in BA and $38 million in outlays of non-
  emergency spending (provided by the Emergency Supplemental for Iraq
  and Afghanistan, PL 108-106) that the President did not request and
  the Congress did not designate as a contingent emergency as is
  required by section 502(c) of H. Con. Res. 95, the 2004 Budget
  Resolution.
 
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I call the question and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 448 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Edwards
     Kerry
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________