[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3656-S3660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 328

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 328.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. 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 25, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to or programs in the Democratic People's Republic 
     of Korea, or for implementation of the October 21, 1994, 
     Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic 
     People's Republic of Korea, unless specifically appropriated 
     for that purpose.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment that I offer today is 
attached to H.R. 889, Department of Defense supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  Specifically, the amendment, which I offer on behalf of myself and 
the majority leader, Senator Dole, requires that funds to be used under 
this act for implementation of the framework agreement, which was dated 
October 21, between the United States and the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea--that is North Korea--must be specifically 
appropriated for that purpose.
  What the amendment would prohibit in the future is the following: It 
would prohibit using emergency provisions to implement provisions of 
the agreed framework with North Korea; second, it would prohibit using 
reprogrammed funds to implement the provisions of the agreed framework 
with North Korea.
  Mr. President, I feel the amendment is necessary because as my 
colleagues will recall a number of Members joined Senator Dole and 
myself in adding similar restrictive language in the last Congress to 
the foreign aid appropriations bill and defense appropriations bill. 
Although both of those measures passed overwhelmingly, they were 
stripped at the conference on assurances from the administration that 
the United States was not preparing to give aid to North Korea.
  However, since signing of the agreed framework, the administration 
has already seen fit to use $4.7 million in emergency Department of 
Defense funds to pay for the provision of heavy oil for the benefit of 
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
  Further, the administration has asked for $10 million in reprogrammed 
Department of Energy funds to pay for the treatment of spent fuel in 
North Korea associated with their existing nuclear reactors. I have 
recently learned that the administration is prepared to ask for an 
additional $5.4 million of State Department funds to pay for startup 
costs of an international consortium known as KEDO.
  Many of us were dismayed that the administration chose to use 
emergency funds to pay for the provision of heavy oil--essentially 
giving foreign aid to North Korea without congressional authorization, 
and despite all the restrictions in law prohibiting any assistance to 
the DPRK. The administration lawyers downtown found the only provision 
they could to get around congressional approval.
   [[Page S3657]] This amendment would prohibit such actions in the 
future. The amendment prevents the administration from going around 
Congress again to find additional funds to assist North Korea. If the 
administration is firmly convinced that such expenditures are in the 
national security interests of the United States, then the 
administration should first come up and ask for specific appropriations 
for that purpose.
  The overall cost of the provision of the two light-water reactors and 
hundreds of thousands of tons of interim energy to the North Koreans is 
going to cost billions of dollars. The light-water reactors alone are 
estimated to cost over $4 billion.
  The administration has testified to committees of jurisdiction that 
the U.S. portion of the costs of implementing the agreed framework will 
be in the ``tens of millions of dollars.'' The President's fiscal year 
1996 budget requests $22 million specifically for the Korean Energy 
Development Organization, which is KEDO. I am informed that the 
Department of Energy will seek to use fiscal year 1996 funds to support 
spent fuel related activities in North Korea.
  Mr. President, I intend to offer this amendment to all subsequent 
appropriations bills, if necessary.
  Mr. President, at this time, I would also like to call my colleagues' 
attention to an event scheduled for tonight that will likely have far 
reaching implications for whether the agreed framework with North Korea 
will be successful.
  Tonight, something called KEDO is supposed to kick off with a 
cocktail party in New York. Some of my colleagues might be wondering 
what KEDO is and why is the administration seeking $27 million for its 
activities. KEDO, the Korean Energy Development Organization, is the 
international consortium the administration pledged to put together 
under the agreed framework. The agreed framework calls on the United 
States ``to organize under its leadership an international consortium 
to finance and supply'' the light water reactor project in North Korea. 
As I mentioned, this light water project is expected to cost at least 
$4 billion. Further, the United States ``representing the consortium, 
will make arrangements to offset the energy foregone due to the 
freeze'' of the existing North Korean nuclear power program. In other 
words, we are expected to arrange to give North Korea free oil. Fifty 
thousand tons were delivered on January 21. One hundred thousand tons 
are scheduled to be delivered by October 21, 1995. Every year 
thereafter North Korea is expected to receive 500,000 tons until the 
light water reactor project is complete.
  In addition to these substantial commitments, North Korea is 
demanding that the United States pay for about $1 billion worth of 
projects to upgrade the electrical grid to make the light water reactor 
project worthwhile. It is still unclear whether North Korean demands 
will be met.
  If the United States agreed to put together the international 
consortium, who agreed to pick up all the bills? That is where the 
accountability gets cloudy. So far, only the United States has actually 
signed any checks. First, the Department of Defense used nearly $5 
million in Defense Department emergency funds to purchase the first 
trench of oil. Then, the Department of Energy successfully sought $10 
million in reprogrammed funds for treatment of spent fuel from the 
graphite moderated reactors in North Korea. Now, additional funds are 
being sought from the Department of State--and none of the really 
expensive projects has even started.
  The South Korean Government has repeatedly said it will play the 
central role in the international consortium in financing the light 
water reactor project. But, the South Koreans have wisely added that 
this can only occur if North Korea agrees to accept South Korean 
reactors and if North Korea engages in substantive dialog with the 
South.
  The Japanese Government has also said it will play an appropriate 
role. But, the Japanese have been quick to add that their role is 
dependent on having
 widespread participation in KEDO, including a United States financial 
role. I often remind my friends in Japan that we spend $2 billion per 
year to keep 37,000 American troops on the Korean Peninsula. To this 
Senator that is a big contribution.

  Ambassador Robert Gallucci, the lead U.S. negotiator of the agreed 
framework, has indicated that 20 nations are expected to attend the 
inauguration of KEDO, but he admitted that not all of the countries 
will actually join KEDO. In fact, the only additional contributions 
announced thus far are from New Zealand and Australia.
  The test for KEDO--and the State Department--is whether KEDO is 
anything more than a convenient multinational cover for what could 
become a costly and dangerous U.S. obligation. The North Korea nuclear 
situation should certainly be a multilateral and a regional issue. I 
have always felt that South Korea and Japan should have been original 
signatories to the agreed framework. I believe that the ASEAN nations 
should all contribute. I firmly believe that China should be playing a 
significant financial role given China's historical role in aiding 
North Korea. Has the United States simply taken over that aid role from 
China?
  But the most disturbing aspect of KEDO for this Senator is that if 
KEDO fails to solicit the necessary funds, President Clinton has 
already committed the United States to fulfilling the terms of the 
agreed framework. On October 20, President Clinton sent a letter to Kim 
Jong Il, the new leader of North Korea, pledging to use the full powers 
of his office to provide the light water reactor project and interim 
fuel from the United States if other means fail. I ask that a copy of 
President Clinton's letter of assurance be submitted for the record. 
The President acknowledged that his pledge was subject to ``the 
approval of the U.S. Congress,'' but no Member of Congress that I know 
was briefed on the contents of this letter before it was sent.
  This Senator continues to believe that if the President must come to 
Congress to seek funds for this multibillion-dollar deal, after having 
ignored Congress in agreeing to the terms and conditions of the agreed 
framework, then Congress has the right to reexamine the conditions 
attached to that appropriation. I will continue to insist that North 
Korea allow immediate inspection of the two suspected nuclear waste 
sites that they have kept hidden from IAEA inspectors.
  In addition, other issues should be addressed. I strongly believe 
that North Korea must agree to joint recovery teams to search for the 
8,177 service personnel still listed as MIA from the Korean war. 
Second, North Korea must agree to stop exporting ballistic missiles. 
Finally, North Korea must engage in meaningful dialog with South Korea. 
But these are issues to take up at another day.
  The purpose of my statement today is to urge my colleagues to remind 
the administration of the congressional role in implementing the agreed 
framework and to call your attention to the inauguration of KEDO.
  Thank you, and I wish the Chair a good day.
  I have no further statement, Mr. President. I believe that both sides 
have looked at this, and I defer to my colleague, the senior Senator 
from Alaska [Mr. Stevens].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Murkowski 
amendment? The senior Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that the amendment offered 
by my colleague has been discussed and is in a position now where it 
can be accepted as an amendment to this bill.
  I ask my friend from Hawaii if he agrees. I believe it applies to 
funds in this act and, under that limitation, we are prepared to accept 
it.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am personally prepared to accept the 
amendment, but I just received a request from the Senator from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Pell] that he would like to look over the amendment, and he 
will be here shortly. So may I request that the acceptance be held up 
for, say, 5 minutes?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is no objection on my part and, I 
am sure, that of my colleague.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
   [[Page S3658]] Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator just yield? I wonder 
if the senior Senator will be on the floor and can proceed on my behalf 
because I have a hearing.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I shall be glad to do that. I think the 
Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Illinois want time. Does the 
Senator from Iowa seek the floor to offer an amendment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. No, to speak on the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator from Iowa pardon me and allow me to 
interrupt?
  I am now informed that the amendment offered by my colleague from 
Alaska can be adopted at this point. There is no further objection, as 
I understand it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the junior Senator 
from Alaska.
  The amendment (No. 328) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my reasons for voting 
for the bill, but also to state some concerns I have about the 
direction that the Department of Defense is taking.
  I want to commend, first of all, the Appropriations Committee and, of 
course, its chairman, Senator Hatfield, for doing what I think is a 
very responsible thing, and that is to offset the cost of the readiness 
through rescissions, not from other Departments of Government, but from 
Defense Department programs.
  I recently requested both the CBO and the General Accounting Office, 
GAO, to review the defense budget to determine whether there were 
programs being funded that were not directly related to a strong 
military and our national security operations and responsibilities.
  CBO identified $64 billion falling into that category, and the GAO 
identified $70 billion. Those are figures that cover the next 5 years. 
They suggested that these programs were absolutely clearly not related 
to our national security, but they identified these programs for review 
to determine whether these programs should be continued in the defense 
budget.
  I am pleased to note that some of the programs contained in the 
reports that I requested have been used by the Appropriations Committee 
as offsets in this bill.
  My view, in general, is that we should not only scrutinize nondefense 
spending in the defense budget but many defense-related items as well. 
So along that line, I commend specifically Senators McCain and Warner, 
both of them very respected members of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, for their work in identifying defense programs that should 
be cut or reduced, such as the B-2 bomber and the M-1 tank upgrade.
  Because I firmly believe that we must closely scrutinize both 
military programs, as Senator McCain and Senator Warner have suggested, 
but also I go beyond that to other so-called nondefense spending, which 
is in the defense budget, before we consider increasing defense 
spending above this administration's proposed levels.
 And I hope you remember that for the 5 years in this year's budget, 
the President's proposing $25 billion above what it was in his first 
budget.

  Now, I think that scrutinizing these programs is exactly what the 
Appropriations Committee has done in this bill. The committee found it 
unnecessary to increase defense spending to meet the readiness needs 
because it found alternative options to new spending.
  Mr. President, last year I supported what we call in this body 
defense firewalls so spending cannot be taken out of defense and spent 
some place else. Many of my colleagues were concerned then that we 
might rob the defense budget to pay for domestic programs. Rather, we 
believe that if defense spending is reduced, it should be used to cut 
the deficit, not to increase domestic spending.
  I also believe there is another corollary, because I believe that 
defense firewalls should work both ways. We should not rob funding for 
domestic programs to pay for defense spending either. There is clearly 
sufficient funding within the defense budget to meet readiness 
concerns. It is simply a matter of the Pentagon prioritizing its 
funding and improving its management. Because the Appropriations 
Committee has not robbed the domestic spending accounts to pay for 
defense readiness, I am willing to support this supplemental 
appropriations bill, and I commend the committee's work. I strongly 
urge the committee, however, to continue its good work and to resist in 
conference any efforts by the other body to pay for defense programs 
from domestic offsets.
  Now, having said that, Mr. President, I wish to address briefly the 
issue of the obligations and expenditures of public money that has not 
been appropriated by the Congress and specifically to alert my 
colleagues to some pending requests from the Department of Defense to 
amend authorizing language, present statute, which I think gives them 
the capability of spending money not appropriated by the Congress.
  The bill before us, if approved, would provide $126.3 million to bail 
out two Army fiscal year 1994 appropriations accounts. They would do it 
this way: $3.3 million for the military personnel account and $123 
million for the operation and maintenance account. These two accounts 
are overobligated. They are overdrawn. They are in the red.
  When the Army was ordered to deploy troops to Haiti, its financial 
accounts contained insufficient funds to cover the cost of the 
operation but we know that the Army deployed anyway. The Army spent 
money that it did not have. As a result of that operation, those 
accounts have negative balances. They are in the red to the tune of 
$126.3 million. If the $126.3 million is needed to meet legitimate 
obligations, then we in this Congress have no choice. We have to pony 
up the money because we have to pay our bills.
  Well, under the Constitution, as we know, that is not the way the 
spending process of the Federal Government, including the Defense 
Department, is supposed to work because under our Constitution Congress 
has the sole authority to decide when and to what extent public moneys 
are committed.
  Now, Mr. President, I am not suggesting that the bill before us 
contains unauthorized appropriations. Quite the contrary. The 
Department of Defense is authorized under the law to spend money in 
excess of available appropriations. That authority is contained in the 
Feed and Forage Act that dates back to the Civil War.
  The authority was justified in those days. Troops often went on long 
periods without pay and had to forage to survive. Government chits were 
issued to exchange for food and redeemed later on for cash. The Feed 
and Forage Act is embodied in section 11 of title 41 of the United 
States Code. The Feed and Forage Act was last invoked by the Department 
of Defense on September 19, 1994. That decision generated the request 
for these $126.3 million that are in this bill. The authorizing 
documents were signed by Mr. Deutch, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and 
Mr. Hamre, the Comptroller.
  I ask unanimous consent that those be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              The Deputy Secretary of Defense,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 1994.
     Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, 
         Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commander in 
         Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.
     Subject: Obligations in Excess of Appropriations for 
         Restoration of Democracy in Haiti.
       The Department of Defense is likely to incur, in accordance 
     with applicable law, obligations in excess of available 
     appropriations to ensure the necessary funding to support 
     units of the U.S. Armed Forces conducting military operations 
     in connection with the restoration of democracy in Haiti.
       I authorize the incurring of deficiencies for clothing, 
     subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, and 
     medical and hospital supplies, not in excess of the 
     necessities of the current year, under the authority of 
     Section 3732 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 11), known as 
     the Feed and Forage Act. On my behalf, the Comptroller of the 
     Department of Defense shall make the reports to Congress 
     required by law with respect to the use of this authority.
       [[Page S3659]] Also, pursuant to Section 2201(c) of Title 
     10 of the United States Code and the necessity based on 
     Presidential determination to increase the number of members 
     of the Armed Forces on active duty beyond the number for 
     which funds were provided in Appropriations acts for the 
     Department of Defense, I authorize the incurring of 
     deficiencies for costs of such personnel under Section 
     3732(a) of the Revised Statutes.
       The Comptroller of the Department of Defense shall issue 
     such instructions as may be necessary to implement this 
     memorandum, including prescription of the dollar levels for 
     deficiencies by appropriations account.
     John Deutch.
                                                                    ____

                                                Comptroller of the


                                        Department of Defense,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 1994.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the Secretary of Defense, 
     this is to advise that the Secretary of Defense has invoked 
     the authority granted by Section 3732 of the Revised Statutes 
     (41 U.S.C. 11) to authorize the Military Departments to incur 
     obligations in excess of available appropriations for 
     clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, 
     transportation, and medical and hospital supplies, not in 
     excess of the necessities of the current year in support of 
     U.S. military. He has also invoked the authority granted by 
     Section 2201(c) of Title 10 U.S.C. to authorize incurring 
     deficiencies for the costs of additional members of the Armed 
     Forces. This action will ensure that the Department of 
     Defense can support U.S. military operations in connection 
     with the restoration of democracy in Haiti.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John J. Hamre.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Feed and Forage Act allows military services to 
make contracts and to purchase in advance of appropriations for 
clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, and 
medical supplies. The Feed and Forage Act gives the Department of 
Defense an open-ended authority to spend money almost without limits. 
The Department of Defense can invoke the authority whenever it sees 
fit. No special condition or no special circumstances must be met 
before that law can be invoked. We need not be at war. We need not be 
engaged in military combat overseas for the Department of Defense to 
tap the Treasury without an appropriation. And there is essentially no 
limit on the amount of money that can be spent. It is like, you might 
say, Mr. President, an open line of credit.
  Now, thank God, no other agency of the Federal Government has this 
kind of authority. Admittedly, in wartime, when our national security 
is threatened, this kind of authority may be essential. But, Mr. 
President, I am concerned about the use of this authority in peacetime, 
like today. My concerns are fueled by a Pentagon proposal to expand the 
authority beyond existing law. And remember, I just said that I wish to 
tell you what I am concerned about what the Department of Defense is 
thinking about doing.
  The original fiscal year 1995 defense supplemental bill as submitted 
to Congress included a request for special legislative authority. It 
would be numbered section 1863. Secretary of Defense Perry has referred 
to section 1863, and these are his words, as his ``readiness 
preservation authority.'' Readiness preservation authority. I ask 
unanimous consent to print that language in the Record, too, for my 
colleagues to study.
  There being no obligation, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Excerpt From the 1995 Supplemental Budget

      (Supplemental language now requested, existing legislation)

       Sec. 1863. During the last two quarters of the current 
     fiscal year, upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, incur necessary obligations to preserve the readiness 
     of the Armed Forces in excess of contract authority and 
     amounts available in appropriations of the Department of 
     Defense during the current fiscal year: Provided, That 
     obligations incurred shall be limited to those which are 
     required for essential readiness functions and activities of 
     the Armed Forces, including activities associated with 
     mission critical proficiency training, scheduled unit 
     exercises, the acquisition of spare parts that are critical 
     to the missions of the Armed Forces and such other activities 
     that the Secretary of Defense determines cannot be postponed 
     without a major impact on the readiness of the Armed Forces: 
     Provided further, That obligations incurred under the 
     foregoing authority shall not be more than 50 percent of the 
     total amount appropriated to the Department of Defense for 
     Operation and Maintenance, Budget Activity 1: Provided 
     further, That any proposal transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress to liquidate costs incurred under the provisions 
     of this section shall be accompanied by offsetting rescission 
     proposals, unless the President determines that emergency 
     conditions exist which preclude such rescissions: Provided 
     further, That the Congress shall be notified when funds are 
     made available for obligations under this authority.
       This provision would allow the Department of Defense, with 
     OMB approval and Congressional notification, to make 
     obligations in excess of its total budget authority during 
     the last two quarters of 1995 to fund essential readiness 
     activities and functions. Excess obligations incurred under 
     this provision are limited to 50 percent of Budget Activity 1 
     under the Operation and Maintenance title. Any proposal to 
     liquidate excess obligations incurred under this provision 
     must be accompanied by offsetting rescission proposals unless 
     the President determines that emergency conditions exist 
     which preclude rescissions.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Section 1863 is intended to build on and to expand the 
authority granted in the Feed and Forage Act. The Department of Defense 
would be authorized to obligate and authorized to spend money, in 
advance of and in excess of congressional appropriations, in a great 
big, broad area well beyond anything that the Feed and Forage Act has 
ever done. That area is defined then in 1863 as follows, and I quote.

       Essential readiness functions and activities of the Armed 
     Forces.

  ``Essential readiness functions and activities of the Armed Forces'' 
obviously covers a lot of territory. That conceivably covers just about 
anything and everything that the Department of Defense wants. I am 
thankful to report that section 1863 is not included in either version 
of the fiscal year 1995 supplemental bill, the bill that is before us 
now in this body, the bill that passed the House of Representatives.
  But I understand the issue will be revisited during consideration of 
the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization bill. That is why I want my 
colleagues to study this issue, and if it is in there you can assume 
that I am going to bring it to your attention and to highlight it and 
to make sure we are responsible as we consider that.
  The practice of spending public money before it is appropriated by 
Congress in peacetime--I want to emphasize in peacetime as opposed to 
wartime--that practice needs to be reexamined. It needs scrutiny.
  First, the practice is inconsistent with the Constitution. Section 9 
of article I of the Constitution says, ``No money shall be drawn from 
the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriation made by law.'' That 
ought to be crystal clear to everyone.
  Second, the practice of doing this is inconsistent with the Anti-
Deficiency Act, section 1341, title 31. This law, the Anti-Deficiency 
Act, causes it to be a felony to obligate or expend money before an 
appropriation is made, or in excess of amounts available in an 
appropriation account.
  When Congress discovered, as we did in the late 1980's, that the 
Pentagon was using $50 billion--what was called M accounts, nothing but 
a slush fund--to circumvent the law and to hide the Anti-Deficiency Act 
violations, the Congress shut down those M accounts. That year was 
1990.
  The Department of Defense is always going to find some way to give 
just a little bit more freedom on the shuffling around of money. So I 
am afraid, with this new 1863, that DOD may try to use the Feed and 
Forage Act and the proposed Readiness Preservation Authority, that is 
1863, for another end run around the Constitution and around the law. I 
am afraid the Pentagon may use this authority to hide deficient 
accounts that they are very qualified at doing.
  In order to better understand this whole issue, for the benefit of my 
colleagues, I am taking three specific steps. I have already started 
this process.
  First, I have asked the American Law Division at CRS for an opinion 
on all pertinent legal points involved.
  Second, I have asked the General Accounting Office to follow the 
audit trail on the $126.3 million in this bill to make sure the 
disbursements are properly recorded in the books.
  Third, I have asked the Department of Defense to tell me how much 
money has been spent under the Feed and Forage Act over the last 25 
years.
  Once I have all this information, I should be in a better position to 
make a final judgment about this matter, 
[[Page S3660]] about 1863, and the intent of the Secretary of Defense.
  I will say this. He has tried to assure me that he is not trying to 
reestablish an M account sort of approach. That may be his sincere 
motive, but I question whether or not the language of 1863 is 
specifically tight enough so that will not happen. It might not happen 
under his watch, but once it is on the books, there will be some 
Secretary of Defense who will find a way of doing it, because we had 
these M accounts evolve over a period of the 1950's to 1990.
  The idea of spending money before it is appropriated ought to bother 
every one of us. It surely bothers me. It seems to undermine our 
control of the purse strings and our system of checks and balances. 
With a simple stroke of the pen, a Pentagon bureaucrat can write checks 
with public money which has not been appropriated and then, thereafter, 
practically extort the funds from Congress to pay the bills.
  Bureaucrats demand the money, and Congress coughs it up. That is just 
not right. If we are ever to balance the budget--and that debate was 
last week but the problem is still ahead of us--we need to put a tight 
lid on this kind of behavior, whether it is in the Department of 
Defense that I have spoken about or any agency of the Federal 
Government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________