[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3576-S3600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1995
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to consideration of H.R. 889 which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 889) making emergency supplemental
appropriations and rescissions to preserve and enhance the
military readiness for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995 and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriations, with
amendments; as follows:
(The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface
brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown in
italic.)
H.R. 889
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, [That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide emergency
supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense to
preserve and enhance military readiness for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:
[TITLE I
[EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
[DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
[MILITARY PERSONNEL
[Military Personnel, Army
[For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army,''
$69,300,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
[[Page S3577]] Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
[Military Personnel, Navy
[For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy,''
$49,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Military Personnel, Marine Corps
[For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps,'' $10,400,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Military Personnel, Air Force
[For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force,'' $71,700,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Reserve Personnel, Navy
[For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy,''
$4,600,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[Operation and Maintenance, Army
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army,'' $958,600,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Navy
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy,'' $347,600,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps,'' $38,000,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force,'' $888,700,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide,'' $43,200,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy Reserve,'' $6,400,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[PROCUREMENT
[Other Procurement, Army
[For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army,''
$28,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997:
Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
[Other Procurement, Air Force
[For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air
Force,'' $8,100,000, to remain available until September 30,
1997: Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
[OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
[Defense Health Program
[For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program,''
$14,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[TITLE II
[RESCINDING CERTAIN BUDGET AUTHORITY
[DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
[OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $15,000,000 are rescinded.
[Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $18,800,000 are rescinded.
[Environmental Restoration, Defense
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $150,000,000 are rescinded.
[Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $80,000,000 are rescinded.
[PROCUREMENT
[Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
[(rescissions)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $15,000,000 are rescinded.
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $71,400,000 are rescinded.
[Missile Procurement, Air Force
[(rescissions)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-396, $33,000,000 are rescinded.
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $86,200,000 are rescinded.
[National Guard and Reserve Equipment
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $30,000,000 are rescinded.
[Defense Production Act Purchases
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $100,000,000 are rescinded.
[RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
[Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
[(rescissions)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $28,300,000 are rescinded.
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $19,700,000 are rescinded.
[Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
[(rescissions)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $1,200,000 are rescinded.
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $58,900,000 are rescinded.
[Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
[(rescissions)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $93,800,000 are rescinded.
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $75,800,000 are rescinded.
[Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
[(rescissions)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-139, $77,000,000 are rescinded.
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-335, $491,600,000 are rescinded.
[RELATED AGENCIES
[National Security Education Trust Fund
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-172, Public Law 103-50, Public Law 103-139, and
Public Law 103-335, $161,287,000 are rescinded: Provided,
That the balance of funds in the National Security Education
Trust Fund (established pursuant to section 804 of the David
L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C.
1904)), other than such amount as is necessary for
obligations made before the date of the enactment of this
Act, is hereby reduced to zero: Provided further, That no
outlay may be made from the Fund after the date of the
enactment of this Act other than to liquidate an obligation
made before such date and upon liquidation of all such
obligations made before such date, the Fund shall be closed:
Provided further, That no obligation may be made from the
Fund after the date of the enactment of this Act.
[TITLE III
[ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO FURTHER ENHANCE
READINESS
[DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
[MILITARY PERSONNEL
[Military Personnel, Army
[For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army,''
$75,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Military Personnel, Navy
[For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy,''
$68,200,000: Provided, That
[[Page S3578]] such amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
[Military Personnel, Marine Corps
[For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps,'' $3,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated
by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Military Personnel, Air Force
[For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force,'' $70,400,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Reserve Personnel, Army
[For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army,''
$6,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Reserve Personnel, Navy
[For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy,''
$5,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
[For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Marine
Corps,'' $1,300,000: Provided, That such amount is designated
by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Reserve Personnel, Air Force
[For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Air
Force,'' $2,800,000: Provided, That such amount is designated
by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[National Guard Personnel, Army
[For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel,
Army,'' $11,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated
by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[National Guard Personnel, Air Force
[For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel,
Air Force,'' $5,000,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[Operation and Maintenance, Army
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army,'' $133,000,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Navy
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy,'' $107,000,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps,'' $46,000,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force,'' $80,400,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army Reserve,'' $13,000,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy Reserve,'' $18,000,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps Reserve,'' $1,000,000: Provided, That such
amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force Reserve,'' $2,600,000: Provided, That such amount
is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army National Guard,'' $10,000,000: Provided, That such
amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
[For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air National Guard,'' $10,000,000: Provided, That such amount
is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
[TITLE IV
[GENERAL PROVISIONS
[Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
[Sec. 402. Notwithstanding sections 607 and 630 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2357, 2390) and
sections 2608 and 2350j of title 10, United States Code, all
funds received by the United States as reimbursement for
expenses for which funds are provided in this Act shall be
deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.]
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide
supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other
purposes, namely:
TITLE I
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$35,400,000.
Military Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$49,500,000.
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps'', $10,400,000.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $37,400,000.
Reserve Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'',
$4,600,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $636,900,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $284,100,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps'', $27,700,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $785,800,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $43,200,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy Reserve'', $6,400,000.
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Defense Health Program
For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'',
$14,000,000.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 102. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for the pay of
civilian personnel may be used, without regard to the time
limitations specified in section 5523(a) of title 5, United
States Code, for payments under the provisions of section
5523 of title 5, United States Code, in the case of
employees, or an employee's dependents or immediate family,
evacuated from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the August
26, 1994 order of the Secretary of Defense.
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Sec. 103. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act, $28,297,000 is hereby
appropriated to the Department of Defense and shall be
available only for transfer to the United States Coast Guard
to cover the incremental operating costs associated with
Operations Able Manner, Able Vigil, Restore Democracy, and
Support Democracy: Provided, That such amount shall remain
available for obligation until September 30, 1996.
[[Page S3579]] Sec. 104. (a) Section 8106A of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law
103-335), is amended by striking out the last proviso and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``: Provided
further, That if, after September 30, 1994, a member of the
Armed Forces (other than the Coast Guard) is approved for
release from active duty or full-time National Guard duty and
that person subsequently becomes employed in a position of
civilian employment in the Department of Defense within 180
days after the release from active duty or full-time National
Guard duty, then that person is not eligible for payments
under a Special Separation Benefits program (under section
1174a of title 10, United States Code) or a Voluntary
Separation Incentive program (under section 1175 of title 10,
United States Code) by reason of the release from active duty
or full-time National Guard duty, and the person shall
reimburse the United States the total amount, if any, paid
such person under the program before the employment begins''.
(b) Appropriations available to the Department of Defense
for fiscal year 1995 may be obligated for making payments
under sections 1174a and 1175 of title 10, United States
Code.
(c) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective
as of September 30, 1994.
Sec. 105. Subsection 8054(g) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-335), is amended to
read as follows: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of the amounts available to the Department of Defense
during fiscal year 1995, not more than $1,252,650,000 may be
obligated for financing activities of defense FFRDCs:
Provided, That, in addition to any other reductions required
by this section, the total amount appropriated in title IV of
this Act is hereby reduced by $200,000,000 to reflect the
funding ceiling contained in this subsection and to reflect
further reductions in amounts available to the Department of
Defense to finance activities carried out by defense FFRDCs
and other entities providing consulting services, studies and
analyses, systems engineering and technical assistance, and
technical, engineering and management support.''.
(RESCISSIONS)
Sec. 106. Of the funds provided in Department of Defense
Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby rescinded
from the following accounts in the specified amounts:
Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $16,300,000;
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, $2,000,000;
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, $90,000,000;
Environmental Restoration, Defense, $300,000,000;
Aircraft Procurement, Army, 1995/1997, $77,611,000;
Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 1993/1995, $85,000,000;
Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 1995/1997, $89,320,000;
Other Procurement, Army, 1995/1997, $46,900,000;
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1995/1999, $26,600,000;
Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1993/1995, $33,000,000;
Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1994/1996, $86,184,000;
Other Procurement, Air Force, 1995/1997, $6,100,000;
Procurement, Defense-Wide, 1995/1997, $65,000,000;
Defense Production Act, $100,000,000;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 1995/
1996, $38,300,000;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 1995/
1996, $59,600,000;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force,
1994/1995, $81,100,000;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force,
1995/1996, $226,900,000;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide,
1994/1995, $77,000,000;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide,
1995/1996, $351,000,000.
(RESCISSION)
Sec. 107. Of the funds made available for the National
Security Education Trust Fund in Public Law 102-172,
$150,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That the balance of
funds in the National Security Education Trust Fund
(established pursuant to section 804 of Public Law 102-183
(50 U.S.C. 1904)), other than such amounts as are necessary
for liquidation of obligations made before the date of the
enactment of this Act, is hereby reduced to $8,500,000:
Provided further, That upon liquidation of all such
obligations and the $8,500,000 in the preceding proviso, the
Fund shall be closed.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 108. Section 8005 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-335; 108 Stat.
2617), is amended by striking out ``$2,000,000,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$1,750,000,000''.
SEC. 109. REPORT ON COST AND SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES IN HAITI.
(a) Requirement.--None of the funds appropriated by this
Act or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense
may be expended for operations or activities of the Armed
Forces in and around Haiti sixty days after enactment of this
Act, unless the President submits to Congress the report
described in subsection (b).
(b) Report Elements.--The report referred to in subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) A detailed description of the estimated cumulative
incremental cost of all United States activities subsequent
to September 30, 1993, in and around Haiti, including but not
limited to--
(A) the cost of all deployments of United States Armed
Forces and Coast Guard personnel, training, exercises,
mobilization, and preparation activities, including the
preparation of police and military units of the other nations
of the multinational force involved in enforcement of
sanctions, limits on migration, establishment and maintenance
of migrant facilities at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and
all other activities relating to operations in and around
Haiti; and
(B) the costs of all other activities relating to United
States policy toward Haiti, including humanitarian and
development assistance, reconstruction, balance of payments
and economic support, assistance provided to reduce or
eliminate all arrearages owed to International Financial
Institutions, all rescheduling or forgiveness of United
States bilateral and multilateral debt, aid and other
financial assistance, all in-kind contributions, and all
other costs to the United States Government.
(2) A detailed accounting of the source of funds obligated
or expended to meet the costs described in paragraph (1),
including--
(A) in the case of funds expended from the Department of
Defense budget, a breakdown by military service or defense
agency, line item, and program; and
(B) in the case of funds expended from the budgets of
departments and agencies other than the Department of
Defense, by department or agency and program.
[TITLE V]
TITLE II
RESCISSIONS
The following rescissions of budget authority are made,
namely:
CHAPTER I
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
immigration emergency fund
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317, [$70,000,000] $50,000,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
industrial technology services
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317 for the Advanced Technology Program, $107,000,000
are rescinded.
Economic Development Administration
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
(RESCISSION)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317, $20,000,000 are rescinded.
CHAPTER II
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-316 and prior years' Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Acts, $100,000,000 are rescinded.
CHAPTER III
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES
MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
funds appropriated to the president
International Financial Institutions
contribution to the african development fund
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-306, $62,014,000 are rescinded.
BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
funds appropriated to the president
Agency for International Development
[assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-87 for support of an officer resettlement program in
Russia as described in section 560(a)(5), $110,000,000 are
rescinded.]
DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR AFRICA
(RESCISSION)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-87 and Public Law 103-306, $110,000,000 are
rescinded.
CHAPTER IV
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
clean coal technology
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading for
obligation in fiscal year 1996, $50,000,000 are rescinded and
of the funds made available under this heading for obligation
in fiscal year 1997, $150,000,000 are rescinded: Provided,
That funds made available
[[Page S3580]] in previous appropriations Acts shall be
available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate
request for proposal under which the project was selected.
CHAPTER V
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
training and employment services
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-333 for carrying out title II, part C of the Job
Training Partnership Act, $200,000,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[School Improvement Programs
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-333 for new education infrastructure improvement
grants, $100,000,000 are rescinded.]
STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
(RESCISSION)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-112, $100,000,000 made available for title IV, part
A, subpart 1 of the Higher Education Act are rescinded.
CHAPTER VI
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Facilities and Equipment
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
Of the available balances under this heading that remain
unobligated for the ``advanced automation system'',
$35,000,000 are rescinded.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Federal-Aid Highways
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
Of the available contract authority balances under this
heading in Public Law 97-424, $13,340,000 are rescinded; and
of the available balances under this heading in Public Law
100-17, $120,000,000 are rescinded.
Miscellaneous Highway Demonstration Projects
(RESCISSION)
Of the available appropriated balances provided in Public
Law 93-87; Public Law 98-8; Public Law 98-473; and Public Law
100-71, $12,004,450 are rescinded.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Local Rail Freight Assistance
(rescission)
Of the available balances under this heading, [$13,126,000]
$6,608,000 are rescinded.
[Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-331, $40,000,000 are rescinded.]
CHAPTER VII
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
[INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
[National Aeronautics and Space Administration
[national aeronautical facilities
[(rescission)
[Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-327, for construction of wind tunnels, $400,000,000
are rescinded.]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
annual contributions for assisted housing
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-327 and any unobligated balances from funds
appropriated under this heading in prior years, $400,000,000
are rescinded from amounts available for the development or
acquisition costs of public housing.
[This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescissions for the Department of Defense
to Preserve and Enhance Military Readiness Act of 1995''.]
This Act may be cited as the ``Supplemental Appropriations
and Rescissions Act, 1995''.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 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. HATFIELD. 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. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate now turns to consideration of
H.R. 889, making fiscal year 1995 supplemental appropriations for the
Department of Defense, and rescinding appropriations for defense and
nondefense programs. The Committee on Appropriations met last Thursday
on this measure, and reported it with amendments by a unanimous vote of
28-0.
The bill recommended by the committee contains two titles. The first
title provides a total of $1,935,400,000 in supplemental appropriations
for the Department of Defense. These appropriations are recommended in
response to a request from the President for $2,538,700,000 to
replenish accounts depleted by unbudgeted operations in and around
Haiti, Cuba, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, and Korea. Guided by the
recommendations of our defense subcommittee, the committee proposes a
reduction from the President's request for defense. We believe that we
have addressed the immediate concerns of the Department of Defense
regarding operational readiness, and are prepared to consider the other
readiness issues raised by the Department in connection with the fiscal
year 1996 defense appropriations bill.
The committee has also recommended rescissions in prior
appropriations for defense in order to offset the additional spending
recommended. The President requested appropriations with an emergency
designation under the terms of the Budget Enforcement Act. With this
designation, funds provided would have been in addition to those set by
the domestic discretionary caps. The committee believes it is
preferable to offset spending wherever and whenever possible, so that
the deficit is not increased.
Senator Stevens, the chairman of our Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, and the ranking Member of that committee, former chairman
Daniel Inouye, will discuss the specifics of the supplemental
appropriations and rescissions in title I as we proceed with the debate
on this measure.
The second title of the bill as recommended would rescind a total of
$1,535,966,450 in appropriations for nondefense programs. The other
body recommended rescissions of slightly more than $1.4 billion in
nondefense programs in order to partially offset the costs of their
recommended supplementals for defense. Our committee fully offset
defense supplementals with rescissions in lower priority defense
programs. Our nondefense rescissions are solely intended to achieve
reductions in Federal spending this fiscal year.
Mr. President, I believe, as we have researched this, that this is
the first time in the history of the Appropriations Committee where a
rescission package was identified as an offset and as a deduction from
the current deficit. I think that is worthy to take note.
Mr. President, that summarizes the recommendations of the committee.
They are discussed in greater detail in our report which is Senate
report 104-12 which was received last Friday and available to all
Members.
I am now prepared to yield the floor for any opening remarks that the
ranking member, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
Senator Byrd, wishes to make. Then we will seek to adopt the committee
amendments, and proceed with consideration of the bill and entertaining
any amendments that Members may wish to offer at this time.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Hatfield, for
his statement which is complete and thorough enough in itself without
any additional words on my part. But I do support the committee's
recommendations on H.R. 889, as reported by Senator Hatfield.
H.R. 889, as reported, contains recommendations totaling just over
$1.9 billion to restore readiness funds to the Department of Defense.
These funds were used for unforeseen international operations such as
in Haiti, in the Middle East, Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia.
It is my understanding that the Department of Defense needs these
funds by the end of March. The committee's recommended appropriations
are approximately $600 million less than requested by the President and
$1.2 billion below the House bill. Furthermore, and most importantly,
the committee's recommendations include sufficient Department of
Defense rescissions to fully offset both the budget authority and the
outlays of these defense appropriations.
I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, Mr. Stevens, and
[[Page S3581]] the distinguished ranking member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, for their able efforts in
finding these offsets.
In addition, title II of the bill contains rescissions from a number
of nondefense appropriations totaling over $1.5 billion in additional
spending cuts.
I compliment the chairman of the committee, Mr. Hatfield, who is a
former chairman of the committee, former ranking member, and again
chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his expeditious handling
of this important measure, and I urge Senators on both sides to support
the committee's recommendations.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as we now proceed, I would seek
unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered, and
agreed to, en bloc; that the bill, as amended, be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment; and, that no points
of order be waived thereon by reason of this agreement.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe a unanimous-consent request is
pending. Is that the order of business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, the first title to this supplemental
appropriations bill addresses two components of our defense financing.
First, it provides $1.96 billion to ensure military readiness through
the remainder of this year. Second, it proposes $1.96 billion in
rescissions to fully offset the new budget authority and outlays for
1995.
We received the administration's request and we scrubbed it a little
bit, and we recommended that $600 million be deleted from the amounts
proposed by the House in accordance with the request of the
administration.
These come in three categories. The request proposed advance funding
of reimbursements from Kuwait and the United Nations. In two instances,
we spent defense money already appropriated for other purposes for the
purpose of sending troops to Kuwait or to assist in support of the
United Nations in peacekeeping activities. I believe we should rely on
our allies and on the United Nations to fulfill their commitments, and
that we need not put up taxpayers' money in advance of the receipt of
the payment that they are already committed to pay to us.
The request proposed $70 million in military construction and
facility upgrades at Guantanamo Bay naval station to support Cuban
refugees now interned at that installation. Now, here again, Mr.
President, together with some of our staff, I journeyed to Guantanamo
Bay to look at the situation and I am convinced that the amounts that
have been requested should await a total congressional assessment on
the policy of the refugee internment camp at Guantanamo Bay. I believe
that can be addressed in the 1996 defense and military construction
bills. Those may not be decisions to be made in the appropriations
process. They may be made by the Armed Services Committee in its
deliberations and recommendations to the Senate and to the Congress as
a whole.
Finally, several amounts were proposed that were not justified as
emergencies or were unrelated to the contingency operations in Cuba,
Haiti, Bosnia, and Kuwait. Many of those also can and should be
addressed through the normal reprogramming process of the Department.
We, as a nation, face a crisis in military readiness because the
administration spent money on contingency operations in excess of
amounts provided by Congress.
The 1995 defense appropriations bill included many increases in the
budget for readiness, training, recruiting, and maintenance of
facilities in military housing. These are the very priorities that were
put at risk by the President's decision to engage in operations in
Bosnia, Haiti, Kuwait, and Rwanda without approval and support of
funding for those activities by the Congress. The President did not
come to the Congress in advance of these deployments to seek funding or
to propose offsets in existing authorizations.
Instead, money provided by the Congress for training, logistic
support, and personnel, were diverted to these accounts. This practice
is in stark contrast to how the Congress and the White House approached
the Persian Gulf war. As we proceed through our review of the
Department's 1996 budget, I believe we must address the fiscal controls
that permitted the administration to delete vital readiness accounts
early in the year without the explicit consent of the Congress.
As I said before, it is my understanding that that may come from the
Armed Services Committee. I know that some of my colleagues, including
my fellow Senator from Alaska and the distinguished chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee will offer amendments to tighten controls
on DOD consultation with the Congress. Members of the committee
discussed at length the issue of offsetting the new spending in this
bill and the precedent set for emergencies.
While the military requirements are urgent, they can be met by
reductions to programs that Congress might have reduced if we had known
the cost of the contingency operations to begin with.
The current deficit crisis makes it necessary that the amounts in
this bill be fully offset. That is the judgment of our committee. That
presents the committee with only hard choices, especially when the
choices have to be made this late in the year. That simply means that
we would have a lot more flexibility in the beginning of the fiscal
year to eliminate some accounts than we do now because many of the
accounts have already been spent out to the point where it is not
possible to include them in the readjustments made in this bill.
In general, the recommendations before the committee reflect cuts in
programs where spending can be controlled. Many of the programs we seek
to reduce have merit, Mr. President, great merit. We have provided
funding for these programs in the past and even in this current fiscal
year.
I want to tell the Senate that I am confident that Congress will
revisit some of these in the 1996 bill. But at the present time we have
no alternative to find some source to obtain the funds to put back into
the training accounts so training can be continued. There is a
timeframe involved. It must be done so the moneys are available no
later than the end of April. We hope that they will be available by
April 1.
We have made reductions to the TRP account, environmental and defense
conversion accounts. These reflect the availability of funds, and they
reflect to a certain extent a change of direction for the programs, but
basically it is because that is where the money is that has not been
expended in this fiscal year. To the extent that any funds remain
available for the TRP in the future, I believe they must be
specifically directed and identified military priorities.
The committee proposal strikes a fair balance to proceed to
conference with the House, and I would urge Members of the Senate on
both sides of the aisle and particularly on both sides of the TRP
debate, to endorse the level that is in this bill because it is
different from that in the House.
I believe I was the originator of the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program but I viewed with increasing alarm the steady
increase in spending in that program with little to show for it.
Despite the progress in that fund, the Department of Defense still
spends only about 50 percent of the amounts in the environmental
restoration account for cleanup activities. Almost 50 percent now goes
for studies, plans, and legal fees. In comparison, when we build new
facilities, the cost for those is about 6 to 7 percent. Only 6 to 7
percent of the funding goes for design, planning and litigation in the
planning and building of new facilities.
Now, our cut does not impact any funds provided to meet environmental
hazards at bases identified for closure in the 1988, 1991, and 1993
BRAC rounds.
[[Page S3582]] Those funds are appropriated separately in the military
construction bill and were not addressed by this bill.
We do face another base closing round this year. I know that,
recognizing that two Alaska bases are on the list to be closed: Adak
naval station, and Fort Greely at Big Delta, AK. I am sensitive to the
defense conversion and transition issues.
Amounts provided in recent bills have gone well beyond the original
goals, however, of those programs as they were established when the
defense drawdown defense following the gulf wars.
In particular, the cuts proposed by the committees address areas
where the Congress has significantly earmarked funds for specific
projects. While not canceling or terminating any one project, the
Secretary will have to substantially scale back spending in this area.
Again, that will have to be done because that is where the money is. If
we have to find almost $2 billion in these accounts at this time, we
have to find accounts where the remaining balance will justify taking
some of the money out and still leaving the program operable for the
remainder of the year. Spending to ease the impact of these defense
cutbacks cannot come at the significant loss of immediate military
readiness. However, I assure all interested Members that we want to
work to ensure the highest priority programs continue to be adequately
funded.
Most of the program reductions proposed in the rescission package
that we present to the Senate reflect fact-of-life program changes. For
instance, the Department terminated the TSSAM missile leaving funds
that were appropriated for that project available for rescission. We
intend to continue to work with the Air Force to determine what may be
the best estimate of amounts available to cut in this area in the
conference.
I also want to commend the efforts of Lt. Gen. Dick Hawley and Ms.
Darlene Druyun for their efforts to expedite the termination process on
the TSSAM missile system, and they are minimizing the cost of that
termination to the taxpayers.
Congress also funded six new AH-64 Apache helicopters for 1995 to
assure no break in production as we move to the Longbow version of that
aircraft. However, new foreign sales have developed, and the Army has
indicated that those funds we appropriated for 1995 are not required
for new aircraft procurement this year. In conference, we intend to
look at Army proposals to shift some of the funding in that account to
accelerate the Longbow Program.
This committee also initiated the Arms Program to preserve the
industrial base for ammunition production. The cut we have made
reflects the amount to expire at the end of this year. The Army has not
accounted in the 1996 budget for funds necessary to meet the ammunition
stockpile and training requirements, and we will want to move some
accounts around to assure we have the necessary amounts for the 1996
bill.
Finally, the committee has strongly supported the Department of
Defense's efforts to procure unmanned aerial vehicles for battlefield
surveillance and intelligence. The cut to this item reflects technical
delays only in the program. I am personally, and I believe our
committee is totally, committed to providing adequate funding for the
program based on its readiness for production. When it is ready, we
will provide a recommendation to the Senate that it be appropriately
funded.
In closing, I know some of the Senate will disagree with some of
these rescissions. The options for offsets at this stage are very
limited. I urged the Department of Defense to submit this supplemental
as early as last December, but because of other considerations, the
White House chose to withhold it until February. That delayed our
ability to respond to the needs, as I have said, because the spending
of other accounts continued and we now have limited flexibility as to
where to get moneys from commencing about the first of May. We are
dealing with a period between May and September 30 now. We could have
been dealing with the period January 1 to September 30 if we had the
request early in the year.
Mr. President, the bottom line is we must get these funds to the
military services as quickly as possible, as I said, by the end of this
month if at all possible. That commitment must guide our work to
complete this bill, I hope, today or early tomorrow at the latest.
There are a series of impacts. I asked the Chief of Naval Operations,
Admiral Boorda, to tell us what might happen to the Navy, for instance,
if we do not get this money to the Navy in time. He has told me if he
does not have the money in time, he faces the option of deferring all
maintenance on small naval craft and tugs for the Atlantic fleet.
He will have to reduce the maintenance on two aircraft carriers and
will have to delay one submarine overhaul.
He may have to delay maintenance on naval facilities worldwide.
He has to stop flight training for two carrier air wings that are
currently preparing for deployment. That is very dangerous, Mr.
President. These people stay at home, fly a very low number of hours,
and just before deployment they always get back and get their readiness
up to very top performance. We have two aircraft carriers ready to go
to sea. I talked about them this morning with some people in the
Department. It makes no sense for us to delay aircraft carriers and not
have our crews at the peak of their performance, as would be possible
if these funds had not been diverted. They must be replaced as soon as
possible.
In addition, there are some other things that are going to happen if
these funds are delayed even longer than we currently anticipate they
could be:
There are seven additional Atlantic fleet ship overhauls.
There is a proposal to stop Naval Reserve flying for C-9 and P-3
aircraft;
To stop flight training for carrier squadrons returning from
deployment. There, again, after they come back, the long steam coming
back, before they are allowed to take some time off they again go
through and try to bring their readiness up to peak so, if they are
called back, they can continue to be ready. They do not get the type of
training on deployment that they can get here at home when we have the
electronic ranges that can be used and the kind of training that can be
obtained as they prepare for deployment or return from deployment.
Last but not least, we are down to the point where there will be no
spare parts for the last 40 days of this year if these moneys are not
put into the accounts and the spare parts made available.
I remember the days, Mr. President, when we had vessels in Norfolk
and other ports that could not leave port because they did not have
spare parts. That just cannot happen at a time like this when we have
reduced our forces and we are trying to maintain the readiness of the
smaller force that we have.
I certainly hope the Senate will listen to us and the Congress as a
whole will act as rapidly as possible on this request for supplemental
funds, to request those funds which were diverted from training
accounts for the peacekeeping operations.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I begin by first commending my
distinguished colleague from Oregon, the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Hatfield, and my dear friend from Alaska, the chairman
of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens, for coming forth with this bill.
Difficult decisions had to be made, and they made them. Difficult
recommendations have to be made to the Senate, and these
recommendations are now being presented.
Together they have crafted a bill which balances the needs of the
Department of Defense and our committee's desire not to increase the
deficit. As the Senator from Alaska indicated, this bill provides $1.9
billion in new appropriations requested by the Department of Defense to
cover emergency expenses. However, it is some $600 million less than
DOD wanted, but it provides a reasonable amount, considering the
committee's goal of offsetting new appropriations with rescissions.
But, Mr. President, I think I must inform my colleagues that I am
concerned with the guidelines that govern the committee's efforts with
this DOD supplemental, and I hope it will not be
[[Page S3583]] viewed as a precedent for future emergency
supplementals.
The Budget Enforcement Act requires that, in general, discretionary
spending must be constrained to stay within ceilings established in the
budget resolution. However, Mr. President, this agreement allows these
ceilings to be breached if the President and the Congress agree that
these funds are needed to meet emergency requirements. The President
submitted his request for DOD funds as an emergency and the House
agreed.
The House recommended rescissions of $3.2 billion to offset the
budget authority it added for DOD so as not to add to the long-term
deficit.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill has gone one step
further. This bill that we are discussing this moment has dispensed
with the emergency designation for the DOD supplemental and, therefore,
under Senate rules, the committee must offset both budget authority and
outlays recommended in this bill.
With this action, I hope that the Senate is not charting a new and
hazardous course.
The Defense Department does not budget for emergency expenses. On
several occasions, the Congress has denied past administrations'
requests to establish contingency accounts which could have been used
for emergencies and crisis response. The Congress has recommended
instead that DOD request supplementals to cover such emergency costs.
It has always been anticipated that for expenses necessary to cover
emergencies, funds would be added to the current budget, not
reallocated from existing resources. In this bill, we are requiring DOD
to use its existing resources to cover costs of emergencies. This is
contrary to the intent of the budget agreement, and I hope that we are
not making a mistake.
I am told that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff regard this recommendation with grave concern. I do not
disagree with the specific rescission recommendations by the committee,
though they were difficult to make, because I believe that under the
circumstances, they are reasonable and they represent the best options
for offsetting the budget authority and outlays contained in the
supplemental.
However, by rescinding these funds today, there will be few resources
available to cover the so-called must-pay bills which we know the
Pentagon will face later this year. The Defense Department has already
identified nearly $800 million in must-pay bills. It expects this total
unfunded requirement to reach about $1 billion.
These must-pay bills are not considered emergencies under the terms
of the budget agreement. Therefore, they will have to be paid from
within available funding. And where is DOD to find these funds if
Congress has already rescinded $1.9 billion?
Mr. President, I am of the impression that all of us in this body,
Democrats and Republicans, are supportive of the need to maintain the
readiness of our military forces. By requiring that these unforeseen
emergency expenses must be offset, the committee is virtually
guaranteeing that when shortfalls occur in other areas of DOD funding,
they will have to be made up by cutting readiness spending.
Mr. President, I hope I am wrong, but this is a very serious matter.
I am greatly concerned that in the future, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs will object to the requests of our civilian leaders to use
military forces overseas for crisis response and for emergencies
because they believe it will be damaging to the overall readiness of
the force. They may realize that if they must pay for these costs out
of their own hide, they will have to cut readiness to do so.
So I hope that all of us will think hard and long about the decision
we are about to make today. I will be supporting this measure, and I do
so with a clear conscience, and I will be very proud and happy to say
publicly that I rely upon the judgment, the good judgment of my two
dear friends from Oregon and Alaska.
Mr. President, the chairman of this committee has drafted a good bill
under the circumstances, and I look forward to working with him in
conference on these issues.
Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee brought up a matter
which is dear to the hearts of some of my colleagues on this side of
the aisle, the so-called TRP. It should be noted that the House by its
action took out $500 million, and though there are many in this body
who support the House action, the chairman of the committee and the
chairman of the subcommittee took a courageous stand to say we will cut
only $200 million.
I know this is not the full amount, but I think under the
circumstances it is an amount that we can live with, and so I hope that
those who are considering proposing an amendment to restore the funds
will think about this because I think the committee made the proper
recommendation under the circumstances.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, as we debate the Defense supplemental
appropriations bill, I want to ensure that my colleagues and the
managers of the bill are aware of some of the underlying problems with
the way this supplemental was crafted.
First let me say the supplemental is necessary, and I intend to
support the bill. The bill is designed to replace critical readiness
and training funds which the services had to spend in the first half of
this fiscal year for humanitarian and other so-called peace operations.
If we do not replace those funds, military readiness will continue to
decline. Combat readiness has declined too far already. The Nation
cannot afford to let it erode further. It angers me that the
administration has allowed readiness to suffer at all. Under these
circumstances, it would be irresponsible to require the military
departments to further curtail training and maintenance, and cause more
degradation in combat readiness.
While this supplemental is necessary, I was surprised to see that the
Appropriations Committee chose to fully offset the costs of these peace
operations, which were ill-conceived and not approved by the Congress,
from within the fiscal year 1995 Defense budget. In others words, under
this bill the Department of Defense must fund those operations totally
within its existing budget.
I have said over and over that the defense budget has been cut too
much, too fast. I have strongly supported an increase to the
President's budget request to bring fiscal year 1996 defense funding
level with fiscal year 1995, adjusted for inflation. This supplemental,
in effect, reduces funds available for defense in fiscal year 1995 by
requiring these externally imposed operations to be absorbed within the
current defense budget.
This is a very complex and difficult issue. Fortunately the
Appropriations Committee has offset these extra costs with programs
which, for the most part, can be called nondefense items; or programs
which the Defense Department could not execute in this fiscal year. By
fully offsetting the supplemental appropriations, the deficit is not
increased. In fact, title II actually reduces the deficit from domestic
accounts.
I am a strong supporter of removing nondefense items from the defense
budget, and have long been a supporter of a balanced budget and
reducing the deficit. However, I am concerned at the precedent we may
be setting by finding all the offsets in the current defense budget.
I do not support using our military forces as a global police force
or social service agency, deploying them all over the world without the
expressed approval of the Congress. We have reduced our Armed Forces
and defense resources to dangerously low levels. Now it is questionable
whether we can defend our vital interests in a conflict with one or
more major regional powers. Consequently, I do not want the
administration to regard approval of this supplemental appropriations
bill as endorsement of their expanded peacekeeping activities abroad,
nor of
[[Page S3584]] their plan to pay for these excursions with current
defense funds.
In closing, I reiterate my support for this Defense supplemental, but
urge my friends on the Appropriations Committee to consider the method
used in preparing this bill as a one time event, and not as a model for
future supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense.
I thank the Chair; I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 321
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate affirming the importance
of, and the need for, cost-shared partnerships between the Department
of Defense and the private sector to develop dual-use technologies)
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, to the first amendment of the
committee, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Mr. Nunn, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered
321:
At the end of the amendment add the following:
Sec. 110. It is the sense of the Senate that (1) cost-
shared partnerships between the Department of Defense and the
private sector to develop dual-use technologies (technologies
that have applications both for defense and for commercial
markets, such as computers, electronics, advanced materials,
communications, and sensors) are increasingly important to
ensure efficient use of defense procurement resources, and
(2) such partnerships, including Sematech and the Technology
Reinvestment Project, need to become the norm for conducting
such applied research by the Department of Defense.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me very briefly describe the
amendment and yield to my colleague, Senator Nunn, who wants to make a
brief statement also. Then I will describe it in a little more depth
for my colleagues.
This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate--and that is all it
is, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment--that cost-shared partnerships to
develop dual-use technologies are important and increasingly important
to ensure the efficient use of our defense resources. It specifies that
these partnerships, including the technology reinvestment project, need
to become the norm for conducting much of our applied research in the
Pentagon.
This language came out of the work of two different task forces, the
Democratic task force back in 1992, which Senator Pryor chaired, and
the Republican task force which Senator Rudman chaired. Members of this
body who were part of that Rudman task force include, of course,
Senator Stevens, Senator Lugar, Senator Cohen, Senator Hatch, Senator
Domenici, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, Senator Warner, and there were
others as well. Out of the work of the two task force groups we
developed a bipartisan consensus which began during the Bush Presidency
and has continued through the Clinton Presidency that this way of
funding for defense purposes was an important effort to pursue.
I believe this amendment helps to reaffirm that principle, and for
that reason I offer the amendment. As I pointed out, it is a sense of
the Senate. It does not try to change the dollar figures as they come
out of the supplemental agreement.
I want to compliment the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from
Hawaii in the work they have done in the subcommittee to try to do what
they could to ensure that this important program, the technology
reinvestment project, continue, and also to find the funds necessary to
meet the needs of our Department of Defense at this crucial time.
I will explain the amendment in some more detail in a moment. I would
like at this point to yield the floor and allow the Senator from
Georgia to go ahead and speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my colleague from New Mexico. I appreciate the pressures on the
Appropriations Committee. The Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from
Alaska have done a commendable job in trying to handle this
supplemental under very difficult circumstances.
I share the sentiments expressed by the Senator from South Carolina
about the overall supplemental. I hope it is viewed as a one-shot
proposition, because if we are sending a signal to the Department of
Defense that any time there is an emergency that comes up and they come
over and request supplemental funds that they are going to have to have
100 percent offset, then we are going to change the nature of the
responsiveness of the Department of Defense itself to the missions that
may, indeed, be crucial to our Nation's security.
One mission comes to mind on a hopefully hypothetical basis, but it
could become a reality. We may get into a situation, even in the next
30 or 45 days in Croatia, where the United Nations is ordered to get
out of Croatia. There is no doubt that this evacuation could
precipitate more fighting in Bosnia, and could even require rescue
missions to get U.N. personnel who are in harm's way in Bosnia out of
that war-stricken area.
And if the Department of Defense is told that anything they do in
that kind of rescue mission with NATO and with the United Nations is
going to have to be a 100 percent offset, and they are going to have to
basically kill or substantially alter crucial defense programs in order
to absorb that, then that is going to be a very strong signal that the
United States is not going to be as involved as we have been in world
affairs, including commitments to our allies and commitments that we
have voted for at the U.N. Security Council.
So this complete offset sounds good in speeches but it has very
serious implications for the Department of Defense. Make no mistake
about it, this complete offset policy means the long-term readiness of
the Department of Defense is going to go down. It does not mean that
the immediate readiness is going down because that can be protected.
But future readiness requires modernization, it requires research and
development, and those are the programs being cut by this complete
offset policy. So 5, 6, 7 years from now, people will have a very
serious problem with readiness if we continue to declare there is no
emergency even when our forces are responding to the unanticipated
events that we all know will take place in the world from time to time.
I hope this is not viewed as precedent. As my friend, the chairman of
the committee, the Senator from South Carolina, said: If this is a
precedent, we are going to have some serious problems.
I know the Department of Defense worked with the Senator from Alaska
and the Senator from Hawaii in identifying offsets. I know they are
still concerned about certain programs, such as the program Senator
Bingaman is discussing, the technology reinvestment program, which is
one of the programs that is being severely impacted by this
supplemental.
Also, environmental cleanup is being impacted severely under this
bill. And that environmental cleanup is not only something that has to
be done in base closures, but we have solemn commitments to Governors
in a number of States that we are going to carry that out. And as we
cut back on these environmental impact funds in the Department of
Defense, make no mistake about it, there are going to be lawsuits
involved, litigation involved, contractual obligations that are going
to have to be breached. I do not say that all of that is going to flow
from this bill. But it is going to flow if we continue to have to take
these kinds of actions.
So I understand the Senator from Alaska has worked very hard on this,
as has the Senator from Hawaii, who has put up a warning light about
the direction that this bill takes us in. I hope that not only the
Appropriations Committee--because they are carrying out, I have no
doubt, the will of the majority here--but I hope the majority itself
will think about the implications for defense. Because one of the
things in the Contract With America, and in other commitments made by
those on both sides in running for office, was a strong national
defense and protecting readiness. The problem is, Madam President,
readiness is being defined as just the next year or two, when readiness
has to be defined over the next 5 to 10 years. And readiness, by that
definition, includes research and development and includes procurement.
And
[[Page S3585]] without the kind of long-term commitment to research
and development and to procurement, we simply will not have modern and
ready forces 5 years from now or 10 years from now.
So I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from
New Mexico. I support the TRP Program as one of those crucial programs
for future military readiness for several reasons. First, it is our
bridge to the future for the technology needs of the Department of
Defense. We all know how difficult it has become to fund the technology
programs we know we will need for the forces that will be in the field
10 years from now and 15 years from now. We are having to depend more
and more on research conducted by the civil sector of our economy.
For a long time the research and development flowed from defense to
the civil sector. That is still true in some cases, but increasingly a
larger and larger percent of our crucial defense technology is flowing
from the civilian commercial sector to the Department of Defense. The
Defense Department can no longer afford to be the leading edge of every
technology. TRP gives us access to those dual-use research projects
that will benefit both the defense and the commercial sectors.
Second, because the research is dual-use, it is cost shared. Industry
is paying the bulk of the cost in most of the TRP projects. This means
that for every dollar we put in the TRP program we get from $2 to $10
of research that helps our defense efforts from the private sector. So
this is leveraged money. We get a lot more back from the private sector
than the Federal dollars we put in.
Third, the TRP program is competitive. It is not in any way pork. It
is based on merit and on competitive selection. The research goes to
those institutions that propose the most important research projects
and who propose the best cost-sharing arrangements. This is how we
assure ourselves that the work is important. Industry would not put
their money or time on the line if they did not think the research
would pay off for them and for the Nation.
So I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman amendment, which does
not, as I understand it, shift funds but which expresses the strong
sentiment of the Senate on these programs.
I urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens
and Senator Inouye, to do the best they can in conference to hold the
Senate mark and not to cut below the Senate mark, which is already
going to take this program to a point of some jeopardy.
So I thank the Senator for his leadership. This has been a subject
that he has led in the Senate Armed Services Committee and in the
Senate and in the Congress. In my view, the Senator from New Mexico has
done a great deal of meritorious work for our long-range national
security by taking the lead on this program. So I thank him for his
leadership, and I thank him for yielding.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Nunn of Georgia,
the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who was the
chairman of the committee at the time that we began these programs
several years ago while President Bush was in the White House.
Let me just go through a few statements to indicate the broad range
of support for the general principle that I am talking about here.
First, let me cite from the report of the task force that former
Senator Rudman chaired, a Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting the
Defense Base. The report was published in June 1992. It was a report
which was well received. Senator Pryor championed and chaired a similar
group on the Democratic side. Let me just cite a few sentences from the
report of the Rudman committee.
The task force believes that increased funds should be
devoted to the development of so-called dual-use
technologies--that is, technologies that have application
both for defense and commercial markets--by entering into
partnerships with the private sector. Dual-use technologies
will be increasingly important to ensure efficient use of
defense procurement resources, and advances in this area will
have the added benefit of strengthening the U.S. commercial
sector. In order for these projects to be effective, there
should be a requirement that half of the funding be provided
by non-federal participants.
I also want to cite a statement issued by the White House in
September 1992. This was, of course, while President Bush was in the
White House. This was, I believe, a statement that that administration
and that President felt strongly that these were worthwhile activities.
On the 15th of September the statement was issued by the President's
Press Office.
The President today transmitted to the Congress budget
amendments for the Department of Defense that would
reallocate $250 million of the Department's fiscal year 1993
request to defense advanced technology programs. The
reallocated funds would be used in the areas of
communications, high performance computers, small satellites,
sensors to identify environmental contamination and
manufacturing technology. These areas are essential to
national security, and also have dual-use civilian
applications. The funds for these advanced technology
programs would be reallocated from lower priority defense
programs.
Madam President, the views that were expressed in 1992, both by the
group of Senators who participated in the Rudman task force and by the
White House under President Bush, were echoed very recently in a
hearing we had before the Armed Services Committee where I asked,
first, General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
what his view was on the value of these types of programs and where
they fit in the priorities of the administration today.
He said, and let me quote his response to my question.
Senator Bingaman, I am first of all extraordinarily
enthused about the possibilities that exist out there for us
to take a major step forward and a major step forward in
comparison to all of our potential adversaries in this area
that you described, dominant battlefield awareness. Through
our advances in microelectronics, satellite technology and
what not, we have the ability to see and be aware of what is
going on on the battlefield to a degree that will literally,
I believe, revolutionize warfare. So this is not just making
sure that we have the next best tank or the next best
destroyer. This is an effort to really take a major step
forward.
Now, much of the technology for that, we believe, probably
already exists out there in the commercial world, and
certainly those companies like AT&T, and others that are
working on projects, where these same pieces are necessary
commercially, that we need to be aware of it, capture it,
integrate it into the work that we do so that we not only
capture the very best that is out there, but do not spend
taxpayers' money trying to reinvent the wheel in our own
laboratories.
Let me cite one other authority in this field, Madam President. This
comes from sometime further back in our history. The year is 1946. We
have a memo from the Chief of Staff of the Department of the War. He
says in that memo. This is, of course, following the Second World War.
The Armed Forces could not have won the war alone.
Scientists and businessmen contributed techniques and weapons
which enabled us to outwit and overwhelm the enemy. Their
understanding of the army's needs made possible the highest
degree of cooperation. This pattern of integration must be
translated into a peacetime counterpart which will not merely
familiarize the Army with the progress made in science and
industry but draw into our planning for national security all
the civilian resources which can contribute to the defense of
the country.
That is a statement, of course, from General Eisenhower shortly after
the Second World War. So the concept that we are arguing for here--
integration of our military and commercial technology bases--the
importance of this principle, I think has been recognized for a long
time.
The superpower, in a defense sense, the superpower in the 21st
century will be that nation that best leverages its national technology
and industrial base to achieve critical defense goals. Dominant
battlefield awareness is one of those recognized goals of our Defense
Department today, and clearly emphasis on these dual-use technologies
is important for us to achieve that dominant battlefield awareness.
That is the view of General Shalikashvili.
DOD-industry partnerships have been successful. Our $700 million
investment in SEMATECH over the past 8 years, which has been matched by
industry, has been an enormously more productive investment than some
of our earlier investments in defense-specific semiconductor research.
Secretary Perry also has come out very strongly in support of this.
Let
[[Page S3586]] me just cite a quotation from him before I conclude,
Madam President, because he spoke well the other day about the
importance of these programs. I asked him where these stood in his list
of priorities, and he said, and I quote:
I consider it [the Technology Reinvestment Project] one of
our highest priority programs. I hope I have the opportunity
with the Congress to defend--to vigorously defend--the
importance of this program. I think some of the moves to
rescind it and criticize it are made from some confusion as
to what the program is. It is being confused with some of the
technology earmark programs which have been added by Congress
in past years. I would remind all of this committee--
That was the Armed Services Committee.
that all TRP programs are competitive. Indeed, they are
highly competitive. There are many--indeed, sometimes dozens
of--companies submitting proposals on them. So we get the
best out of many different proposals. And secondly, all of
them are funded 50 percent by industry; at least 50 percent
by industry. So they are very highly leveraged. We get quite
a good benefit from this. We depend in the future on being
able to integrate our defense technology base into the
national technology base and this TRP program is an absolute
key to doing that, and any individual TRP program is a good
deal in and of itself.
Madam President, that sums up the case. I think the procedural
situation we find ourselves in has been alluded to before. Let me just
reiterate it. We have a proposal from the House of Representatives
which would rescind the $502 million in the TRP; the entire amount.
The appropriators here on the Senate side have concluded that they
have to, because of the other pressing needs of the Defense Department,
rescind $200 million. Quite frankly, that is a very, very major cut in
this program which I think will undoubtedly do damage to the program.
But I am willing to defer to their judgment. I am willing to do as all
of us will have to do in the coming months; that is, tighten our belts
to deal with our budgetary problems. I am willing to take their
commitment that they will go to conference and fight as best they can
to maintain the Senate position and keep this program alive and
healthy.
This is a very high priority for our Department of Defense. I believe
it is a high bipartisan priority for many here in the Congress.
Madam President, before I conclude and sit down, let me just
indicate, as cosponsors on the amendment that I have sent to the desk,
I want to list Senators Nunn, Lieberman, Rockefeller, and Bob Kerrey
from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to commend my distinguished
colleague from New Mexico for his extraordinary leadership in guiding
the TRP policy and program throughout all of these years.
I wish to, at this time, provide to my friend from New Mexico my
personal assurance that everything possible will be done to maintain
the Senate position on this matter. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I do not intend to oppose what the
managers seek. This is a voice vote on this amendment, primarily
because it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
I will have a lot of remarks to make about the TRP program and about
where it should be in the priority list of the needs of the American
defense establishment. My amendment that will be forthcoming will
address the TRP. I will save my remarks for that eventuality, which I
hope will take place as soon as this amendment is disposed of.
Let me just say that there are a lot of nice-to-have things that we
should use our defense funds for. There are a lot of very necessary and
vital things and missions and purposes that are not being fulfilled
now. I do not rank TRP as one of those that is vital. I view it as one
that is nice to have.
I have very serious question about the criteria that are used and,
indeed, many of the funding of specific projects, which I will name
when I get into my amendment.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I want to set the stage for
consideration of this amendment. The House proposed rescission of $502
million in what is known as this Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP].
TRP will be in conference, in other words.
Our committee responded to the Department of Defense's appeals to the
Senate to support the TRP program. To date, the Department has received
3,000 proposals for TRP, and selected only 251 for funding. It is an
extremely competitive process which has produced about an 8.5-percent
success rate. That is unfortunate.
The Senate recommendation allows the Advanced Research Projects
Agency [ARPA], the agency of the Defense Department that has
jurisdiction over this program, to continue the ongoing TRP projects.
We have provided enough funds to begin new projects and to continue, as
I said, the ongoing projects. The new projects will focus on areas
selected by the military services themselves.
This is a mandate promoted by our committee and approved by Congress.
The Senate's proposed rescission will reinforce Congress' requirement
that we mean to assure that defense needs are the dominant element in
each TRP project and will eliminate funds for projects that do not have
defense relevance.
Indeed, the Congress took specific legislative steps to ensure this
greater service role in the TRP effort.
First, Congress mandated that the Assistant Secretaries for Research,
Development, and Acquisition for each of the military services be made
full members of the council which approves all TRP projects.
Second, the Congress directed that $75 million in fiscal year 1995
TRP funds were to be available only for projects selected in areas of
interest designated exclusively by the military service acquisition
executives.
Every TRP project includes at least 50 percent cost share from the
teams performing the work. Thus, the Pentagon is able to get twice as
much or more for each Federal dollar invested in these programs.
While a lower level of investment in TRP is in order as we search for
funds necessary to restore the readiness, as I mentioned before, we do
not believe we should terminate this program.
I also think it is noteworthy, Madam President, that the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution here mentioned Sematech. Sematech is a consortium
of major U.S. chip manufacturing firms. Sematech has achieved a number
of things. However, the consortium has received substantial Federal
funding for 3 years more than was originally planned.
Sematech demonstrates that we must set firm, clear objectives for
these projects and limit the efforts to a definite, finite duration.
These efforts cannot become entitlements which annually drain the DOD's
limited budget dollars.
I do not want to leave the impression that these projects have not
been successful. I have a list here of the projects which we feel do
contribute to Department of Defense needs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that list be printed in
the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
A List of TRP Projects Which Contribute to DOD Needs
Affordable Composites for Propulsion (Value--$25.0 million,
Prime--Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, Florida).
Precision Laser Machine (Value--$33.8 million, Prime--TRW,
Redondo Beach, California).
Uncooled Low Cost Infrared (IR) Sensors Technology
Reinvestment Alliance (ULTRA) (Value--$9.2 million, Prime--
Inframetrics Inc., North Billerica, Massachusetts).
Trauma Care Information Management System (Value--$15.1
million, Prime--Rockwell International Corporation,
Richardson, Texas).
Digital X-Ray system for Trauma and Battlefield
Applications (Value--$6.1 million; Prime--General Electric
Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady, New York).
Next Generation High Resolution & Color Thin Film
Electroluminescence (TFEL) Displays (Value--$29.2 million,
Prime--Planar Systems, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon).
[[Page S3587]] Developing Speech Recognition for Future
DSP's in Hand Held Computers (Value--$3.0 million; Prime--
Dragon Systems, Inc., Newton, Massachusetts).
Development of Monolithic Motion-Detecting Components Made
with MEMS Technology (Value--$7.6 million; Prime--Analog
Devices, Inc., Wilmington, Massachusetts).
Wearable Computer Systems with Transparent, Headmounted
Displays for Manufacturing, Maintenance, and Training
Applications (Value--$5.1 million; Prime--Boeing Computer
Services, Bellevue, Washington).
Object Technology for Rapid Software Development and
Delivery (Value--$24.5 million; Prime--Anderson Consulting,
Chicago, Illinois).
Portable Shipbuilding Robotics (Value--$12.5 million;
Prime--CYBO Robots, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana).
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today in support of the
amendment offered by my colleague from New Mexico. I would also like to
commend my colleague for his strong leadership on this issue.
At a time when we must be very prudent in allocating our resources,
dual use defense programs, like TRP and Sematech can prove to be a good
investment. These programs enable the Department of Defense to
competitively leverage Federal dollars with private sector matching
funds to better meet our defense--and domestic--needs.
If we are serious about balancing the budget and getting our fiscal
house in order, then we are going to need to find additional savings in
all areas of the Federal budget, including the defense budget. As the
defense budget declines, it will become cost prohibitive for the
Department of Defense to sustain a separate defense industrial base,
which in many cases might very well be duplicative. Programs like TRP
and Sematech capitalize on presently available new commercial
technologies to meet military needs. In an era of limited resources,
these programs enable us to make better use of the funds that are
available.
The TRP has come under some scrutiny for ineffective management of
late. And I would agree that, like most every other program in the
Federal Government, TRP could be managed more efficiently. But that is
not a reason to cut funding for what is on the whole a good program.
Dual-use programs, like TRP and Sematech, allow the Department of
Defense to maximize its research and development dollars. For its part,
the Department of Defense gets technologies which are critical to our
Nation's military needs. While the companies, on the other hand, get
technology which will enable them to compete more effectively in the
global marketplace.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if there is no further comment, I ask
for a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
So the amendment (No. 321) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Kennedy be added as a cosponsor of the previous amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Privileges of the Floor
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Joseph
Fengler and Mr. Sujata Millick be permitted privileges of the floor
during consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 322
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes an
amendment numbered 322.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 21, line 9, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$150,000,000''.
On page 22, line 15, strike out ``$351,000,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$653,000,000''.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment would restore half, $150
million, of the committee-recommended cut in defense environmental
restoration account, and the amendment would offset this spending with
recision of an additional $302 million in the Technology Reinvestment
Program known as TRP.
The net effect of the amendment is to reduce defense budget authority
by $152 million and outlays by $110 million in fiscal year 1995, which
could be credited to deficit reduction.
Madam President, first of all, in the past several years, as we all
know, the Department of Defense has experienced significant increases
in the cost of environmental cleanup, as have most public and private
industries. All we have to do is look at the Superfund and know of the
enormous challenges that face this country in the area of environmental
cleanup.
Because of these costs, I think the reduction of $300 million in
defense environmental restoration is too severe a reduction. In
addition, my colleagues should be aware that the account which is being
cut will be the source of funding to clean up at bases recommended for
closure in the 1995 round, at least until the 1996 appropriation of
BRAC cleanup is approved. Cutting this account could therefore have an
effect on the cleanup of bases that are being closed.
Finally, Madam President, State and local governments have the
ability under the law to enforce stricter standards for cleanup than
Federal law requires. State and local governments also have the ability
to levy fines and penalties against the Department of Defense if it
fails to comply with these standards. If too much is cut from this
account, then the Department of Defense may find itself using
environmental restoration funds to pay fines and litigate court cases
arising from noncompliance with State and local laws. That does not
seem to be an efficient use of these limited dollars.
Madam President, the fact is that when we close a base or even if we
have an open base and there is an environmental problem on those bases,
I think our obligation is clear. Our obligation is clear that we clean
up that base. Clearly, it is a very expensive proposition. And there is
no doubt that if we cut these funds, somewhere there will be military
installations that are environmentally unsafe.
I do not see how we get around that obligation. I do not see how we
can just cut money for environmental cleanup and ignore the very severe
situations that exist today. There is a base in my own home State. It
will be many years before the environmental cleanup is completed. The
estimate of the cost of that cleanup, by the way, has increased by a
factor of 10 since the base was recommended to be closed just 3 years
ago.
So, I do not really understand how we rationalize a reduction in
environmental cleanup funds. I do not think my record indicates that I
am some kind of a wild-eyed environmentalist, to say the least. But I
do not see how we cannot fulfill the obligation that we have to the
taxpayers of America, and that is to clean up defense installations
which reside in their States and their communities that are in need of
environmental cleanup.
Let me talk a little bit about the TRP, which is obviously a very
attractive program to many. It is the Technology Reinvestment Program.
First of all, the selection criteria which I quote from the ARPA
program information package for the Technology Reinvestment Program for
the 1995 competition states that the criteria should be for technology
development competition only incorporating all statutory selection
criteria for the three statutory programs under which the competition
is being conducted. They should be defense relevant. Results of future
commercialization of product or of the process are as follows: critical
defense technology is preserved; a defense capability is more
affordable; or--and I emphasize ``or''--a significant improvement in
house safety or environment, especially in manufacturing, is
accomplished.
Madam President, that ``or'' seems to be the operative clause here.
Otherwise, I do not see how in the world we would approve of the San
Francisco
[[Page S3588]] Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority receiving $39 million
for a 2-year effort to demonstrate a precision location system for
trains in tunnels. I do not see how that is a critical defense
technology being preserved or a defense capability being more
affordable.
And, $6.9 million was awarded to a consortium of businesses and
government entities based in the Southeastern United States to assist
small businesses and in developing pollution prevention and
environmentally safe industrial processes; $15.8 million was awarded to
demonstrate the feasibility of establishing online linkage of medical
data bases among medical centers in hospitals across the United States;
$7.6 million was shelled out for a project designed to develop highly
efficient power electronic building blocks to convert, control, and
condition electricity to meet U.S. commercial electrical requirements.
Madam President, in my view, it would take a great leap of the
imagination to view those as a critical defense technology being
preserved or defense capability being more affordable. It probably
meets a significant improvement in health safety or environment, or it
could be construed as such.
The fact is that the TRP is probably a very nice thing to have. Last
year, in the fiscal year 1995 National Defense Act, I sponsored
legislation to require the GAO to independently assess the TRP awards
in the context of the objectives specified in law.
Although the review is not yet complete, GAO's tentative findings
show that TRP awards were generally not driven by the military
criteria. In fact, GAO found that the panel members who reviewed
proposals submitted to DOD for TRP awards were not even briefed on the
legislative objectives of the program. Thus, a national security
criteria was generally accorded lesser rank weight in the
decisionmaking process. The final report of the GAO will be available
in May.
We have already spent $1.4 billion for the TRP program in the past 3
years, in my view, with little to show for it in the way of militarily
useful technologies. As a result, I think the action of the House
Appropriations subcommittee recommended rescission of most of the 1995
funds for this program, in my view, should be the same.
Let me talk about priorities a second. This is $302 million that
would be earmarked for this particular program, appropriated for this
particular program.
Today on the front page of the Washington Post:
Fort Bragg, NC--After decades of neglect, U.S. military
housing has so deteriorated that Pentagon leaders say it is
discouraging soldiers from reenlisting and thereby
handicapping the military's readiness.
Many barracks and family apartments, built soon after World
War II, are cramped and suffer from peeling lead-based paint,
hazardous asbestos, cracked foundations, corroded pipes or
faulty heating and cooling systems.
More than half the family housing is rated inadequate, and
Defense Secretary William J. Perry cites the poor condition
of military housing as the number one complaint he hears from
soldiers on visits to bases.
But at a time of shrinking budgets, Pentagon officials have
come up with only some token extra millions of dollars to
throw at a problem requiring billions--
I repeat--
requiring billions to fix.
Madam President, last year, the administration sent over a request
that did not include the pay raise for the men and women in the
military. There are hints we now have--the quaint phrase--
``congressionally mandated pay raises.'' Congressionally mandated pay
raises. That is interesting, because the fact is the pay raises for the
men and women in the military to keep up with the cost-of-living should
not be congressionally mandated. They should be requested by the
administration, which I am happy to see that they are doing with this
year's 1996 budget. But for 2 years, there was no request for pay
raises for the military.
I do not know how we justify this kind of spending when we have
inadequate housing, when we have men and women in the military who are
spending incredible times away from home, when we are cutting back on
flying hours, steaming hours and training hours, when any objective
observer has agreed that we need to improve the readiness, and that
readiness is beginning to suffer rather significantly, and yet we have
already spent $1.4 billion, and are now spending an additional $150
million.
I also want to return for a minute to the issue of environmental
cleanup. Unless a base is environmentally clean, or substantially so, a
base cannot be turned over to the local authorities, or whoever is
involved in the negotiations for the use of that base. We know what
happens to the costs of environmental cleanup. And now for us to cut
the funding for environmental cleanup, in my view, would be a very,
very serious mistake.
I want to say that Sematech is a successful endeavor. Sematech, I
believe, has been a wise investment of America's tax dollars, and I
also think it is well to point out that 1996 will be the last year that
Sematech requires Government appropriations, which is exactly the way
it was designed and is exactly the way that these things should be
accomplished.
But I suggest that in this era of very tough priorities--in testimony
before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning from the
Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations also making
clear that their priorities, if there was any additional money, would
go to additional aircraft, additional ships, additional pay and
benefits for the men and women in the military. Nowhere--nowhere--do I
hear any member of the uniformed military even knows what TRP is much
less believe that it is a national priority.
So, Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there is a great deal of what the
Senator from Arizona said with which I agree, but I think that he has
overlooked the task that we had. We had the task of finding almost $2
billion, and we are five-twelfths through the year in terms of the
moneys with which we are dealing. As a practical matter, the largest
account that is unspent is, in fact, that which is entitled
``environmental funding.''
It is a little bit more than $5.5 billion, and we are affecting by
the recommendations we have made here less than 6 percent of the total
funding for the environmental accounts. Other items that we are dealing
with, particularly in terms of the TRP funds, represent a great deal
more of the account.
Let me just say this: If I had a way now to put the money that is in
either account into the military construction bill, I would do that. In
the last year, at my request, we added--and that was one of those
infamous congressional add-ons to the budget--$81 million for
additional military housing. I wish we could get a greater interest in
upgrading this housing, and I think that the story on the front page of
the Post is very accurate.
But the problem really is that if we look at the environmental
account, which we did in great detail, we are looking at a project
where they still plan to spend $810 million in this fiscal year on
studies of these environmental restoration sites. We have eliminated a
substantial portion of those studies. That is what our cut does.
We have urged that the Department proceed now and not spend so much
money studying these projects and instead do them. They are not that
large and they mostly can be done without these enormous nationwide
studies. They just seem to be enveloped in studies.
We will have reduced the budget request by $700 million through this
rescission, and it is primarily aimed at that study account. If we look
at this account, as I have said, DOD has spent almost 60 percent of all
of the cleanup funds we have made available so far on studies. We think
that at a time of emergencies such as this is, it is time to reallocate
funds. Again, we are not increasing funds for either the TRP, that is
the Technology Reinvestment Program, or the environmental restoration
account. We are decreasing both. So we are talking about where to cut
more.
If we look at the amount of money available, there is a great deal
more money available in the environmental
[[Page S3589]] restoration account, mainly because it is reserved for
studies which can be conducted next year, if necessary. If they are
necessary, we can appropriate money for them in 1996. But right now,
there are other projects which are ongoing in the Technology
Reinvestment Program. I already put the list in the Record.
There is an affordable composites for propulsion project in Florida.
There is a precision laser machine project in California, Redondo
Beach.
There is an uncooled low-cost infrared sensor technology reinvestment
program in Massachusetts.
There is a trauma care information management system in Richardson,
TX.
There is a digital x-ray system for trauma and battlefield
applications in Schenectady, NY.
There is a next generation high resolution thin film
electroluminescent, what we call a TFEL display, again, with a military
impact, in Beaverton, OR.
There is a speech recognition by digital signal processors for hand-
held computers, again, defense impact in Newton, MA.
There is a monolithic motion detecting components technology with
microelectrical mechanical systems, again it is in Massachusetts.
There is one in Bellevue, WA, wearable computer systems with a
transparent head mounted display for, basically, computer services in
aircraft.
They are all very high-tech and, as far as we can see, they ought to
be continued. We have provided enough money so that we do not have to
reduce any of the ongoing projects.
Unfortunately, the amendment of the Senator from Arizona will do
that. It will reduce the funds that are available for ongoing projects.
It will increase the reduction in the program of the technology
reinvestment area, that I just mentioned, by $302 million.
It restores a portion of the money to the environmental restoration
account, money that is really not needed this year. It is there. It is
available. It has been appropriated. As a matter of fact, in recent
years, there has been a substantial carryover in that account. I urge
the Senate to take the recommendation of the committee. It was reached
after substantial consultation with both the military services and the
civilian people in the Department of Defense. It is a level which no
one likes to see reached. The moneys are being reduced for both
accounts. But I tell the Senate, if we are going to find $2 billion and
do the least harm to ongoing projects that have already been approved,
we should take from the money that is in this enormous account of
almost $6 billion and take it from the area of the planned studies. No
ongoing cleanup project should be harmed.
Incidentally, as I indicated in the beginning of my statement, the
moneys for base closure environmental studies are already there. We
have not touched them at all. The real emergency areas where we are
having to do specific environmental projects, in the process of
carrying out the base closure process, have not been at all affected by
the recommendations that we have made from the committee.
I urge the Senate to realize that we had before us a rescission from
the Technology Reinvestment Program from the House. This will be a
conference issue. Both the House and the Senate proposed to reduce that
fund but not by the same amount.
When we look at the ongoing projects under the Technology
Reinvestment Program in which we have already invested some taxpayers'
money, if we are going to use the money efficiently, we should provide
enough to carry out those projects, and that is what we have done. That
basically is all we have done.
So I do hope that we can keep the TRP funding at the level we have
indicated. I do believe the House may insist on changing it somewhat.
As a matter of fact, the House is probably going to insist on changing
several of the items where we have made changes in their
recommendations. But we made an extensive study of this, and I
personally had several meetings with the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Dr. Deutch, because of his personal interest in the subject matter and
in the concept of technology. We have kept the cut but not at the level
suggested by the Senator from Arizona.
I urge the Senate to keep the recommendations of the Senate
Appropriations Committee. They were reached after, as I said,
substantial consultation with those involved in the projects.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wish to speak briefly to support the
statements the Senator from Alaska has made and the position the
Appropriations Committee has come to the floor with in this area.
As I think the Senator from Arizona pointed out, his amendment would
do two things, two very different things. It would, first of all, cut
and eliminate the technology reinvestment project by rescinding all of
the funds in that program, which I think would be a very misguided
action by this Congress.
Second, it would restore some of those funds to the environmental
cleanup activity. The Senator from Arizona pointed out that he himself
has not been known as a wild-eyed environmentalist. I think that was
the phrase he used. I certainly think there is some truth to that.
Earlier, after this last election, on December 5, 1994, he and
Senator Warner sent a letter to President Clinton urging that much of
the funding be dropped in the defense budget and specific programs be
eliminated, and in that list of programs he sent to the President he
himself proposed that DOD and DOE defense environmental programs be
reduced by $930 million in fiscal year 1995.
The proposal of the subcommittee is to reduce them by $400 million
total, and I think that is a much more reasonable level of funding in
those areas.
Let me also talk a moment about the TRP. I think the Senator from
Alaska did a good job of pointing out that there are many useful
defense-related programs going forward with TRP funding.
Let me just cite a couple of them. One of the programs is the
multichip module program. The breakthrough in the 1960's was the
microchip where many, many transistors could be put on one small piece
of silicon to dramatically reduce the size, weight, and cost of
electronics. The military was the first user of microelectronics and
this was the technology that made the ICBM and all later advanced
weapons possible. Of course, now the commercial demand for this
technology dwarfs the military market. But that does not diminish its
importance to the Defense Department.
The breakthrough of the 1990's is the multichip module technology
where many, many chips are put on one common substrate to dramatically
increase once again military system performance and lower their costs.
TRP is meeting this challenge by cost sharing an effort with the
consortium that brings together the emerging participants in this new
industry in an effort to lower equipment manufacturing costs by making
all needed technology advances simultaneously. Members include GM
Hughes Electronics, IBM, Micromodule Systems, Motorola, nChip, Polycon,
and Texas Instruments. Sandia National Laboratories will establish a
test bed to support the effort.
Madam President, there are a couple of items that I received from the
Department of Defense to make the point. This is a printed circuit
board which shows the circuitry needed for an advanced weapons system
and the multichip module which is being developed through TRP funding
to replace it--this much smaller item. That is the kind of a
breakthrough we are trying to finance and accomplish and bring about
through use of this dual-use technology.
Let me cite one other example, and this is the TRP precision laser
machining project.
Let me again show a very small, little item to my colleagues. This
sample illustrates the initial results under this TRP project. Graphite
composite material similar to that used in stealth aircraft has 1,600
laser-drilled holes which were accomplished in only 10 minutes.
The TRP will develop further this technology to be able to achieve a
much faster hole drilling rate, up to 10,000 holes per second, without
sacrificing the unprecedented hole quality already achieved and
illustrated here.
[[Page S3590]] At that point it will be feasible to process entire
airframes in about 1 day, enabling laminar flow control by these holes
in critical airflow surfaces. This performance-enhancing flow control
is impractical to manufacture with current technology, and the laser
hole drilling provides not only the speed but the quality required to
make the process practical and cost effective.
The Department of Defense points out that the result will be
substantial from their perspective of enhanced military aircraft
component performance and improved fuel efficiency by more than 3
percent, saving about $400 million per year. This technology will also
reduce life cycle costs by about $100,000 per engine by using these
precise laser beams to drill holes with the highly increased precision
and reproducibility shown in this sample.
Madam President, let me just conclude by pointing out again the
statement by Secretary Perry before the Armed Services Committee, which
my colleague from Arizona serves on with me, where, when asked about
the TRP, he said, ``I hope I have the opportunity with the Congress to
defend, to vigorously defend the importance of this program.''
Madam President, if we adopt the amendment by the Senator from
Arizona we are not giving the Secretary of Defense that opportunity.
There has been no hearing that can be cited by the Senator from Arizona
here. He is proposing or suggesting that the Senate, in our ultimate
wisdom, should substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary of
Defense, for that of the Under Secretary of Defense, for that of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In my view this would not be
wise. We need to keep funding in the TRP, keep this a program that
continues to go forward in these very important areas.
As the Senator from Alaska pointed out, the additional funding that
is being transferred to environmental activities is just not needed
this year.
Madam President, I hope very much this amendment will not be agreed
to and that we can support the position of the Appropriations
Committee.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me thank the Senator from New Mexico
for reading the letters I sent to the President. I appreciate it. I
will try to make sure that he is made aware of the correspondence I
have between myself and the President and the Secretary of Defense. I
point out to my friend from New Mexico, he did not get several of my
correspondences, nor the gist nor intent of the recommendations I made.
First of all, I made the recommendations and I stated in the letter,
``reduce overemphasis on environmental cleanup and reduce funding to
account for management savings, use of more effective technologies and
less stringent standards.'' That is out of a $6 billion overall
authorization, and is in keeping with the CBO recommendations.
For the edification of my friend and colleague from New Mexico, I
wrote a letter on January 23 of this year where I
stated:
As you know, I wrote to the President on December 5, 1994,
asking that he defer the obligation of funding for certain
defense programs, including the environmental accounts of the
Departments of Defense and Energy. I would like to clarify my
intent in including $930 million in DOD and DOE environmental
accounts in the listing of programs characterized as lower
priority funding.
First, let me assure you that I understand the importance
of environmental cleanup and fully support the need to
provide adequate funding to accomplish this daunting task.
Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon the Department of
Defense to bear its fair share of the burden of remediating
any problems resulting from the conduct of necessary military
activities. However, I also feel strongly that costs such as
research and education, as well as other costs not directly
related to actual cleanup activities, should be borne equally
by all entities, whether governmental or private, rather than
one or two federal agencies.
It is in this context that I suggested that a portion of
the DOD and DOE budgets for environmental programs be
reviewed and reconsidered in the context of more fairly and
appropriately allocating the fiscal burden of federal
environmental programming across all government agencies.
So I want to assure my friend from New Mexico, to clear up any
misconception as my intent in the letter I sent to the President on
December 5 and January 23. I would be glad to provide him with a copy
of those.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
January 23, 1995.
Hon. William Perry,
Secretary of Defense,
The Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: As you know, I wrote to the President
on December 5, 1994, asking that he defer the obligation of
funding for certain defense programs, including the
environmental accounts of the Departments of Defense and
Energy. I would like to clarify my intent in including $930
million in DOD and DOE environmental accounts in the listing
of programs characterized as lower priority funding.
First, let me assure you that I understand the importance
of environmental cleanup and fully support the need to
provide adequate funding to accomplish this daunting task.
Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon the Department of
Defense to bear its fair share of the burden of remediating
any problems resulting from the conduct of necessary military
activities. However, I also feel strongly that costs such as
research and education, as well as other costs not directly
related to actual cleanup activities, should be borne equally
by all entities, whether governmental or private, rather than
one or two federal agencies.
It is in this context that I suggested that a portion of
the DOD and DOE budgets for environmental programs be
reviewed and reconsidered in the context of more fairly and
appropriately allocating the fiscal burden of federal
environmental programming across all government agencies.
You and I are both aware of the growing scarcity of defense
dollars to carry out our national security priorities.
Therefore, we must work together now to ensure that we put
the immediate needs of our common defense as our first
priority.
As Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Armed
Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over the
environmental restoration program of the Department of
Defense, I intend to look into these issues very closely
during the FY 1996 budget review. I would like to request
your assistance in identifying specific areas of the
Department's environmental restoration accounts which you
believe should be distributed outside of the Department. In
this review, I would ask that you look closely at research
and education funding, as well as the standards and
remediation techniques to ensure that cleanup funding is
being used efficiently and in the most cost-effective way to
protect human health.
As always, I appreciate your assistance in this matter. I
will be sending a copy of this letter to the Secretary of
Energy.
Sincerely,
John McCain,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, in closing this debate, and I do not
know whether it will or not, but let me just make my final remarks.
I want to emphasize to the Senate the difficult task we have had to
find money to offset the funds necessary to restore the training,
operation, and maintenance accounts for the Department of Defense. We
have done that by taking funds from accounts, some of which we may
replace in 1996. But we are taking them from accounts where we know
they cannot be spent this year. There is no way the department is going
to spend all of the remaining $800 million that is available for
studies in this environmental restoration account.
The account does not need more money now. There is no showing at all
that it needs more money. As a matter of fact, in the Technology
Reinvestment Program, all we have funded is the money for the ongoing
projects that have already been approved and additional efforts that
have defense relevance. That means we are going to continue those
ongoing projects which were determined to have defense relevance for
this year.
We are talking still about this year. We still have to review the TRP
program for 1996 and we have to review the environmental restoration
account for 1996, but I plead with the Senate to look at the problem we
had to find money to offset the emergency request. We have taken the
emergency off. We have taken the emergency off because we found, dollar
for dollar, outlay for outlay. Both outlays and budget authority are
reduced sufficiently to offset the moneys that are necessary to be
restored in the operating accounts of the military services, plus there
is some money for the Coast Guard.
Our task was to reduce spending accounts for the balance of 1995 and
take
[[Page S3591]] money where it would do the least harm to the
department. I plead with the Senate to realize that, of the $5.5
billion appropriated for the Department of Defense environmental
funding account, we have dealt with about $700 million in study money.
There is still plenty of money there in the whole environmental
account. It does not need the restoration moneys that are suggested by
the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will vote against the McCain amendment
to cut funding from the technology reinvestment project. I find this an
unpleasant task because I am strongly in favor of full funding for
environmental cleanup and restoration at closed DOD bases. I am also a
proponent of the technology reinvestment project.
The McCain amendment would cut twice the amount of funding from TRP
than it would restore to DERA. That tells me that the purpose of this
amendment is to kill the technology reinvestment project, which I
believe is wrong. As the previous amendment offered by Senator Bingaman
showed, it is the sense of the Senate that the TRP is important to our
national security, and ought to be the norm for the way the Pentagon
does business.
I believe that the TRP is a good example of a new way of doing
business between the Federal Government and the private sector, one
that is cooperative, cost-shared, competitive, and mutually beneficial.
Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by Senator Bingaman and of U.S. dual-use technology efforts in
general.
The U.S. military will be challenged repeatedly as a deterrent and
fighting force in the decades to come. We face the potential of a
resurgent Russia, a new economic power that decides to pursue military
dominance in its region, or a rogue regime with a nuclear weapon at its
disposal.
Although the United States will retain its preeminent position as the
only military superpower for decades to come, our relative military
advantage inevitably will wane. Identifying the next great military
powers is obviously very difficult, but we can rest assured that not
all will share U.S. values and interests. The question today is whether
we will be able to respond rapidly and adequately to emerging threats.
Of particular concern are those nations that will attempt to couple
rapid economic growth with tight political control. Fortunately for
democracies, this marriage of tyranny and a free economy usually leads
to divorce. But even a short-lived marriage of this sort is a
reasonable prospect for several of today's nondemocratic nations.
Widely available and rapidly advancing military technologies will allow
these nations to arm relatively quickly and, conceivably, to leapfrog
some U.S. military capabilities through innovative technologies.
It is this possibility for a rapid, technologically based emergence
of a major threat that dictates we support our technology base as
effectively as possible, and focus our energies on highly advanced,
long-term technologies.
We cannot, of course, continue to pay for the enormous research and
development base of the cold war. We must now turn to the commercial
sector, which leads the Department of Defense in many key technologies,
to help sustain U.S. technological leadership. Dual-use technology
development efforts, like the Technology Reinvestment Program,
represent one of the best conceivable approaches to meeting this long-
term national security need. TRP is an especially effective program:
TRP is supporting a vast range of defense technology developments in
areas such as low-cost night vision, high-density data storage,
battlefield casualty treatment, and composite aircraft structures.
TRP awards are matched by the program participants, effectively
leveraging taxpayer dollars.
TRP awards are competed and represent a much more efficient approach
than saddling DOD research programs with earmarks that often duplicate
or misdirect existing efforts.
Finally, TRP allows DOD to drive down costs by leveraging commercial
large-scale production.
TRP is truly a cents-on-the-dollar program that will secure U.S.
long-term security interests well into the next century. While I
applaud and strongly support readiness today, let's not compromise our
future--a future that will require much foresight and technological
excellence to deter and, if necessary, defeat advanced military
threats.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the proposed
amendment. First, let me say that I am concerned that among our early
acts in this 104th Congress we are about to cut $1.9 billion dollars
out of our defense budget. Among the cuts proposed, are cuts to our
critical technology development programs. Since technological
superiority will win the battles of tommorow, we are stealing funds
that will determine the readiness of future generations, to pay for
defense emergencies today. I believe these actions are a clear and
present danger to our defense capability. In our zeal to increase
defense readiness and fund operations while we control spending,
control Government proliferation, control the deficit we may be laying
the groundwork for inevitable future inferiority in critical defense
technologies. This amendment only increases the damage that is being
done to this critical technology development effort.
Military readiness is at the forefront of the defense agenda for both
the administration and many of my colleagues here in Congress. I share
their concern that our military must be fully prepared to insure
national security. This is not an option, this is our responsibility.
At the same time, some of my colleagues are proposing and voting for
cuts in defense technology development programs that are critical to
the defense readiness of tomorrow.
ARPA and Dual Use
Our current technological superiority has not evolved overnight.
DOD's secretive Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), the
preeminent technology development entity in the world, has been
successfully researching and evolving new technology for military
applications, in close alliance with the services, for the 37 years
since President Eisenhower set it up. In retrospect, it was a truly
visionary Presidential accomplishment.
What has ARPA done? Most of its efforts are classified, and it has
purposely never recorded its history. Let's just look at a list of
technologies that we can talk about that ARPA helped evolve:
Supercomputing; desktop computers; the internet (formerly ARPAnet);
stealth; the entire field of materials science and composites; GPS--the
global positioning system run by atomic clocks; laser technology
including laser machining; high resolution digital imaging; advanced
acoustics; smart weapons; and even the ubiquitous computer mouse.
This is only a partial list, but this list alone has revolutionized
not only the U.S. warfare machine, but U.S. civilian society.
The Technology Programs at Issue: TRP
The Technology Reinvestment Project [TRP] has been the first victim
of the technology attack. It is designed to be a dual use effort in a
program concept first developed by President Bush's Director of ARPA.
TRP projects are cost-shared at least 50/50 with industry,
competitively selected, industry-led and aimed at civilian and military
needs.
What are ARPA's TRP teams working on?
Item: Head mounted displays. Infantrymen can't walk around with
desktop computers. With light-weight, head-mounted displays they can
retain full mobility but have a full computer display of the
battlefield and real-time intelligence and targeting data before their
eyes.
Item: Advanced information flow. Military command and control must
process an exploding amount of intelligence data immediately to the
battlefield for response. But limited communications capacity now clogs
our ability to transmit, process, and act on that data. A TRP team is
developing digital communications command and control equipment to
burst massive new amounts of data through the interpretation and
response pipeline at 10 gigabits per second, a 400 percent improvement
over today's best equipment. This will be the building block
[[Page S3592]] for a new integrated command and control network.
Item: Single chip motion detectors. By reducing motion detection to a
single chip accelerometer which can withstand accelerations up to
30,000 times the force of gravity, weapons guidance and navigation
systems can be made significantly lighter and more sensitive. This will
be critical to the next generation of smart weapons.
Item: Uncooled infrared sensors. Desert Storm was launched as a night
attack using infrared sensors as the basis for high speed attack
operations. Our military needs to own the night and a new generation of
cheaper, much more portable uncooled infrared sensors are a crucial
enabling technology being developed by a TRP team.
Item: Autonomous all-weather aircraft landing. The efficiency of
military aircraft is still limited by night and weather conditions.
Operations at secondary fields are curtailed in these conditions if a
full ground control system is absent, or if these facilities are
disrupted or damaged at a primary site. Basing aircraft at a small
number of primary bases, is not a good alternative, because our command
of the air becomes more vulnerable. A TRP team is working on placing
all-weather air traffic and landing control systems into every cockpit,
making aircraft independent of ground control availability and weather
conditions.
Item: Turboalternator. Army gas-guzzling battle vehicles require a
vast and vulnerable logistics chain and limit battlefield operations.
The next war may not be fought next to Saudi oil refineries. A TRP team
is developing a turboalternator so main engines can be switched off,
but all equipment and sensors can continue to operate, during silent
watch modes. This multiplies fuel efficiency and also makes detection
through infrared emissions and engine noise much more difficult.
Item: Composite bridging. Military operations continue to be
controlled by terrain: every stream or ravine that must be crossed
creates a potential strong point for enemy defenders and disrupts the
mobility that gives U.S. forces much of their edge. Every time our
engineer forces have to bring up cumbersome, heavy bridging equipment
for a crossing, enemy defenders can rally and our mobility is
disrupted. A TRP team is developing superlight, superstrong composites
for superportable bridges to multiply the mobility of our battlefield
forces.
Item: Precision laser manufacturing. Precision laser machining
technology, by making aircraft parts microscopically precise, can make
aircraft engines much more efficient. A TRP team, working with higher
power density, more focused laser beams and variable pulse formats, aim
to double the life of military aircraft engines and sharply improve
fuel efficiency and therefore range. Other beneficiaries include
shipbuilders, airframe makers, engine makers, and a wide rang of other
manufacturing technologies.
These examples are the kinds of new technologies we need for future
battlefield dominance. ARPA's TRP selection criteria emphasizes nine
areas of established military need, from battlefield sensors, to
mobility, to prompt casualty treatment, to command and control
capability to advanced materials. TRP technology projects also must
have civilian application to help cut military costs and link into
emerging civilian technologies. TRP is a brand-new effort and many of
its investments are high risk. There are no doubt fixes that will need
to be applied to the program, and some of its military priorities may
require clarification, as with any new program. But to decimate it
without even holding a hearing about the cornucopia of technology
advances it is spawning is rash, and dangerous to our military
technology future.
Given some of the other program cuts now on the table, the assault on
TRP appears to be the beginning of a larger assault on technology R&D,
in general. Given the dangers of the future battlefield, this assault
can only provide comfort to future enemies.
Conclusion
At a time when we need to renew our commitment to defense technology,
with an eye toward the necessary control of defense spending, we are
cutting back on the very programs poised to solve the problem. We must
take advantage of civilian-led technologies. We must control defense
spending. We must remain sufficiently superior to our competitors to
deter any threats to our national security. We have no choice. If we
don't capture the power of technological innovations, we can be sure
that our opponents will.
This amendment restores $100 million of TRP money to insure that we
will be the technological world leaders of tomorrow that we are today.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I wish to go on record in opposition to
the McCain amendment and express my strong support for the Department
of Defense Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP] which provides
essential public-private funding for dual-use research and development.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war have not
brought an end to the need for a strong United States military. We find
ourselves facing challenges that are different but no less complex: the
spread of nuclear weapons and major regional, ethnic and religious
conflicts, to name a few. These new threats increase the need for fast,
flexible, mobile forces equipped with the most advanced weapon systems.
The Technology Reinvestment Program will allow our troops to defend
themselves with the most current, technologically advanced equipment
and enhance our ability to respond effectively to any threat our troops
may face.
The Defense Department's TRP is an innovative program that maximizes
the use of taxpayer funds to exploit promising technologies by working
cooperatively with the private sector to ensure both our military and
commercial sectors seize and exploit these cutting edge technologies.
This cooperative endeavor enhances our national security and economic
well-being and moves us toward a single, cutting-edge national
technology and industrial base. The TRP program enables the Pentagon to
exploit the rapid rate of innovation and market-driven efficiencies
evident in the commercial industry to meet defense needs. By drawing on
commercial technology and capabilities wherever possible--along with
the superior systems design and integration skills of U.S. businesses--
the military can do its job more effectively and at a far lower cost to
the taxpayer.
While I agree with the objective of the McCain amendment to restore
funding to the Defense Environmental Restoration Act accounts to
provide for environmental cleanups on defense bases, I cannot support
the transfer to DERA from the TRP program. The $150 million reduction
in the DERA program, while regrettable, is a small portion of the
overall DERA program. In addition, DERA is not the only program in the
Defense budget that provides environment cleanup funding. On the other
hand, the proposed cuts in the McCain amendment coupled with the TRP
reductions already contained in the committee-reported Senate
rescission bill, would virtually eliminate the TRP program.
As we all know, we won the cold war, in no small way because of our
technological expertise. We won the cold war because there was a
national commitment to win it. We dedicated the resources to the
research and development and to the manufacturing that were required to
win. We must continue in that tradition and I urge my colleagues to
reject the McCain amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I oppose this amendment. It seeks to
achieve a laudable goal, mitigating the cuts imposed by the
Supplemental Appropriations Act on the environmental cleanup of
Department of Defense facilities. It would do so, however, by
eliminating the Department's premier dual-use technology program, the
technology reinvestment project. I support this vital program to
maintain our military's technological edge into the next century.
Therefore, I oppose the McCain amendment.
Through its environmental restoration effort, the Defense Department
is fulfilling its obligation to the communities of America where
military facilities have contaminated the land, water, or air. The
President, the Secretary of Defense, and the leaders of the service
branches have a solemn commitment to protecting our citizens
[[Page S3593]] from environmental threats caused by Department
activities.
Some have criticized the Department's environmental restoration
program as being a nondefense activity, since the funding for the
cleanup does not go directly into the modernization or maintenance of
our forces, and is therefore beyond the scope of the Department's
responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. Keeping its
lands free of contamination is a clear obligation of any private or
public entity, including the Department of Defense.
An example of the urgency of addressing this problem can be found in
my home State of Massachusetts. Over the decades of the cold war,
activities at Otis Air Force Base and Camp Edwards on Cape Cod have
resulted in drastic contamination. Roughly 65 million gallons of ground
water have been contaminated, threatening public water supplies and
recreational ponds. Last year, the Department of Defense settled on a
plan for cleaning up the contamination. This cleanup will take years to
implement. Reductions in the environmental fund will delay these vital
cleanup programs.
Under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Perry and Sherri
Goodman, the Deputy Under Secretary for Environmental Security, the
Clinton administration has laid out a plan for addressing the huge
cleanup problem facing the Department. The $1.78 billion we voted in
last year's budget is a downpayment on a cleanup program that will be
implemented well into the next century.
Although this amendment would add funds for the clean-up, a goal I
support, it would do so by taking funds from the technology
reinvestment project. The TRP combines the best of national technology,
national security planning, and acquisition reform. It seeks to ensure
that the Nation's high-technology industries, as they readjust to the
shrinking defense budget, will still carry out research and development
to meet national defense needs.
Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch has said that the Defense
Department can no longer afford the luxury of having its own private
industry. The Department must devise ways to use the commercial sector
to meet its future industrial needs. The TRP spearheads the effort to
achieve that goal.
It uses less than 2 percent of the Defense Department's research and
development budget to get high-technology American businesses to begin
meeting our defense needs in an economical fashion. The TRP leverages
Government money by providing up to half the cost of financing dual-use
research and development projects.
These projects, carried out by consortia of private corporations,
universities, and scientific laboratories, meet real defense needs. The
categories of military need in which project funding is awarded include
military mobility and deployment; battlefield sensors; command,
control, communications, computers, and intelligence--so-called C\4\I;
and electronics design and manufacturing. As Secretary Perry has
testified, there can be no doubt that the program is funding projects
that fulfill direct defense requirements.
In some areas, such as command and control software, commercial
technology is more advanced than the corresponding military
technologies now in use. In these instances, the TRP seeks to apply
existing commercial technologies to military applications. In other
cases, such as battlefield sensors, military technologies are more
advanced, but the Department seeks to take advantage of the lower cost
production processes that commercial manufacturing the marketing may
provide.
The House bill rescinds $500 million in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal
year 1995 funds for the TRP. This amount would effectively eliminate
the program. The committee's bill rescinds $200 million in fiscal year
1994 and fiscal year 1995 funding for the TRP, far superior to the
House bill, but still a major cut to the program. By further cutting
the TRP by $302 million, the McCain amendment would repeat the House
action of eliminating the program.
I was pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment offered earlier by
Senator Bingaman, expressing the sense of the Senate in support of the
TRP. That amendment was passed by a voice vote. To pass the McCain
amendment now would wipe out our approval of that earlier amendment.
I support greater funding for the Defense Department's environmental
restoration program. I urge the conferees on this legislation to
achieve the highest level of funding possible for it. But we should not
undermine the future of the Nation's defense industry to achieve this
goal. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Arizona to the committee amendment on page 1, line 3. On this question,
the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is
absent because of death in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 77, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]
YEAS--22
Abraham
Bradley
Brown
Campbell
Chafee
Craig
Faircloth
Feingold
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
McCain
Nickles
Roth
Snowe
Warner
NAYS--77
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Graham
Grams
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Pryor
So, the amendment (No. 322) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, 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. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc except for the
committee amendments beginning on page 1, lines 3 through page 25, line
4; and page 31, lines 5 through 21. That the bill as amended be
considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments and
that no points of order be waived thereon by reason of this agreement.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this request has been cleared on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendments were agreed to en bloc, except for the
following:
On page 1, line 3 through page 25, line 4; and page 31, lines 5
through 21.
[[Page S3594]] Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Madam President, I ask unanimous
consent that the pending committee amendments be temporarily laid
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 323
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senators McConnell and Leahy and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] for Mr. McConnell
(for himself and Mr. Leahy) proposes an amendment numbered
323.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading be dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 323) is as follows:
On page 27, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
contribution to the international development association
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-306, $70 million are rescinded.
In lieu of the Committee amendment on page 27, lines 21
through 25, insert the following:
development assistance fund
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-87 and Public Law 103-306, $13,000,000 are rescinded.
assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-87 and Public Law 103-306, $9,000,000 are rescinded.
assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-87 and Public Law 103-306, $18,000,000 are rescinded,
of which not less than $12,000,000 shall be derived from
funds allocated for Russia.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to speak briefly about the foreign
operations part of this supplemental appropriations and rescissions
bill.
First, let me say that I believe strongly that supplemental funds for
the Department of Defense should be offset with defense rescissions.
Domestic and foreign affairs funds should not be used to cover defense
costs. I do understand, however, that these rescissions were made in
anticipation of a difficult conference with the House.
The $172 million in foreign operations rescissions that were
presented to the Appropriations Committee would have come entirely from
sub-Saharan Africa. I was very concerned about the impact this would
have on the world's neediest people, and discussed my concerns with
Senator McConnell. I want to thank him for working with me to modify
the rescissions in a way that protects our bilateral aid programs in
Africa.
I do support the $62 million rescission from the African Development
Fund. Those funds were appropriated last year with the explicit caveat
that the fund make significant management reforms. It has not done so.
Perhaps this rescission will get their attention.
That leaves $110 million. All of it would have been taken from the
Agency for International Development's programs in Africa. Those funds
are used to support basic health and nutrition, AIDS prevention, child
survival, basic education, agriculture research, and programs to
promote free markets and free elections. These are programs that
Republicans and Democrats strongly support, as do the American
people, because they often make the difference between life and death
for people facing starvation, political violence, or deadly diseases we
can cure.
The rescission, as initially proposed, would have meant that our aid
to Africa, which already amounts to only about $1 per person, would
bear the total burden of these cuts. That I could not accept.
Senator McConnell and I have worked together to modify the foreign
operations rescissions to protect AID's programs in Africa. I
appreciate his willingness to find a compromise.
Rather than take the money from the Development Fund for Africa, the
amendment we have coauthored, which is also cosponsored by Senator
Lautenberg, would rescind $70 million from the International
Development Association; $13 million from the Development Assistance
Fund; $18 million from the former Soviet Republics, of which at least
$12 million must come from Russia; and $9 million from Eastern Europe.
Let me say that I wish we did not have to rescind any of this money.
These are all programs I support, and I hope we can reduce some of
these cuts in conference. I especially hope that we can find
alternatives to cutting so much from IDA, since these are commitments
made by the U.S. Government and this cut will only add to our arrears.
But faced with this difficult choice, I wanted to be sure that the
cuts did not fall on the backs of the poorest people. That is the
reason for this amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am joined today by Senators Leahy,
Lautenberg, and Jeffords, in amending the foreign operations
rescissions package. When the committee decided to move forward with
rescissions I requested a listing of the unobligated balances in our
international affairs accounts. I learned that the three largest
accounts which have been slow to spend their resources are those
committed to the Middle East, the New Independent States, and the
Development Fund for Africa.
It is my view that contributing to the economic and political
stability in the NIS is a vital interest of the United States in the
post-cold-war world. Although many of the specific programs for the NIS
have been plagued by difficulties, I am reluctant to send the signal
that Congress is abandoning its commitment to the region. The House
rescission which reflected a 10 percent cut to the region's unobligated
balances might send just such a message.
The troop housing project is obviously troubled. We have held a
number of hearings to review whether it is, in any way, meeting the
defined objectives. We had expected the program to offer incentive to
remove troops from the Baltics, build housing where there was an acute
shortage, generate jobs in the construction sector, and expand private
home ownership--I think there is consensus that it has failed on
virtually all accounts. Nevertheless, I would prefer to see the funds
for the project reprogrammed rather than cut out altogether.
As an alternative to the House provisions, Senator Leahy and I are
offering a modest reduction in the NIS account with a requirement that
two-thirds of the resources are drawn from the Russia projects.
This was a direct and determined response to the situation in
Chechnya. A few weeks ago when the administration decided to offer $20
million in relief to Chechnya, we learned that they planned to draw
some of the funding from Armenia, Georgia, and other regional emergency
accounts. I see no purpose in punishing those countries to compensate
for Russian outrages in Chechnya. The requirement that two-thirds of
the rescissions from
the NIS account be drawn from Russian programs is intended to
reinforce that message.
The second large account with unobligated balances had a direct
affect on the Middle East peace process. Again, I think our interests
dictated that we not take any action that could disrupt our commitment
to stability and the peace process. Consequently, I was unwilling to
draw down this account to support rescissions.
I relied on the third account, the Africa Development Fund for two
reasons--the slow spending rate and the fact that the fund is
complemented by an array of other accounts that contribute to Africa
development. In addition to the DFA, we contribute to the Africa
Development Foundation, the Africa Development Fund, the Africa
Development Bank, and the International Development Association.
After discussions with my colleagues, I have agreed to shift the
burden of rescissions from the bilateral Africa program where we have
more confidence and opportunity to assure United States interests are
addressed to the International Development Association which I view as
less responsive to United States goals.
[[Page S3595]] The rescissions Senator Leahy and I are offering,
continue our support for vital American interests while addressing our
common concerns about reducing our deficit. With this Congress we have
new responsibilities to reduce the deficit. I plan to make sure that
our foreign aid program contributes to the process of downsizing the
Government and our debt.
This rescissions proposal is the first step in a series of difficult
choices which lie ahead. Foreign aid can and should serve U.S. national
economic and political interests. When and where it fails to meet that
test, I guarantee my colleagues that the funds will be rescinded,
reprogrammed, or reduced.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor this
amendment because it would ensure that the foreign aid spending
reductions in this bill do not come entirely out of programs for
Africa.
Under the bill reported by Senate Appropriations Committee, $172
million in assistance for Africa was cut. No other region of the world
was affected. Senator Leahy and I expressed concern about the
reductions in assistance to Africa during the Senate Appropriations
Committee consideration of this bill because we thought it was unwise
to target all the cuts at one region. During the full committee markup,
the chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee
agreed to address our concern during full Senate consideration.
The amendment before the Senate today would do just that. It would
spread the burden of the rescissions in the foreign aid program across
more regions of the world. It would still rescind $62 million for the
African Development Fund. But instead of rescinding $110 million for
the Development Fund for Africa--which funds child survival, basic
education, health, and environmental programs--the amendment would
rescind $110 million from a multitude of programs. It would reduce
funding for the soft loan window of the World Bank by $70 million. It
would reduce funding for the former Soviet Union--mostly from Russia--
by $18 million. It would reduce $13 million in development assistance.
And it would reduce $9 million in aid to the countries of Eastern
Europe.
While all cuts are painful, the reductions proposed in this amendment
are a sound alternative to rescinding $172 million from one of the
poorest, most vulnerable regions of the world. Through our foreign aid
program, the United States currently spends approximately $1 per person
in Africa, far less than we spend on other regions of the world. That
is a small investment in the future of democracy and regional
stability. It is small amount of assistance to support fast growing
export markets. It is small amount to spend to reduce disease, end
poverty and human misery, and help create opportunities for the people
of Africa.
Madam President, it would be unwise to reduce aid only to Africa, and
I am glad we have reached an agreement with the chairman of the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Subcommittee to ensure that the 172 million
rescissions in foreign aid spending do not target Africa exclusively. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, this amendment embodies an agreement
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Foreign
Operations Subcommittee regarding the recisions recommended in chapter
3 of title II. It has been cleared on both sides. I ask for its
adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
So the amendment (No. 323) was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 324
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senators Gramm and Hollings, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending committee
amendments will be laid aside. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Gramm, (for
himself and Mr. Hollings) proposes an amendment numbered 324.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 25 of the Committee bill, strike line 14 through
line 12 on page 26, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Immigration Emergency Fund
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317, $10,000,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
Industrial Technology Services
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317 for the Advanced Technology Program, $32,000,000
are rescinded.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Operations, Research and Facilities
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317, $2,500,000 are rescinded.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Information Infrastructure Grants
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317, $34,000,000 are rescinded.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Economic Development Assistance Programs
(rescission)
Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317, $40,000,000 are rescinded.
RELATED AGENCIES
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Salaries and Expenses
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317 for tree-planting grants pursuant to section 24
of the Small Business Act, as amended, $15,000,000 are
rescinded.
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Payment to the Legal Services Corporation
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 103-317 for payment to the Legal Services Corporation to
carry out the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act
of 1974, as amended, $15,000,000 are rescinded.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad
(rescission)
Of unobligated balances available under this heading,
$28,500,000 are rescinded.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, at last week's markup of the defense
supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 889, Subcommittee Chairman
Senator Gramm and I found ourselves both opposed to specific domestic
rescissions that were included in the House-passed bill. Since that
committee meeting, we have been working on a substitute amendment to
the Commerce, Justice, and State chapter that we can both support, with
the ground rules that we must propose a rescission in place of any
rescission currently in the bill that is deleted.
Our amendment restores all but $10 million of the Immigration
Emergency Fund appropriation and most of the appropriation in the
Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program. The House had
proposed cutting $70 million from the Justice Fund and $107 million
from the Commerce Department's ATP Program. All of the alternative
offsets that this amendment proposes are from accounts within our
subcommittee's jurisdiction, and we have retained the $177 million in
deficit reduction proposed in both the House bill and the committee
recommended bill.
This amendment, which I will describe, represents a bipartisan
response to the reductions in Justice and technology programs proposed
by the House.
[[Page S3596]] immigration emergency fund
The amendment restores all but $10 million of the Department of
Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service's Immigration Emergency
Fund to the level provided in last year's CJS appropriation bill.
This fund was established for possible immigration emergencies, and
we provided a $75 million appropriation last summer to deal with the
Cuban and Haitian immigration crisis. Use of the fund, which has
current balances of $111 million, requires a Presidential declaration
of an emergency and congressional notification. Given the current state
of affairs along our Southern border, it is prudent that the account
balances be maintained at a level of at least $100 million.
advanced technology program
The amendment restores $75 million to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program [ATP]. The
committee amendment would retain a rescission of $32 million from this
account, instead of the $107 million proposed in the committee reported
bill.
The ATP is an important investment in American economic
competitiveness. It supports American industry's own efforts to develop
new cutting-edge, next-generation technologies--technologies that will
create the new industries and jobs of the 21st century. The ATP does
not fund the development of commercial products. Instead, it provides
matching funds to both individual companies and joint ventures for pre-
product research on these high-risk, potentially high-payoff
technologies. These technologies include promising new ideas in
manufacturing, advanced electronics, and new materials.
Why do we need the ATP? The answer is simple: to keep America
competitive and create jobs. Long-term technology has become the key to
future U.S. prosperity at precisely the time that global competition,
downsizing, and shareholder pressures now force American companies to
focus scarce research dollars on short-term projects. The Commerce
Department estimates that these market pressures now push companies to
spend up to 90 percent of their research funding on projects that will
pay off in 1 to 5 years. As a result, U.S. companies, small and large,
now have serious trouble funding long-term, next-generation
technologies that will build new industries but will not pay for 10 to
15 years. Moreover, historically the U.S. Government has supported
long-term research in only a few key sectors--an approach very
different from our foreign competitors.
The ATP's sole aim is to develop new basic technologies that would
not be pursued or pursued soon because of technical risks and other
obstacles that discourage private-sector investment. The ATP does not
support product development, and is modeled on similar Federal research
programs which have long helped a few sectors such as agriculture, the
aircraft industry, and the energy technology. The program particularly
helps small technology companies. To date, the ATP has made 177 awards,
involving 480 companies and research partners in 38 States.
The ATP is new, but already has begun to make a real difference.
Diamond Semiconductor Group's story is not atypical. It had a new idea
for reliably producing larger, more-cost effective semiconductor
wafer--about the size of an LP record as opposed to today's small
wafers. But the company did not have the resources to fully test out
its idea. ``Winning the ATP award was absolutely critical to us,'' says
President Manny Sieradzki. The ATP award helped the company provide the
proof needed for varian associates, as major semiconductor equipment
manufacturer, to provide development funding.
I want to mention three other points about the ATP. First, the ATP is
part of a long American tradition of supporting industry efforts to
develop new technologies. To date, most of those efforts have been in
defense or a few key civilian areas. But those older U.S. investments
have been substantial and effective. USDA helped create modern
agriculture, the Government has supported aeronautical research since
1915, and the NIH helped create biotechnology. The ATP simply extends
this proven model of long-term investments in technology to the rest of
U.S. industry. And, while the ATP assists a wide range of American
industries, it costs less than comparable programs which serve specific
sectors. In fiscal year 1995, the ATP and NIST's manufacturing
extension program cost a total of $522 million--compared with $1.675
billion at USDA for research and extension, $882 million at NASA for
aeronautics, and $3.757 billion at the Department of Energy for
civilian energy technology.
Second, this is not interfering with the marketplace or having the
Government pick winners and losers. The ATP is without doubt the most
market-driven technology program supported by the Government. Industry,
not government, proposes both specific projects and key areas of
technology to focus on. Industry, not Government, runs the projects and
contributes the majority of the funds. As mentioned, the ATP supports
only long-term pre-product research, never product development. And
awards are made by peer-review panels of technical experts and retired
business executives--not by the White House, not by the Secretary of
Commerce, and not by Congress.
Third, the ATP has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. The Bush
administration wrote the regulations for the ATP, and in his fiscal
year 1993 budget President Bush requested substantial increases for the
program. In addition, on June 25, 1992, Senate Republicans--through the
Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting the Defense Base Chaired by
Senator Warren Rudman--endorsed both the ATP and the NIST Manufacturing
Extension Program. This program has had strong bipartisan support in
the past, and deserves strong bipartisan support now.
noaa procurement savings
The amendment proposes a rescission of $2.5 million of funds
appropriated in fiscal year 1995 to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] for modifications and procurement of
aircraft radar. NOAA has procured and is installing the radar, but has
informed the subcommittee that $2.5 million is excess to requirements.
The agency recently proposed to reprogram these funds for
administrative overhead. The subcommittee recommends applying these
resources instead for deficit reduction and restoring the ATP program.
information infrastructure grants
The subcommittee recommends a rescission of $34 million for
Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, Information Infrastructure Grants. This program was
created in fiscal year 1994, and the first grant awards recently were
made. Funding for this program increased from $26 million in fiscal
year 1994 to $64 million in fiscal year 1995. It has yet to be
authorized, and we have continued to oppose rescissions from the Public
Broadcasting Facilities Program in NTIA that the administration keeps
proposing. Accounting for departmental transfers and reprogrammings,
this rescission restores the program to its fiscal year 1994 level.
economic development assistance programs
The amendment would rescind $40 million for the Economic Development
Administration [EDA]. This is $20 million more than the committee
reported bill. I reluctantly agreed to this rescission. Following our
fiscal year 1995 appropriation bill, the EDA proposed a reprogramming
of $40 million from Defense economic adjustment/conversion and regular
title IX programs to initiate a new Competitive Communities Program. As
I understand it, this new program would provide grants to
intermediaries to provide loans to industries locating or expanding in
impacted communities. THe subcommittee was unable to reach agreement in
order to approve the reprogramming request--and under our guidelines
both the majority and minority must agree for a reprogramming to go
forward. In light of that, we have agreed to use these resources in
lieu of House rescissions.
small business administration tree-planting
The amendment proposes to rescind $15 million from the Small Business
Administration's [SBA] salaries and expenses account. This rescission
is proposed in the President's budget.
This action would terminate the SBA tree planting program. This is a
nice
[[Page S3597]] program that provides grants to States and local
governments to plant seedlings and small trees. But, it has little to
do with the mission or purpose of the SBA, and we have never supported
funding in a Senate appropriations bill. In fact, it has never been
authorized by the Small Business Committees. It has been an annual
House Appropriations Committee add-on-the budget.
legal services corporation
The amendment proposes to rescind $15 million of the $415 million
appropriated in last year's CJS appropriations bill for the Legal
Services Corporation [LSC]. This amendment would reduce the payment to
the LSC to the level recommended by the Senate last year. We fought
hard in conference last year to contain the growth of the Legal
Services Corporation, which had grown each year due to pressure from
the House. With the political see change in the House, I'm sure that
they should be willing to return to the lower Senate-passed funding
level.
state department unobligated balances
The amendment proposes to rescind $28.5 million from unobligated
balances in the Department of State's foreign buildings account. Again,
it is with great reluctance that I recommend this rescission. This is
an area in which the Senate-passed CJS appropriations bill exceeded the
House last year, and we got them to come up to our level. Each year the
Department of State's program changes due to delays, scope and priority
changes, and contract savings. Normally, we would support retaining
these balances to further the overseas construction program. But, in
the current environment, these balances are being proposed for
rescission to offset restoring House rescissions.
conclusion
This is unpleasant business. I think everyone should realize that the
House is driving this game. These rescissions are not going to offset
Department of Defense readiness spending; instead, they will be used,
at least for the time being, for deficit reduction. The ground rules,
as laid out by chairman Hatfield and the leadership, are that we must
meet or exceed the amount of rescissions that the House has proposed.
And, I should note that our House counterparts recently approved a
second, much larger rescission bill.
Both chairman Gramm and I agree that this amendment provides for a
vastly improved package than what the House sent to the Senate. I urge
adoption of the amendment.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, this amendment embodies an agreement
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Commerce,
Justice Subcommittee regarding the rescissions recommended in chapter
1, title II.
It has been cleared by both sides. I recommend its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 324) was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, 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. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 325
(Purpose: To provide that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 shall not
apply with respect to Fort Bragg, NC)
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for himself
and Mr. Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 325.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following:
SEC. 1. FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA.
Notwithstanding any other law, for fiscal year 1995 and
each fiscal year thereafter, the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall not apply with respect to
land under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I inquire if my distinguished
colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Faircloth, has been added as a
cosponsor of this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, as we always say around this place, this amendment
is simple and straightforward. I have never heard of an amendment being
offered that was not simple and straightforward.
This amendment proposes to stop the Federal Government and its
bureaucrats from, first, preventing the Department of the Army from
carrying out its national security mission and, second, wasting
taxpayer dollars in the process.
The amendment addresses a problem the Army is having at Fort Bragg,
NC. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed a red-cockaded
woodpecker as a threatened and endangered species and has designated
Fort Bragg as a major recovery area for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The bureaucrats at the Fish and Wildlife Service have forced the
Department of the Army to go to great length and great expense to set
aside land, create tank trails, create nesting areas, and restrict
construction--all to meet an arbitrary plan to protect woodpecker
nests.
The Department of the Army has been required, first, to set aside
12,000 acres of land just to protect the woodpecker; second, to prepare
a 44-page report that limits training activities of the Army; third,
since fiscal year 1989, the Army has spent more than $5 million as a
result of the efforts to protect the woodpecker; fourth, to halt eight
construction projects at the base.
Madam President, it is my understanding that four species are being
protected at Fort Bragg and another one is going to be added soon--a
butterfly--to make that five species. There are 70 more State and
Federal species in line to be added. If four species require almost
13,000 acres of protection, what is going to happen 5 or 10 years down
the road when there will be 70 species? Will there be any land at Fort
Bragg left on which to train our troops?
The last time I checked the function of the Army is to defend the
national security interests of the United States and not birds in
trees. To carry out its national security function, the Army must have
the ability to train its troops in battlefield situations. But as any
military expert will tell you, training exercises are impeded when
planners must work around protected woodpecker nests. This is in fact
the case at Fort Bragg.
Madam President, there is another point: The Army is currently
attempting to purchase an 11,000 acre parcel of land--known as the
Overhills tract. This purchase has aroused some controversy inasmuch as
it will take a significant amount of valuable land off the tax rolls in
Harnett County, NC.
Part of the reason the Army must acquire this parcel, is to protect
the red cockcaded woodpecker. Let me quote from a letter I recently
received from the Department of Army:
Purchasing this land would bring us much closer to
attaining the number of active RCW (red cockaded woodpecker)
colonies established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Once the RCW population has been recovered, Fort Bragg will
have much greater freedom in training and siting construction
to support our mission.
The Army is being forced to buy more land, using taxpayers dollars,
to protect woodpecker colonies.
Gen. Robert E. Lee wrote these words to his wife on December 25,
1862:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families
and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has
granted to us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred
instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair
face of this beautiful world!
There will always be threats to our national security. The cold war
may be over, but there still remain threats to our national security.
We owe our soldiers the best possible training.
[[Page S3598]] It is outrageous to sacrifice the training of our
troops on the altar of environmentalism.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on this amendment?
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, first of all, this is legislation on an
appropriations bill, and I think that is improper to start with. But
more than that, it is absolutely clear that in the Environment and
Public Works Committee we are going to deal with the Endangered Species
Act this year. That act is coming up for reauthorization and, indeed,
it has not been reauthorized in several years, but we are going to
reauthorize it. We are going to review it in connection with all the
problems that have been cited so frequently.
I just think it is a mistake for us to be going at this piecemeal
with every State which has a particular problem with the Endangered
Species Act, to bring it forward in this piecemeal fashion. We are
going to go at it in a very thoughtful way with hearings, with the
administration testifying, with those Senators who wish to testify to
come forward and, indeed, just today, we considered a measure by the
Senator from Texas that would apply a 6-month moratorium on further
listings under the Endangered Species Act. It deals solely with section
4, which is the listing section, and it does not deal with section 7,
which is the conciliation section. That is quite proper.
In our committee, we had the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary
Bruce Babbitt, testify. We had representatives from industry, and we
had representatives from the affected areas and that is a very
thoughtful way to proceed on this.
But I do deplore the procedure that is occurring tonight, which is to
take a particular section and a particular area and say you cannot
apply the Endangered Species Act to that.
Now, maybe there should not be colonies of woodpeckers provided for,
but who knows what else might be encompassed under this procedure?
So, Madam President, I think it is very unfortunate that we are
proceeding in this fashion, and I hope that the amendment will not be
accepted.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAMS). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I really hope in this particular case the
Senate will follow the leadership of John Chafee, the chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. I think it is not the right way
to go about amending the Endangered Species Act, to attack it on every
type of bill that comes before us. It is not the right way to govern.
I wish to read what the amendment says:
Notwithstanding any other law, for fiscal year 1995 and
each fiscal year thereafter, the Endangered Species Act shall
not apply with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army at Fort Bragg, NC.
Well, if everybody carved out their territory, we would not be doing
much to preserve the species that we really have an obligation to
preserve.
Today, in the hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
we spent about 4 hours debating the Endangered Species Act. Many people
do not realize that the drug taxol, which is the hope for those with
ovarian cancer and breast cancer, came from a plant called the yew
tree. Many people do not realize that the hope of finding cures for all
kinds of dreaded diseases lies with these plants, these exotic plants,
sometimes very simple weeds.
There is a company which grew up in the Silicon Valley of California
called Shaman Pharmaceutical. It is a very interesting story. A shaman
in the old culture is actually a doctor, and Shaman Pharmaceutical was
founded here in the United States of America by a very bright young
woman, business woman who realized the value that lies in these plants
in the South American rain forests, and they have come forward with at
least three drugs from these exotic plants which hold tremendous
promise to treat lung disease and very, very difficult diseases to
cure.
So I would say we do not know what endangered species lie in this
particular area of Fort Bragg. We do not know what particular plants
are there, what species are there, if they hold hope for the future.
But simply to attach this amendment to a bill that deals with paying
for military operations is certainly the wrong way to go about it.
So I certainly do hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle
will follow the leadership of Senator Chafee, the chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. Let us show our faith in his
leadership of this committee. It is going to be difficult to
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. We know we have to make it
better. But we also know that if we pick it apart piece by piece, area
by area, it seems to me we are robbing this country of some very
important, potentially lifesaving endangered species. A lot of people
say, when you point out that a specie is in danger, what does that have
to do with me, this little bird over here? They make fun of some of the
endangered species.
Well, the fact is we have an ecological chain, and everyone supports
saving the bald eagle. The Endangered Species Act saved the bald eagle.
Everyone supported saving the California condor. And I will tell you,
we lost in California the grizzly bear because we were not on top of
preserving it. We lost that opportunity forever. It is gone. Our
grandchildren will never know what a California grizzly bear really
was. So this is not the way to go about the debate on the Endangered
Species Act.
We had Secretary of the Interior Babbitt in front of the committee
today. He clearly stated he has gotten the message. He is going to work
with communities. He is talking about exempting private properties,
small parcels, from the Act so that we do not overburden small property
owners. I think we are making terrific progress.
The Senator from Rhode Island is working with the Senator from Texas,
and I think the bill she now has is moving in the right direction. I
personally do not support a moratorium on this because you might lose a
species in the process, which I think is the wrong way to go. But we
are working together in the committee, Democrats and Republicans alike.
So, again, I am very surprised to see this amendment. I had no idea
it was coming to the floor. I am pleased I was here so I could
participate in the debate. I hope we will at the proper time vote
against this amendment. It simply does not make any sense to have an
amendment such as this on a bill which deals with paying for military
operations.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as one of the managers of this measure, I
find this amendment to be most unfortunate. We have not had the
opportunity of listening to all of the facts. I have listened very
carefully to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator
from Rhode Island, and I believe all of us should take his sage advice.
The committee is about to take up the whole measure of endangered
species. This is an appropriations bill, and to have legislation of
this sort placed upon it would place the whole measure in jeopardy. I
hope we would do something to resolve this matter.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The other Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the amendment
of my fellow Senator from North Carolina in regard to the red-cockaded
woodpecker and the problem it has presented to Fort Bragg. The EPW has
been completely out of reason in what we should be doing there, and
they set
[[Page S3599]] a quota of 300 colonies of red-cockaded woodpeckers
that had to be established on the Fort Bragg military reservation. Some
25,000 acres have already been contributed to raising woodpeckers, and
now we are talking about buying roughly 12,000 more acres at $15
million of taxpayers' money to meet the quota of 300 colonies of red-
cockaded woodpeckers.
I think the amendment that Senator Helms has proposed is a good one.
But I also agree with Senator Chafee that we need to bring it up before
the EPW Committee, of which Senator Chafee is chairman, and of which I
am a member. I would like the opportunity to work with Senator Chafee
in the EPW Committee, and I will personally commit to the Senator from
North Carolina that it will be done expeditiously and we will bring it
up and act on it in the EPW Committee if he would see fit to withdraw
his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from North Carolina
and I want to say this to them. We have not had an opportunity to have
a hearing on this. We will rapidly. I do not want to say tomorrow or
the day after, but all I can say is we will get to it as rapidly as we
can. We will listen to the testimony, we will have the folks from the
Army up, we will have folks from the Fish and Wildlife--I presume they
are the people who are dealing with this--and possibly the EPA people.
We will do the best we can to resolve this.
Obviously, if we cannot resolve it I will so inform the Senators from
North Carolina and they will have opportunities to bring this up again.
But it will be our earnest attempt to get this thing settled in a
fashion that recognizes the problems that have been set forth by both
the distinguished Senators.
So that is my commitment to attend to it very soon. I hope they will
give me a little time to get to this because we have to get witnesses
and, again, I cannot say it is going to be tomorrow, I cannot say it is
going to be next week. But I can just say we will get right to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, needless to say I thank the Senator from
Rhode Island. His proposition is fair. Every piece of legislation ought
to stand on its own merits. Even though I think this is a ridiculous
situation extant at Fort Bragg, NC, it is the same kind of ridiculous
situation that is confronting businessmen all over this country. I am
glad the Senator is working on that proposition.
In view of what has been said here, Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator now has that right.
The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 325) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator
from North Carolina and the junior Senator. The junior Senator is a
very esteemed member of our committee. I know he will pay close
attention to this whole matter.
Second, I thank the senior Senator from Hawaii for his support in
this matter. When he spoke, it got everybody's attention. Likewise, the
distinguished Senator from California, who so ably spoke on this
previously. Now it is up to us. We will get to it in the Environment
and Public Works Committee.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 326
(Purpose: To strengthen international sanctions against the
Castro government in Cuba, to develop a plan to support a
transition government leading to a democratically elected
government in Cuba, and for other purposes.)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a printed amendment and
I ask the sponsors be identified by the clerk in the preface to the
bill. I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. HELMS] for himself,
Mr. Dole, Mr. Mack, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Graham, Mr. D'Amato,
Mr. Hatch, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Gregg,
Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Thomas, Mr.
Smith, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Warner, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Robb
proposes an amendment numbered 326.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notifies the Senator from North
Carolina that there is a pending first-degree amendment at this time.
Mr. HELMS. I was not aware of that. I ask unanimous consent that it
be temporarily laid aside so I can discuss my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I was astonished to learn this morning that
President Clinton's advisers have recommended that he ease up on the
embargo against Fidel Castro's Communist Dictatorship in Cuba. If these
advisers are parading under the flag of expertise, it's a false flag,
and they are doing great harm to the President with such advice.
This is no time to be reducing U.S. pressure on Castro. It is
precisely the wrong way to go. Backing off on Castro will help the
Castro Communist dictatorship and do great harm to the Cuban people--
who already have suffered too much for 36 years.
I have made it clear that, as chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, doing everything possible to bring freedom and
democracy to Cuba is at the top of my priority list.
That is why I introduced the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
[Libertad] Act as my first piece of legislation as chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee.
Fidel Castro's brutal and cruel Communist dictatorship has persecuted
the Cuban people for 36 years. He is the world's longest reigning
tyrant.
Let me be clear: Whether Castro leaves Cuba in a vertical or
horizontal position is up to him and the Cuban people. But he must--and
will--leave Cuba.
I categorically reject suggestions to lift or soften the embargo. For
36 years, both Republican and Democratic Presidents have maintained a
consistent, bipartisan policy of isolating Castor's dictatorship.
There must be no retreat in that policy today. If anything, with the
collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the end of Soviet subsidies to Cuba, the
embargo is finally having the effect on Castro that has been intended
all along. Why should the United States let up the pressure how? It is
time to tighten the screws--not loosen them. We have an obligation--to
our principles and to the Cuban people--to elevate the pressure on
Castro until the Cuban people are free.
The bipartisan Cuba policy has led the American people to stand
together in support of restoring freedom to Cuba. As for my
legislation, it incorporates and builds upon the significant work of
the two distinguished Senators from Florida, Connie Mack and Bob
Graham, and of a number of our colleagues in the House of
Representatives.
The message we should be sending to both Castro and those who want to
do business with him are contained in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act now at the desk. The message is: Isolate Castro until
the Cuban people are free.
We can achieve this by strengthening international sanctions against
the Castro regime by prohibiting sugar imports from countries that
purchase sugar from Cuba and then sell that sugar to us; and
instructing our representatives to the International Financial
Institutions to vote against loans to Cuba and to require the United
[[Page S3600]] States to withhold our contribution to those same
institutions if they ignore our objections and aid the Castro regime.
We can accomplish this objective by urging the President to seek an
international embargo against Cuba at the United Nations, and by
prohibiting loans or other financing by a United States person to a
foreign person or entity who purchases an American property confiscated
by the Cuban regime.
My legislation reaffirms the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, revitalizes
our broadcasting programs to Cuba, and cuts off foreign aid to any
independent state of the former Soviet Union that aids Castro,
specifically if that aid goes for the operation of military and
intelligence facilities in Cuba which threaten the United States.
This bill encourages free and fair elections in Cuba after Mr. Castro
is gone and authorizes programs to promote free market and private
enterprise in Cuba.
The bill also helps U.S. citizens and U.S. companies whose property
was confiscated by the Castro regime by denying entry into the United
States to anyone who confiscates or benefits from such property and by
allowing a U.S. citizen with a confiscated property claim to go into a
U.S. court to seek compensation from a person or entity which is being
unjustly enriched by the use of that confiscated property.
Mr. President, the Cuban people are industrious and innovative. In
countries where people are allowed to live and work in freedom, they
have prospered. My hope and the hope of the cosponsors of this bill, is
that this bill will hasten an end to the brutal Castro dictatorship and
make Cuba free and prosperous once more.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina. I understand he has laid the amendment down and we
will continue the debate tomorrow morning.
I think when the administration talks about easing sanctions on Cuba
they have made a big, big mistake. They have misread the American
people, not just in the State of Florida where many Cuban-Americans
reside. They have misread the public opinion all across America.
I hope that we have a good discussion of this amendment tomorrow
morning. I thank the Senator from North Carolina. I am a cosponsor of
the amendment. I thank him for laying down the amendment this time.
I hope my colleagues will have an opportunity to study the amendment
overnight and to also review the remarks of the Senator from North
Carolina so that they might also participate in the debate.
We are back on the bill at 10:30 or 11 tomorrow. I am not certain. We
have not made that determination yet.
I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. This amendment is to an
excepted committee amendment. Is that not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the chair that the
Senator from North Carolina has an amendment set aside to propose this
to the bill itself. The Senator, however, has the right to change it.
Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Modification of Amendment No. 326
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may modify,
at the bottom of page 1 of the amendment, so as to read, ``At the end
of the first excepted committee amendment, add the following:''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The modification reads as follows:
At the end of the first excepted committee amendment, add
the following:
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, 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. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________