[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17148-S17170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on H.R. 2126 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2126) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of November 15, 1995.)
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, it is my understanding that this will not 
take any great length of time. I am also advised that about 400,000 
civilians, who might be affected by the Government shutdown, are 
affected by this bill. Maybe we can pass this bill and get it down to 
the President.
  Unless I misunderstand it, it would be about half the total. It seems 
to me that it is something we should do as quickly as we can. I do not 
know the President's intentions with reference to this bill. At least 
it will be another major appropriations bill that we can send to the 
President.
  I also understand that we have the legislative appropriations bill 
and the Treasury, Post Office bill, which have been completed, which I 
think would be sent to the President if there was some indication that 
he would sign those bills. Again, that would help in some areas, and 
some of the people who are not essential could come back to work.
  In the meantime, I will be discussing the pending legislation with 
the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, this is acceptable to our side. I 
think, also, the foreign operations bill is prepared to be sent. So we 
are making progress on some of these bills. I think it is important 
that we get as many done as we can. Some of them are going to be 
vetoed. This may be one of them. I think it is important to keep the 
process moving along, and this will accommodate that need.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I might state, for the Senate's 
knowledge, that we have 2\1/2\ hours. I do not think we will use the 
whole 2\1/2\ hours. I expect the vote to take place some time right 
after 6, depending on who else might want to speak.
  Just to set the record straight, I had reminded the majority leader 
of the number of people in the Department of Defense that were affected 
by the furlough process, and it was our estimate that it was 
approximately 400,000 that could be affected. I am told that it is 
somewhere around 260,000 that actually have been furloughed so far. He 
was correct that approximately 400,000 would be affected by the bill in 
the long run.
  We believe it is in the best interest of all concerned to get the 
bill passed. I am hopeful that we will get word from the President that 
he will sign it so we can expedite delivery of the bill to the 
President.
  This is now the conference report on H.R. 2126, the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for 1996. I first want to start off by 
applauding the House for the expeditious move on this bill today, and I 
appreciate the support of both leaders for allowing us to bring the 
bill to the Senate now.
  Senator Inouye and I have sought to move this conference report prior 
to the commencement of the fiscal year on October 1. The original 
conference report, however, was rejected by the House. That resulted in 
a substantial delay in bringing the bill before the Senate, and I take 
part of the responsibility for that. We have been negotiating for a 
period of time on one particular issue.
  Before proceeding further, however, I do want to express my high 
regard and thanks to the chairman of the House Defense Subcommittee, 
Congressman Bill Young, for the work he has done on this bill. This has 
been the first year that he has been the chairman of that subcommittee, 
and he was the chairman of our conference, and he has shepherded this 
large and complex bill through the House and then the conference with 
great skill. His determination to meet the needs of the men and women 
of the Armed Forces shows throughout the legislation.
  I think Members should become aware of this bill because it is a very 
different defense appropriations bill.
  I also recognize the hard work and cooperation of the ranking member 
on the House side, Congressman Jack Murtha. Senator Inouye and I have 
worked with Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha for many years now, and we 
appreciate their willingness to work with us on the tough issues in 
this bill this year.

  Madam President, the conference report before the Senate now closely 
matches the bill previously filed under the report No. 104261. That 
report has been available to all Senators since September 25. On that 
basis, I do not intend to take the Senate's time to detail the contents 
of the report. Instead, I want to speak to the Senate today on why we 
need this bill now and why I feel the President should sign this bill.
  This pending bill provides about $1.7 billion more for defense than 
was appropriated in the fiscal year 1995. Taking inflation into 
account, this amount represents a decline in real spending for the 
Pentagon. That is the reality of this bill. It really continues, in 
terms of real dollars, a downward trend in real defense spending for 
another year.
  This further decline in real defense spending comes in the face of 
increased commitments of the United States overseas, increased 
deployments overseas, and the determination by the Joint Chiefs that we 
need more money for modernization for the Department of Defense.
  Let me speak first about those overseas deployments. Today, there are 
241,000 U.S. military personnel permanently stationed overseas. That 
does not reflect their dependents. This is military personnel. It also 
does not reflect the contingency deployment to Bosnia, Iraq, or Haiti. 
These are the day-to-day demands on the men and women of the Armed 
Forces. They face these demands constantly.
  Last September, we took a trip and met with some of our military 
people in the British Empire, in London. We found, in many instances, 
that our pilots, for instance, have been deployed in several different 
places within 1 year. We are stretching these people to the nth degree 
almost daily now, in 

[[Page S 17149]]
terms of the demands that face the Armed Forces in the United States 
and throughout the world.
  Added to these actual permanent commitments are the additional 
unplanned and unauthorized contingency missions that the Commander in 
Chief has sent our military people on.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table that 
shows the current overseas military deployment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Active Duty, U.S. Military Personnel Overseas

       241,000 soldiers, sailors, Air Force personnel and Marines 
     including:
     212,000--ashore
     29,000--afloat

         U.S. Military Personnel in Europe and European Waters

       121,000 soldiers, sailors, Air Force personnel, and Marines 
     including:
     76,000--in Germany
     12,800--in the United Kingdom
     11,500--in Italy
     7,400--afloat
     3,100--in Turkey
     2,800--in Spain
     2,000--in Iceland
     1,700--in Belgium
     1,000--in Portugal
     734--in The Netherlands
     620--in Macedonia
     490--in Greece
       These totals include the following ongoing operations:
     Deny Flight--Bosnia No Fly Zone
     Provide Promise--humanitarian airlifts into Bosnia
     Sharp Guard--sanctions enforcement in the Adriatic Sea
     Able Sentry--Macedonia border observers
     Provide Comfort--humanitarian aid to Kurds in Iraq

 U.S. Military Personnel in East Asia, the Pacific Region and Pacific 
                                 Waters

       92,000 soldiers, sailors, Air Force personnel, and marines 
     including:
     39,600--in Japan
     35,800--in Korea
     15,600--afloat
     320--in Australia
       These totals include the following ongoing operations:
     Joint Task Force Full Accounting--to determine the fate of 
         American POW's and MIA's
     Cope North and Annualex--U.S. and Japanese forces naval and 
         air defense exercises
     Foal Eagle--U.S. and Korean forces training exercise

 U.S. Military Personnel in the Near East, North Africa and South Asia 
                           and Related Waters

       6,100 soldiers, sailors, Air Force Personnel, and marines 
     including:
     1,400--afloat
     1,200--in Egypt
     1,050--in Saudi Arabia
     900--on Diego Garcia
     460--in Bhrain
     435--in Kuwait
       These totals include the following ongoing operations:
     Southern Watch--Southern Iraq No Fly Zone
     Vigilant Sentinel--deterring another Iraq invasion of Kuwait
     Arabian Gulf Maritime Interdiction Operations--enforcing U.N. 
         sanctions against Iraq
     Bright Star--U.S. and Egyptian forces training in Egypt

  U.S. Military Personnel in the Western Hemisphere and Related Waters

       17,000 soldiers, sailors, Air Force personnel, and Marines 
     including:
     8,000--in Panama
     4,600--at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba
     2,500--in Haiti
     1,400--afloat

    U.S. Military Personnel in Sub-Saharan Africa and Related Waters

       3,500 soldiers sailors, Air Force personnel and Marines.

  Mr. STEVENS. This is a very interesting chart. I invite Members of 
the Senate to look at that. I know we cannot print the map. I will not 
ask to put it in the Record.
  We have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in Germany, in the 
United Kingdom, Italy, afloat on the seven seas, in Turkey, Spain, 
Iceland, Belgium, Portugal, Netherlands, Macedonia, and Greece.
  We are continuing such as: Deny Flight to the Bosnia no-fly zone; 
Provide Promise to the humanitarian airlifts in Bosnia; Sharp Guard--
this is the sanctions enforcement of the Adriatic Sea; Able Sentry to 
the Macedonia border; Provide Comfort and humanitarian aid to the 
Kurds. We have soldiers in Japan, Korea, and afloat in the Pacific.
  We have 320 in Australia. We have a whole series of movements going 
on with regard to North Korea.
  In the Near East, Asia, South Asia, 1,400 are afloat; 1,200 are in 
Egypt; soldiers and sailors and marines are in Saudi Arabia and Diego 
Garcia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Southern Watch, the no-fly zone in Iraq, 
and another deployment to deter a further Iraqi invasion in Kuwait has 
our men and women serving where they are needed. The Arabian Gulf 
Maritime Interdiction Operations that enforce the U.N. sanctions on 
Iraq, and Bright Star, the United States and Egyptian forces that are 
training in Egypt are just another example.
  We have additional forces in Panama and Guantanamo Bay Naval Station 
in Cuba, Haiti, and another 1,400 afloat down in the Western Hemisphere 
and related waters. Another 3,500 soldiers and sailors and Air Force 
personnel are in the sub-Sahara in Africa and other areas in that part 
of the world.
  Now, Madam President, that ought to tell anyone that we are dealing 
with a situation now that has never been faced before in peacetime. We 
are the last superpower in the world, and we are acting like one. We 
have our Armed Forces deployed around the former Yugoslavia, in the 
Caribbean, in Southwest Asia, and Korea. I am told by the Pentagon, we 
have 14 ongoing contingency operations.
  Just last week five Americans died in Saudi Arabia, the victims of 
another terrorist attack. Our forces, as I said, are in Saudi Arabia 
and will remain there because of our commitments for some time.
  In my judgment, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot be the world's 
only remaining superpower and continuously reduce the amount of money 
available to the men and women who carry out these chores for us around 
the world. We cannot respond to every world crisis, to every 
humanitarian crisis with this military force. These forces have to be 
carefully allocated, and it has to be thought over where we send them, 
Madam President.
  The President has committed United States military personnel to 
operations in Somalia, Rwanda, the Middle East, Northeast Asia, the 
Caribbean, and now to the Balkans. But nevertheless, this President has 
consistently pressed to reduce our military forces, reduce the money 
for modernization, and reduce the spending for defense.
  Madam President, this is a bill that will determine whether or not 
that stops. Despite its downward trend, we have to turn the corner on 
modernization in this bill.
  We have critics of this bill who say we have too much money. One is 
the President of the United States. We significantly increased the 
amount of money that is available to procurement and research and 
development for the Department of Defense in this bill. We did so to 
meet the specific priorities identified by the service chiefs 
themselves. Every significant procurement item in this bill is included 
in the military's modernization plans except the B-2. I am including 
the F-22, the F-18, the LHD-7 amphibious assault ship, the third DGG-51 
destroyer, the Army's M1-A2 tank upgrade, the Comanche Scout helicopter 
and multiyear procurement of the Longbow Apache.
  We did not come up with these programs. They were not added and 
thought up by me. The Pentagon has requested them.
  Now, what we have done with our modernization initiative is to save 
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10 years.
  Think of this: In the LHD-7 alone, we are going to save $700 million 
by continuing that procurement in 1996 rather than postponing it for 4 
years. Now, by continuing the ongoing line, we will have another LHD-7 
and save $700 million.
  More importantly, we are providing equipment to meet military needs 
now for the people who are being deployed overseas. We are doing this 
now rather than waiting 10 years to try and modernize the equipment 
that they are currently using.
  Some in the House claim this bill exceeded the amounts requested by 
the military and the Joint Chiefs. What we have learned since we passed 
this bill in September is we actually did not go far enough.
  Recent press reports indicate that General Shalikashvili's chairman's 
program assessment for the Department's 1997 budget has determined we 
should be spending about $60 billion for procurement. The budget 
presented to 

[[Page S 17150]]
the Congress by the President was $39 billion; this bill is $44 billion 
for procurement. We have increased the President's request, but we are 
still considerably below the amount that is listed as being the minimum 
by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
  The Chairman's assessment--and this is General Shalikashvili's 
chairman's program assessment--reflects the decisions by our national 
military leaders on what we need to meet our defense obligations and to 
provide the men and women of the Armed Forces the equipment they need 
to minimize casualties.
  Let me add, in my judgment, this is not a political document. I am 
talking about the Chairman's program assessment. Every member of the 
Joint Chiefs and every vice chief was appointed by this administration. 
I, for one, am willing to accept and advocate their judgment.
  On this matter, I ask unanimous consent that recent articles from the 
Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times be printed in the record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, for these reasons alone, in my 
judgment, the President has no alternative but to sign this bill. In 
our work on this bill the conferees have sought, to the maximum extent 
possible, to accommodate the concerns of the administration on this 
bill.
  Now, we referred repeatedly to the statements of the administration 
policy at the request of the Joint Chiefs as we accommodated the 
President's and his appointees' priorities. In the case of funding for 
the Nunn-Lugar program, we preserve $300 million for 1996. We have 
sustained $195 million for the technology reinvestment program, which 
was a program terminated by the House.
  One exception was that the conference provided $493 million to 
provide one last consideration of additional production of the B-2 
bomber. The Senate bill did not, when we passed the bill here before, 
include funding for the B-2.
  We have not voted on the B-2 since the control of the Senate changed 
to our side of the aisle. The House sustained funding for the B-2 on 
three separate votes. They were adamant that this bill come back 
approving their position on the B-2.
  While I have some concerns about the affordability of the B-2 in the 
next few years, this funding permits the President to make a final 
decision in the 1997 budget. He, of course, has the right to ask for a 
rescission if he does not want the money in this bill.
  An important initiative included in this bill and supported intensely 
by Secretary Perry is funding for contingency operations. This year, we 
had to pass a mid-year rescissions bill that realigned over $3 billion 
to pay for overseas contingency operations. That was because they were 
not funded in the bill that covered 1995.
  In this bill, for the first time, we are providing money at the 
beginning of a fiscal year for these operations. Madam President, $647 
million is funded in this bill for operations in Iraq and Southwest 
Asia. The Department readily concedes that no moneys were requested in 
the President's budget for 1996 to pay for these ongoing missions. 
Everyone agrees we must pay the bills, and we decided to include the 
money now rather than wait for some supplemental process next year.
  Madam President, in my judgment, as I said, this bill must be enacted 
into law. Looming ahead of us is the potential deployment of United 
States military forces to Bosnia. This bill makes no provision for that 
deployment but expresses the strong concern of the conferees about the 
merit of this mission and the belief that the President should consult 
and seek the authorization of Congress for any such deployment.
  Simply put, however, without the money in this bill, there is no way 
that the Department of Defense or the President could send 25,000 
ground troops to Bosnia.
  We cannot have it both ways, Madam President. We cannot be against 
this bill and also want to send troops to Bosnia without money.
  In the view of this Senator, I cannot conceive of the circumstances 
where the Senate would vote to endorse a deployment of United States 
forces to Bosnia if there were no funds available to support that 
mission. This is especially true if those funds were not available for 
the Department through the 1996 bill that we have before the Senate 
now.
  According to the Pentagon, a full-year mission to Bosnia will cost in 
excess of $2 billion, and only with the money that is in this bill 
could that be possible.
  Again, we are not crossing that bridge. I, for one, do not support 
that deployment. However, I do believe we must be up front about it. 
Let me point out that those who do want to support a deployment of 
forces to Bosnia ought to realize it would not be possible but for the 
funding and the way the money is divided in this bill for the functions 
of the Pentagon.
  Let me close with this, Madam President. I hope we can sustain the 
longstanding tradition of bipartisan action on these defense issues. 
This bill poses no severe policy issues. It provides funding consistent 
with the congressional budget resolution and the Appropriations 
Committee's 602(b) allocation to this subcommittee for the Department 
of Defense.
  Senator Inouye and I have fought to present this bill on a 
nonpartisan basis and this conference report reflects that 
determination. The cooperation and partnership of my friend from Hawaii 
is still a very essential ingredient to this bill. I have worked with 
him in the past, and he with me. We have rotated as being chairman of 
this subcommittee. I continue to thank him for his work and his 
commitment to the people in the armed services.
  I would like to recognize the work of the subcommittee staff. It is a 
very interesting staff, which enjoys substantial stability as far as 
professional competence is concerned. They are professional staff. The 
Senate has benefited from this approach, in my opinion. Jay Kimmit, 
Peter Lennon, Mary Marshall, John Young, and Mazie Mattson have been 
stalwarts on the committee staff for several years.
  Some of them I brought on the staff when I was chairman before. The 
Senator from Hawaii maintained them as professional staff, and we have 
continued with them. They are real professionals.
  With the transition this year, Jim Morhard and Sid Ashworth have come 
from the minority. Susan Hogan and Justin Wheddle have joined the 
subcommittee staff. All have made contributions to the bill and to the 
subcommittee. This has been especially true during the conference.
  In addition, we have had the assistance of two detailees, Mr. Joe 
Fenglar and Ms. Sujata Millick.
  I might point out, in 1982 Charlie Houy joined the staff of the 
subcommittee when I was the chairman. His counsel to Senator Inouye and 
the members of the subcommittee is invaluable. He now works with 
Senator Inouye. It shows the professionalism that we all still value in 
our relationships. His contribution is invaluable and it is a pleasure 
to work with him in this new assignment as the minority chief clerk.
  Madam President, this is a good bill. I do think it will meet the 
needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces and our national 
security. One of the reasons it is a good bill is because of the 
continued assistance that I have from my good friend, the chief of the 
majority staff for the subcommittee, Steve Cortese, who is here with me 
today.
  Our bill passed with a strong bipartisan support in the House. In my 
judgment, the Senate should adopt this bill now and permit the work of 
the Department of Defense to move forward. The majority leader has made 
the decision to bring it up now because of its impact on those who have 
been furloughed under the existing hiatus. I, too, hope the President 
will sign this bill if we get it to him as soon as possible.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 11, 1995]

   Pentagon Leaders Urge Accelerated 50 Percent Boost in Procurement

                          (By Bradley Graham)

       The uniformed leaders of the armed forces, worried about 
     aging weapons and equipment after a decade of declining 
     procurement, have recommended a roughly 50 percent jump in 
     spending on purchases over the next two years.

[[Page S 17151]]

       Clinton administration plans call for spreading the same 
     rise over four years. But top military officers are skeptical 
     about ever seeing all the money, noting that past projections 
     have rarely been realized.
       So to highlight what they see as an urgent problem, the 
     military chiefs have asked that the Defense Department set a 
     goal of boosting annual defense procurement from about $40 
     billion at present to $60 billion by fiscal 1998, not 2000 as 
     the administration has proposed. ``We now don't expect it to 
     go up like the projection shows it will. It never has before, 
     I don't expect it to now,'' said Adm. William A. Owens, vice 
     chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ``And secondly, 2000 
     is too late.
       ``So our view is, you have to get to $60 billion as soon as 
     you can, and 1998 would be a good year.''
       The recommendation was included in a budget assessment 
     submitted last month by Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Defense Secretary William J. 
     Perry. It reflected heightened concern about a potential 
     erosion of military capabilities unless purchases are 
     accelerated. It also marked a shift in focus from last year, 
     when the Pentagon, intent on shoring up the current readiness 
     of military units, reduced procurement to cover higher-than-
     expected operational and maintenance costs. Procurement 
     spending has fallen to its lowest level since 1950, forcing 
     the military services to defer buys of jet fighters, 
     helicopters, ships, trucks and other assets to replace 
     earlier models entering, in some cases, their fourth or even 
     fifth decade of use.
       ``We are significantly underfunded in the procurement 
     line,'' Owens said. ``Our thrust is to say we must do 
     something, we've got to fix it.''
       He said the military chiefs are concerned not just about 
     low procurement but a rising ``bow wave''--the piling up of 
     postponed programs.
       At the same time, Owens indicated the message from the 
     chiefs was not intended to be confrontational or divisive 
     with the Pentagon's civilian leadership, and may have been 
     aimed less at Perry than at the military services themselves. 
     By committing all the chiefs to an ambitious new procurement 
     goal, the memorandum is especially useful to Shalikashvili 
     and Owens in their nascent effort to exercise more central 
     discipline over individual service plans.
       The memo, which represents the consensus view of the chiefs 
     and vice chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps 
     as well as regional commanders in chief, is said by Pentagon 
     officials to be short on details about just how to bolster 
     procurement and on what to spend the extra funds. ``It's a 
     broad statement, expressing a broad sense of concern,'' said 
     a senior defense official. ``But the details get a little 
     thin.''
       Shalikashvili makes clear the chiefs do not expect the 
     added funds for modernization to come from higher overall 
     defense spending but rather through cuts in some programs 
     under development and other savings. Even with a Republican-
     controlled Congress committed to boosting the defense budget, 
     the military leaders are assuming little if any growth in 
     military spending.
       Nor are the chiefs suggesting reversing the priority given 
     last year to readiness over procurement--that is, draining 
     funds from the operational and maintenance accounts that 
     support current readiness to pay for more modernization. 
     Rather, the biggest adjustments proposed in the Shalikashvili 
     memo would involve cutting back on competing service programs 
     in such development areas as theater missile defense and 
     unmanned aerial vehicles and reducing modeling and simulation 
     activities.
       Even so, these recommended savings would not come close to 
     providing the roughly $20 billion increase in annual 
     procurement the chiefs would like to see between now and 
     1998. ``We acknowledge the answers are not all there,'' Owens 
     said.
       But he expressed confidence that substantially more funds 
     for procurement can be found by eliminating redundant 
     systems, embracing economical high-tech innovations and 
     realizing Pentagon plans to farm out more defense activities 
     to the private sector. Significantly, the chiefs have decided 
     not to look for more savings by shrinking troop levels below 
     the 1.45 million active duty service members called for in 
     the administration's plan.
       In its 1996 budget proposal to Congress, the administration 
     provided for $39 billion in military procurement, a drop of 
     71 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars from the 1985 peak. 
     House and Senate defense appropriation committees have 
     tentatively agreed to raise procurement to $43 billion, but 
     their conference report has yet to win floor approval.
       The administration's five-year budget plan envisions a 47 
     percent increase in modernization spending between 1996 and 
     2001. But much of that is not projected to materialize until 
     the turn of the century--and assumes still uncertain savings 
     from military base closings and reforms in Pentagon buying 
     procedures. Responding to Shalikashvili in an Oct. 24 memo, 
     Perry agreed that $60 billion in annual procurement ``is an 
     appropriate goal'' and offered ``to work closely with you to 
     accelerate'' reaching it.
       But Shalikashvili's initiative, known formally as the 
     chairman's program assessment, has come late in the 1997 
     budget cycle. A final defense budget proposal is due at the 
     White House next month. Perry suggested major adjustments in 
     Pentagon plans would have to wait until next year and depend 
     largely on what more the services have to offer. ``I will be 
     particularly interested in seeing your specific program 
     recommendations for achieving efficiencies and funding 
     reductions in programs of lower priority from a warfighting 
     perspective,'' the secretary wrote. For the chairman of the 
     Joint Chiefs to be weighing into the Pentagon budget debate 
     with his assessment is indicative of an increasingly 
     assertive Joint Chiefs' role in coordinating individual 
     service plans and articulating a consensus view of military 
     requirements. The Shalikashvili memo emerged from the 
     deliberations of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, a 
     panel headed by Owens and including the services' vice 
     chiefs. Over the past year and a half, Owens has strengthened 
     the panel's role in formulating common investment objectives 
     and reducing overlap among service programs.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 12, 1995]

              Joint Chiefs Seek More Funds To Update Arms

                             (By Art Pine)

       Washington--Reflecting growing concern over recent 
     reductions in defense spending, the nation's top military 
     leaders have warned that the Pentagon must boost its budget 
     for weapon modernization sooner than planned or risk eroding 
     military preparedness.
       In a memo to Defense Secretary William J. Perry, the 
     military service chiefs recommend increasing the 
     modernization budget to $60 billion a year by fiscal 1998, 
     rather than fiscal 2000, as currently anticipated. The budget 
     now stands at $39 billion.
       The unusual move by Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the heads of the four 
     individual services, is intended to serve as a warning flag, 
     both to the Clinton Administration and to the top generals 
     and admirals involved in putting together the military 
     budget.
       Although President Clinton has promised to restore some of 
     the recent defense spending cuts by fiscal 2000, the services 
     say they are being squeezed and have had to use funds from 
     their modernization and procurement budgets to help maintain 
     military readiness.
       There has been no immediate indication that the 
     Administration would adopt the Joint Chiefs' recommendation 
     in the fiscal 1997 budget, which is due out early next year. 
     Clinton is already under pressure to hold down spending 
     levels, and an increase of that size would be difficult to 
     grant.
       Although Perry pledged in a return memo to Shalikashvili 
     and the other chiefs to ``work closely with you to 
     accelerate'' the budget increase, officials said the memo has 
     come so late in the budget preparation process that any 
     serious consideration is likely to have to wait until next 
     year.
       Military leaders have been warning for months that many of 
     the weapon systems and types of equipment in need of 
     upgrading or replacement were not being modernized on 
     schedule, but there has been little extra money available.
       As a result, all four services have put off purchases of a 
     wide array of new and replacement weapons and equipment, from 
     fighter aircraft and helicopters to ships, tanks and trucks. 
     They also have begun falling behind on maintenance.
       Clinton asserted last winter that the squeeze on 
     modernization would be temporary and pledged to restore much 
     of the earlier cutbacks by the turn of the century. With 
     pressures on overall federal spending mounting daily, 
     however, military leaders have been skeptical that the White 
     House can come through.
       In the fiscal 1996 budget that it sent Congress last 
     January, the Administration requested $39 billion for 
     procurement--a drop of 71% from the 1985 peak, after 
     adjustment for inflation. The Republican-controlled Congress 
     raised that to $43 billion, but the House and Senate bills 
     are stalled in a conference committee.
       The Administration and the Joint Chiefs want the individual 
     services to provide at least some of the difference by saving 
     money in other areas, such as eliminating unnecessary 
     programs and transferring some jobs to civilian contractors, 
     but the effort is not yielding much.
       Senior military officials insisted that the memo, while 
     strongly worded, is not intended to provoke a confrontation 
     with the Administration.
       Critics have been contending for months that the 
     Administration has not been budgeting enough to finance the 
     size of military force that it has said it wants to maintain. 
     The White House insists that it can find the money through 
     savings coming from procurement reforms, but so far those 
     gains have been elusive.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the conference report is before the 
Senate for its consideration because of the extraordinary leadership 
and wisdom demonstrated by our chairman, the Senator from Alaska. If it 
were not for his leadership I think we would still be back in H-140, 
the conference room.
  Madam President, this is a good bill. But before I proceed with my 
statement, pursuant to the consent agreement reached by this body, I am 
pleased to provide 20 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. 
Dorgan].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. 

[[Page S 17152]]

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I appreciate very much the courtesy. I 
want to say at the outset I understand it is far easier to be critical 
and to oppose. I regret very much, for that reason, that I cannot vote 
for this conference report. I have voted for a number of conference 
reports, defense appropriations, and defense authorization bills. But I 
want to explain, during this period of time, why I cannot vote for this 
one.
  Before I do that, I would like to respond to something the Senator 
from Alaska said earlier when I was not on the floor, because it will 
relate to something I am going to talk about in this conference report. 
I had spoken about the juxtaposition of Star Schools and star wars. I 
just used it as a metaphor of the choices that we often make.
  I pointed out in the continuing resolution that we were about to 
consider, there is a 40-percent cut in funding in the small Star 
Schools Program, which is I believe a $25 million program whose funding 
will be cut to $15 million, a 40-percent cut.
  The Senator from Alaska said, since this is forward funded, these 
schools are not going to be cut. My point was, when you cut something 
from $25 million to $15 million, the Senator may be right, if they are 
forward funded they are not cut this year but if you cut the funding, 
sometime they are going be cut.
  The reason the 40 percent was included in the CR, 40-percent cut, 40 
percent of funding, was because the House has determined they want to 
kill the Star Schools Program.
  The only reason I raise the point on the floor was, in the priorities 
that we are involved with here in Congress, it is choosing one versus 
another. Can we fund this or that or the other thing? What can we 
afford? What can we not afford?

  The point I was making is the star wars program, which I am going to 
talk about at some length here, is juxtaposed against star schools. One 
we can afford; we have plenty of money for. The other we decide we 
either want to kill or we want to cut it back. The CR does take it from 
$25 million to $15 million. At some point in the funding cycle, that is 
going to affect someone. That was the point I was making.
  Let me come to the point of my appearance on the floor on this piece 
of legislation. We are talking a lot about balanced budgets and 
spending and a lot of it is theory and debate. But the steps that you 
take, albeit baby steps, to deal with budget deficits, is when you 
start spending real money on the floor of the Senate. That is what we 
are talking about with respect to this bill. This is a spending bill. 
This is not theory. This is not idle debate. This is a decision about 
whether we spend money and how we spend money.
  Now the question is, Who are the big spenders? Who on this floor 
wants to cut back on spending? Resist waste? Cut spending where it is 
inappropriate and unneeded? Let us see. Let us review.
  This is the Defense Department. The men and women in our Armed Forces 
are critically important to preserving liberty in defense of this 
country. I understand that and salute them. I think they deserve our 
praise every single day. But all of us know there is waste in the 
Pentagon. Why else would we hear about $700 hammers and $500 ash trays 
and $1,800 toilet seats? I know those are some older stories, but there 
are legendary stories about procurement problems, even in recent times.
  But let us talk about the procurement in this bill. This bill is for 
defense. The Pentagon said, with respect to T-39 trainers, they did not 
want to buy any. The Congress said, ``I am sorry, you are wrong about 
that. You might not want to buy any but we insist, we want to spend $45 
million and we insist you buy 17 T-39 trainers.''
  The Pentagon said, ``We do not need any EA-6 strike aircraft 
modifications.'' We said, ``We are sorry, you are wrong about that. We 
insist you spend $165 million.''
  The Pentagon said, ``We do not need two amphibious assault ships.'' 
The Congress said, ``Well, we must need one.'' And then the Congress 
said, ``Let us buy two, while we are at it. Let us buy two, one for 
$900 million and one for $1.3 billion. The sky is the limit. Let us buy 
two.'' So you add $2.2 billion.
  F-15 fighters. Let us buy six of those. The Pentagon said they did 
not want to buy any. We said, ``Pentagon, you are wrong about that. We 
insist you buy them.''
  ``F-16 fighter aircraft,'' we said, ``You ought to buy six.'' We are 
going to spend money for six of them. The Pentagon did not ask for 
them. Cargo aircraft, three, $133 million.

  Let me get some of the big ones. Black Hawk helicopters, Longbow 
helicopters. I could go on. M-1 tank upgrades, heavy tactical vehicles. 
I come from a small hometown. We do not use those terms. It is called 
trucks; heavy tactical vehicles, trucks, trucks the Pentagon said they 
did not want, trucks the Pentagon did not order, and the trucks the 
Pentagon did not need. But guess what? The Congress said let us buy 
some trucks. Spend the money because we have a credit card. By the way, 
we want to talk about cutting spending, but we want to buy trucks that 
nobody asked for.
  That is not really the reason I came to the floor. I came to the 
floor to talk about two big items, the B-2 bombers and star wars. B-2 
bombers--the administration says let us keep the production line open. 
Let us keep the production line open. Congress says let us start buying 
more B-2's. We have 20 of them. Let us buy 20 more. Let us obligate 
ourselves to spend over $30 billion on B-2 bombers the Pentagon did not 
ask for.
  That is trouble enough. That is not really the reason I came to the 
floor of the Senate. The reason I came to the floor of the Senate is to 
talk about star wars. The cold war is over. There is no Soviet Union. 
This afternoon as I speak we are crushing missiles over in the old 
Soviet Union, drawing down launch vehicles, and destroying warheads as 
a part of our arms control agreement. But the cold war is not over 
everywhere. It is not over in this Chamber. The appetite to build 
things we do not need with money we do not have rests right here on 
this little line, ``national missile defense,'' albeit star wars, ABM. 
The only one built in the free world was built in North Dakota, my home 
State. A couple of billion dollars was spent, and 30 days after it was 
opened and was declared operational it was mothballed. That is the way 
it works sometimes.
  Now that there is no Soviet Union, we are involved in arms control. 
We are destroying missiles and weapons on both sides. We have a 
Congress that says to the Pentagon, by the way, we insist that you 
start deploying a star wars program. We insist that you deploy missiles 
in the ground by 1999 on an accelerated basis with a space-based 
component and multiple sites, which will abrogate the ABM Treaty, among 
other things.
  What is this? I do not understand. I guess I missed something. We 
have people here who say we are out of money and in debt up to our 
neck. We want to pass an amendment to the Constitution to require us to 
balance the budget. The very same people bring to the floor of this 
Senate an unending appetite to spend the public's money--as long as it 
is not on milk or shelter for kids--to spend the public's money on 
something called star wars. I think people can be excused for wondering 
what kind of air is being breathed in these Chambers. This makes no 
sense at all.
  I mentioned earlier the juxtaposition of priorities. I do it again 
because--let me remind people what we are talking about this year. If 
you say it is not related, you do not understand the process. We only 
have a certain amount of money to spend. Of 55,000 kids, every single 
one has a name who is going to be told, ``We are sorry. You will get 
kicked out of the Head Start Program.'' If you come from a low-income 
family, from a circumstance of disadvantage, tough luck. ``We do not 
have any money for you. No Head Start Program for you, Timmy, Tommy, or 
James.'' There are 600,000 kids, low-income, disadvantaged city kids, 
will be told, ``We are sorry. No summer jobs. We cannot afford it. 
Tough luck.'' And 2.2 million Americans will be told, ``We are sorry. I 
know we have a low-income home heating program to help you pay the 
heating bills in the winter in States where you have harsh bitter 
cold.'' We say, ``We are sorry. Home heating is a luxury. You can do 
without it.''

  I wonder if those who say that have been in these sheds or shacks 
where people sit on the floor with diapers and 

[[Page S 17153]]
kids ill-clothed and the wind is howling through the cracks in the 
walls, and have seen the desperate condition, especially on Indian 
reservations and elsewhere. Then would you say to these people, ``We 
are sorry. When it is 25 or 30 below, low-income home heating help does 
not matter. You can do without.''
  There are dozens and dozens of those kinds of choices. Then we say, 
``By the way, even though we cannot afford those things--which I happen 
to think are necessary--the sky is the limit when it comes to ships, 
planes, and submarines and helicopters that the Pentagon did not 
order.''
  But especially galling to me is the resurrection of the star wars 
program, to decide that we want to start building a monument that will 
cost $48 billion--$48 billion for a star wars program. We had people 
bring on the floor of the Senate charts that show us that North Vietnam 
is a big threat, and Libya is a threat, and Iraq is a threat. Lord 
wonders how they can sleep at night. Maybe that might be the problem. 
Maybe those who are so frightened by Qadhafi and others simply are not 
sleeping, and the result is a proposal to build a star wars program.
  Everybody in here who thinks that ought to understand that a far 
greater threat to this country, if in fact there is a nuclear threat by 
a rogue nation, is not from a sophisticated intercontinental ballistic 
missile. It is the threat from a nuclear bomb packed into a suitcase, 
or put in the trunk of a Yugo car and parked at a New York City dock. 
Everybody understands that is a much higher potential threat than some 
rogue nation getting an ICBM. Or what about a glass vial about that big 
full of the most deadly biological agents known to mankind? Or what 
about somebody that rents a truck and builds a fertilizer bomb? Do you 
all think that some rogue terrorist nation is going to get an ICBM and 
a nuclear tipped warhead so we can spend $48 billion we do not have? 
Look, this is an appetite that simply cannot be satisfied.
  I would vote for this conference report if there were several 
changes. But I am not going to vote for a conference report at a time 
when this country is out of money. This country is choking on debt. 
This country is saying to everybody, tighten your belts. And then we 
say to those folks who are building a star wars program that we have 
been planning for 15 years, we know the world has changed, we know the 
cold war is over, we know there is no Soviet Union, but guess what? The 
appetite to build a star wars program goes unabated. Frankly, probably 
one of the locations for the star wars program will be in my home 
State. I have some folks pretty upset with me. ``Why don't you support 
this? This is jobs.'' It is not jobs. It is waste. I support things 
that defend this country, that represent strength and represent the 
ability to preserve liberty.
  But I think when we start making choices, real choices on spending 
and come to the floor of the Senate with these kind of add-ons--I know 
the Senator from Arizona was going to talk about some others--but 
especially add-ons like the B-2 bomber program and a star wars program, 
I just wonder what people are thinking about.

  Again, let me say we will probably be in session tomorrow, Saturday, 
Sunday, and the rest of the week, over whether you balance the budget 
in 5 years, 7 years or 10 years. You know, those who want to do that 
deal with the theory of it. They might just as well get a pipe, eat a 
croissant with their feet up and ruminate forever about it.
  The way you balance the budget is bring spending bills to the floor 
that cuts spending. This bill adds $7 billion to the President's 
request for defense, and explained where it is added. But the most 
significant thing this bill does is it commits this country to two 
areas of spending--the B-2 bomber and the star wars program that will 
bleed tens and tens of billions of dollars in the next 5 and 10 years 
from the taxpayers' pockets in this country for something we do not 
need.
  I am anxious for those who support this bill, for those who say we 
have plenty of money for star wars but not enough for Head Start, 
plenty of money for star wars, a star wars program the Secretary of 
Defense did not ask for, the star wars program the President says we do 
not need--I am just anxious to see those folks who say we have plenty 
of money for star wars but not enough for star schools come to the 
floor again and talk about their appetite to cut spending. If there is 
an appetite to cut spending, this is a good place to start. We do not 
have to wait until January. We do not have to wait until December 1. A 
good time to start would be today at 5:30, if we can get a chance to 
vote--maybe adding close to $400 million for star wars. It does not 
seem like a lot of money to some. But if you grow up in a town of 400 
people and graduate from a high school class of nine and do not 
understand much about $400 million, then understand they say we just 
cannot afford these other little programs that would help folks that 
are in need, help folks send their kids to college, and help folks do 
the right thing. Then we start thinking maybe this is not just about 
the old theoretical debates. Maybe it is once again the same old debate 
we have every time we discuss money on this floor. Big interest and 
little interest, and little interest be damned. The big interest, guess 
what? Start smiling, because in our envelope behind door No. 1 is the 
big prize for you.
  I regret that I cannot vote for this conference agreement. But it 
seems to me, if all of the angst and all of the energy and all of the 
anxiety we have heard on the floor of the Senate now for the last 
several weeks about spending is indeed real, then those who express it 
should come to this floor and auger in on questions like the B-2 bomber 
and like the star wars program, and, yes, like the other programs where 
we have added planes, ships, submarines and helicopters that were not 
ordered, were not needed, were not asked for. Come to the floor, stand 
up, and proudly pull up their suspenders and say, ``Count me in. I want 
to cut spending.'' Or will they come to the floor and just button their 
suit and say, ``Well, here we go. I sure like this kind of spending. 
Let's add to it. Let's take 7 billion bucks and stuff the Pentagon's 
pockets and let's decide that is our priority. Not star schools, star 
wars. That is our priority.''

  It is, with all due respect to those who believe it is the right 
thing, a warped priority for this country's future. And I hope that 
when the dust settles on all of this debate, the American people will 
understand when some waive their arms and raise their voices and boast 
to the heavens that they are the ones who are against all the big 
spending, they are the ones who are between the taxpayers and calamity 
because they are the ones who want to cut the deficit, they are the 
ones who want to balance the budget, I hope they will take a look at 
how they voted on this, an obligation for my kids and yours to ante up 
$48 billion for a star wars program that does nothing to add security 
to this country.
  Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 31 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would like to reserve the 3 minutes.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Pursuant to the consent agreement, I am pleased to yield 
15 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank you and I thank the Senator from 
Hawaii for his constant courtesy and helpfulness to all of us here in 
the Senate.
  I also regret that I must rise in opposition to this conference 
report on the Defense appropriations bill. It is clear to me that the 
bill should be vetoed, and that the President is going to veto it.
  Let me quote from a letter that the President sent to Congressman 
Livingston dated October 18. It said:

       However, by appropriating $6.9 billion more than I 
     requested, the conference report did not address my 
     fundamental concerns about spending priorities. As the bill 
     now goes back to conference following its defeat on the House 
     floor, it is important that the conferees understand where I 
     stand. Absent a broader agreement with Congress that 
     adequately funds crucial domestic programs in other 
     appropriations bills, I will veto any defense appropriation 
     bill that adds extra billions for defense programs not in my 
     request.


[[Page S 17154]]

  Mr. President, the conferees did not address the President's 
fundamental concern about misplaced priorities in their second 
conference. And this conference report, like its predecessor, is full 
of unrequested, unneeded, and unsustainable add-ons. As for funding of 
crucial domestic programs in other appropriations bills, particularly 
the Labor, HHS, the VA-HUD and the Commerce, State, Justice bills, it 
is absolutely clear that we have made virtually no progress since the 
President wrote.
  The fiasco of closing down the Government has only widened the gulf 
between the majority party and the President on what our domestic 
priorities should be. Indeed, the majority party's interest in cutting 
programs for education, the environment, civilian research, heating 
assistance for low-income citizens, national service, Indian programs, 
and many others seems to grow as we proceed through this budget debate.

  I voted against the bill when the Senate passed it early in 
September. I thought it was worthy of a veto then. In my view, the 
conference has not improved it. In fact, it has made it worse.
  This bill has truly become a weapons-for-everybody bill. When it left 
the Senate, the bill was $6.45 billion above the President's request. 
It is now $6.9 billion above the President's request. But that figure 
alone understates the net addition because, according to press reports, 
the conference report that we are here considering takes back $1 
billion that the National Reconnaissance Office, [NRO] had accumulated 
in unspent funds. That money was spent on unneeded, unrequested, 
unsustainable weapons that were not in the Senate version of the bill, 
just as the other $6.9 billion were. If you adjust for the NRO money, 
this bill is in fact about $8 billion above the President's request, 
not $7 billion.
  The conferees had enough money to buy ships, planes, trucks, 
helicopters of every description, some of which--like a $20 million 
Cyclone class patrol craft--were in neither bill prior to going to 
conference.
  The total add-on package is in the range of $10 billion. There are 
offsets in the range of $2 billion as well.
  The obvious question is what is it that justifies this extraordinary 
increase in defense spending, and I for one cannot point to a threat.
  We spend twice as much as all of our potential adversaries combined. 
If we put together the budgets--our budget with those of our NATO 
allies and Japan--we and our allies are outspending our potential foes 
by more than 3 to 1. Of course, it will be argued that much of the 
additional spending in this bill is somewhere in the Pentagon's budget 
for the next 6 years. That was the argument that was made for the $1.3 
billion HLD-7 amphibious assault ship that the Senate debated when we 
passed the bill in August. The Navy planned to buy that ship in the 
year 2001. That will undoubtedly be the argument that is used to 
justify the $900 million LPD-17 amphibious transport dock which the 
House insisted on in conference. The Navy planned to buy that in 1998.
  Mr. President, this is really an extraordinary argument. Essentially 
those who make it are saying that they can pick and choose anything in 
the 6-year plan that the Department of Defense has that helps their 
State or district and that plan when you add it up totals about $1.6 
trillion. Where else in our budgeting this year are we finding the 
ability to do that? The answer clearly is nowhere. Everywhere but in 
this case of the Pentagon we cannot find enough for this first year's 
budget, let alone find money to add $1 billion projects in the States 
or districts of powerful members of the Republican leadership.

  But worse are the programs that do not even fit in the 6-year plan. 
Some of these have huge budgetary implications. The B-2, which was not 
in the Senate bill, has an outyear requirement for tens of billions of 
dollars. National missile defense, which my colleague from North Dakota 
spoke about, will require tens of billions of additional dollars not in 
the 6-year plan. There is certainly no money in future year budgets for 
the Hellfire-2 and the CBU-87 antiarmor munitions. The Pentagon's own 
inspector general told Congress that we already had enough of these 
munitions to cover every target in a 2 major regional contingency 
scenario, and yet the Senate voted to continue to buy these unneeded 
weapons, and the conferees agreed to spend tens of billions of dollars 
on them as well.
  There certainly is no money in the 6-year plan for most, if not all, 
of the member interest add-ons in the research and development budget, 
which always seems to have an outyear requirement that goes on and on. 
I have in mind items that the Senator from Arizona has on his earmark 
list, like the curved plate technology program, the Center for 
Astronomical Adaptive Optics--which presumably should be funded by the 
National Science Foundation's astronomy program, if at all--the Pacific 
Software Research Center. There are many others.
  It is frankly disconcerting to me that the Technology Reinvestment 
Project, which is a competitive and a cost shared program, was cut by 
$305 million while noncompetitive, noncost share programs like those I 
referred to flourish in these supposedly austere budget 
times. Obviously, austerity stops at the door of the Pentagon as far as 
this bill is concerned.

  Mr. President, we cannot afford these add-ons even under the 
Republican budget. There is no money in the outyears to sustain the 
programs. As Congressman Obey has repeatedly pointed out, the 
Republican defense budget over the 5-year period from fiscal year 1998 
to 2002 is less than the President's. Let me repeat that. The 
Republican defense budget for fiscal years 1998 to 2002 is less than 
what the President has asked for. According to an article from the 
November 6 issue of Aviation Week, the Republican majority is 
considering reducing the net 7-year addition to the defense budget from 
$20 to $8 billion in the final negotiations over the budget with the 
President, whenever that negotiation occurs.
  I ask unanimous consent that that article from Aviation Week be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, whatever figure emerges, this bill is 
inconsistent with it. This bill assumes future Congresses are going to 
spend tens of billions of dollars more for defense than the Republican 
budget resolution allows.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year made clear in 
its report that it had not designed the authorization bill to be 
consistent with the realities of the out-year Republican defense budget 
totals. The committee said on page 3 of its report:

       The Committee remains concerned about the adequacy of 
     funding levels for national defense programs in coming years. 
     * * * Budget levels proposed for future years do not 
     adequately fund even the level of forces required for the 
     Bottom-Up Review Force. * * * The limited progress reflected 
     in this bill cannot be maintained unless future funding is 
     increased.

  Mr. President, increasing defense spending above the June budget 
resolution is not even on the table. Nor should it be. I hear no one in 
the Republican leadership saying they want to increase defense spending 
even more. Despite the rhetoric in last year's campaign about the 
President not spending enough on defense, the fact is all the 7-year 
Republican defense budget does in its current form is provide a 2-year 
infusion of pork this year and next followed by 5 years in which 
Republicans are saying that the President is being a tad too generous 
to defense. Mr. President, I say we should forgo the pork this year and 
next. Let us put this money to better use in the domestic 
appropriations bill, particularly Labor-HHS, VA-HUD, and Commerce-
State-Justice, all of which require additional funds to sustain 
critical programs. I suspect that by the end of this year's budget 
process, at least some of the unneeded, unrequested, and unsustainable 
projects will be stripped from this bill.
  Mr. President, there are several other provisions which concern me in 
this bill. When the Senate debated this bill in August, the senior 
Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, offered an amendment to trim 
the defense export loan guarantee authority in this bill from $15 to 
$10 billion. The vote to table that amendment was 53 to 47. Yet the 
conferees came back with $15 billion in loan guarantees for defense 
exports, to the extent they are authorized. Unfortunately, a loan 
guarantee 

[[Page S 17155]]
provision is included in both the House and Senate versions of the 
authorization bill. So if there is an authorization bill, this 
appropriations bill will put the taxpayers at risk to the tune of $15 
billion for defaults on payments for defense exports.
  Mr. President, when Senator Kempthorne started working on this issue 
a couple of years ago, he sought authority for a trial program to 
guarantee about $1 billion in defense exports to a limited number of 
countries. At that time, it was a subsidized guarantee. Now it is 
supposed to be paid for by the defense industry itself. But we have 
moved in 2 short years from a $1 billion trial program to a full-blown 
$15 billion program of defense export guarantees.
  Mr. President, we should not be attempting to prop up our defense 
industry by turning it into the arms merchant for the world. It is our 
own troops who will too often be facing off against these weapons. 
Instead, we should be taking the lead in trying to negotiate arms 
transfer restraints. There is a historic opportunity with the end of 
the cold war and with nations across the globe attempting to free up 
funds for economic development and useful infrastructure to scale back 
regional arms races. This loan guarantee provision is just bad public 
policy and I regret it was not at least scaled back by the conferees 
after the close vote on the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. President, I also regret the cuts made in this bill to the 
technology reinvestment project and SEMATECH. The $305 million cut in 
the technology reinvestment project and the $50.5 million cut to 
SEMATECH in the last year that it was seeking Federal funds, send 
precisely the wrong signal to the Pentagon's research bureaucracy. The 
signal is that rather than leveraging the commercial sector in 
innovative ways to save the taxpayers' money in developing and 
procuring dual-use technologies, it is OK to hunker down and pursue 
duplicative, ultimately dead-end research with a military label on it. 
In fact, not only is it OK, but it is the preferred approach of the 
congressional majority.
  This is again bad public policy which the Pentagon cannot afford to 
pursue at a time of limited resources and which will come back to haunt 
us in the next century if it is not soon reversed.
  Mr. President, I could go on and on and cite additional problems with 
this bill. I think the point is well made. And I will not delay the 
Senate further in discussing the details of the conference report. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. I urge the President to 
carry out his threat to veto the bill. It reflects a set of priorities 
with which I for one do not want to associate myself at a time when we 
are doing so much damage to many vital domestic programs.
  Mr. President, as stated by the Senator from North Dakota, this bill 
does make a mockery of all the speeches that I have been hearing here 
on the Senate floor about deficit reduction, about the need to balance 
the budget, about the need the tighten our belts. The Congress can and 
must do better than to ratify the misplaced priorities reflected in 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to Mr. 
Livingston printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 1995.
     Hon. Bob Livingston,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     conference report on the Fiscal year 1996 Defense 
     Appropriations Act. I want you to know that I appreciate your 
     hard work and leadership on this bill, as well as that of 
     Senators Stevens and Inouye. The Conference Report had many 
     commendable features. For example, a number of policy 
     provisions that raised serious constitutional and national 
     security concerns were satisfactorily resolved in conference, 
     and funding was secured for several programs that were of 
     particular importance to me and to the national security of 
     this country, including the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
     program and the Technology Reinvestment Project.
       However, by appropriating $6.9 billion more than I 
     requested, the Conference Report did not address my 
     fundamental concerns about spending priorities. As the bill 
     now goes back to conference following its defeat on the House 
     floor, it is important that the conferees understand where I 
     stand. Absent a broader agreement with Congress that 
     adequately funds crucial domestic programs in other 
     appropriations bills, I will veto any defense appropriations 
     bill that adds extra billions for defense programs not in my 
     request.
       I am ready to work with Congress to ensure that we reach 
     that agreement.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

                               Exhibit 1

         [From Aviation Week & Space Technology, Nov. 6, 1995]

               Deficit Hawks Gain, Threaten Defense Hikes

                    (By David A. Fulghum/Washington)

       U.S. Republican lawmakers are considering a deal that could 
     cut $12 billion from promised defense increases--a key 
     element in the party's Contract With America.
       Defense boosters and fiscal conservatives are trying to 
     craft compromise budget language that would make the cuts 
     over the next six years. The Republican leadership is 
     attempting to satisfy lawmakers who believe deficit reduction 
     should take priority over defense increases. The compromise 
     is aimed at gaining passage of the Fiscal 1996 reconciliation 
     bill, catch-all budget legislation that funds the entire 
     federal government.
       The compromise defense language is still in flux. But if it 
     survives in the overall reconciliation bill, the Republicans' 
     much ballyhooed $20-billion defense spending hike above the 
     Administration's request could be slashed to only $8 billion, 
     according to a Democratic congressional aide. But a 
     Republican aide said it is not yet clear if all $12 billion 
     in cuts ``will be directly translated to defense.'' 
     Complicating matters, the fate of the reconciliation bill is 
     in serious doubt because of White House and congressional 
     squabbling over the best way to balance the budget.
       If the Republican leadership decides for the sake of fiscal 
     peace with its deficit hawks to renege on its promised 
     defense increases, the Pentagon could find it impossible to 
     buy as much new armament as GOP defense hawks would like. 
     That includes C-17 airlifters, B-2 bombers, missile defense, 
     ships and submarines.
       Moreover, organized resistance to defense hawks appears to 
     be mounting. A coalition of freshman lawmakers, heavily 
     influenced by Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), has concluded that 
     defense is not a top priority, and they are forming a task 
     force to begin examining the whole issue of defense spending 
     early next year.
       ``From the reconciliation bill will flow the defense budget 
     top lines,'' the Democratic congressional staffer said. If 
     there are major cuts, ``there will be no money to 
     sustain buying C-17s at a high rate or additional B-2s.''
       The U.S. military is being unequivocal in its support for 
     purchasing an airlifter fleet made up of 120 McDonnell 
     Douglas C-17s. A plan to buy less expensive C-33/Boeing 747-
     400 freighters or Lockheed C-5Ds has of late had shrinking 
     support in the Pentagon. However, congressional opponents of 
     purchasing an all-C-17 fleet contend there is still a flicker 
     of interest from the White House in the Boeing 747-400. 
     Consequently, they expect the Pentagon to leave the door open 
     for a mixed purchase at least through the 1996 presidential 
     election.
       However, senior defense officials believe that the reasons 
     for buying a mixed fleet have disappeared. The C-141 fleet, 
     which C-17s are to replace, is no longer grounded and is 
     expected to soldier on in decreasing numbers well into the 
     next century. Meanwhile, McDonnell Douglas has transformed 
     the C-17 from a troubled program to an operational and 
     technological success.
       Congressional supporters of a mixed fleet point out that a 
     Pentagon recommendation to buy 120 C-17 equivalents is simply 
     an acquisition decision. It does not mean the money is in the 
     long-term defense budget.
       ``It means they go from standing in the acquisition line to 
     standing in the budget line and that's a whole new ball 
     game,'' a Democratic staffer said.
       Some staffers contend the Air Force can sustain only a 
     $2.5-billion per year investment in airlifters, which would 
     equal only eight C-17s. At that rate, the U.S. Air Force 
     would actually lose airlift capacity until 2007 because of 
     the retirement of C-141. Airlift could be sustained only by 
     buying some high-payload 747-400s, they said. Some 
     congressional and aerospace industry officials thought the 
     Pentagon might keep the C-33 option alive as a goad to 
     McDonnell Douglas to keep C-17 prices down.
       Senior defense officials said they do not believe the 
     Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) will sustain the option, 
     choosing instead to use contractual methods to ensure 
     McDonnell Douglas prices stay low. Moreover, Air Force 
     planners believe the defense budget as now projected will 
     allow them to buy C-17s at a greater rate than eight per 
     year, thus avoiding an airlift shortage.
       But, there are indications that defense planning could 
     receive some severe jolts. A senior Air Force official 
     candidly admitted that planners are being forced to ``look at 
     the issue with blinders on.'' They have not made budgetary 
     excursions to project what will happen if, for example, they 
     are forced to buy more B-2s. The requirement is considered a 
     likely inclusion in a compromise Fiscal 1996 defense 
     appropriations bill. If the Republican Congress forces the 
     Pentagon to buy more B-2s without additional long-term 

[[Page S 17156]]
     funding, Air Force leaders will have to rebuild their budgets and 
     likely cut or stretch out C-17 purchases.
       But in a move guaranteed to keep the airlifter debate 
     alive, Congressional Budget Office researchers have just 
     completed a study that offers compelling arguments for buying 
     a mix of aircraft to meet the Pentagon's requirement for 120 
     C-17 equivalents.
       ``Buying 32 more C-17s plus 30 C-3s would provide the same 
     delivery capability as 80 additional C-17s,'' the CBO report 
     said. ``That option would also be nearly $8 billion 
     cheaper.''
       CBO researchers said the mix of C-17s and C-33s would cost 
     about $28 billion to buy and operate and would be a better 
     deal if there were adequate room on airfields to land and 
     unload the less maneuverable C-33s.
       ``If, however, U.S. forces were limited to a few airfields 
     that had a small amount of ramp space [such as Macedonia], 
     the [C-17/C-33 mix] option might not deliver cargo as quickly 
     as would 80 more C-17s,'' the CBO report said. ``And such a 
     combination would not provide as much flexibility to handle 
     specific military missions such as strategic brigade airdrops 
     [flowing directly from the U.S. to a foreign battlefield].''
       CBO noted that the first 40 C-17s cost about $300 million 
     each in 1996 dollars but predicted the company light like to 
     achieve a flyaway cost of $203 million each, without 
     government furnished avionics and engines.

                       ESTIMATED COSTS IN 1996 DOLLARS OF THREE STRATEGIC AIRLIFT OPTIONS                       
                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Total 1997- Total 1997-
                                 1997        1998        1999        2000        2001        2001        2020   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Option 1: Buy 80 Additional                                                                                    
            C-17s                                                                                               
                                                                                                                
Quantity purchased..........          8           8           8          10          12          46          80 
Acquisition costs...........      2,510       2,490       2,430       2,670       2,910      13,010      20,730 
Operation and support costs.          0           0          50         140         250         440      15,470 
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total costs.............      2,510       2,490       2,480       2,810       3,160      13,450      36,200 
                             ===================================================================================
    Option 2: Buy 65 C5Ds                                                                                       
                                                                                                                
Quantity purchased..........          4          10          12          12          12          50          65 
Acquisition costs...........     a2,420       2,010       1,840       1,780       1,630       9,680      11,690 
Operation and support costs.          0           0           0         120         290         410      15,540 
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total costs.............      2,420       2,010       1,840       1,900       1,920      10,090      27,230 
                             ===================================================================================
 Option 3: Buy 32 Additional                                                                                    
     C-17s and 30 C-33s                                                                                         
                                                                                                                
Quantity of C-17s purchased.          8           8           8           8           0          32          32 
Quantity of C-33s purchased.          1           1           6           6           6          20          30 
Acquisition costs...........     b2,930       2,660       3,400      c3,120       1,170      13,280      15,470 
Operation and Support Costs.          0           0          50         140         290         480      12,850 
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total costs.............      2,930       2,660       3,450       3,260       1,460      13,670      28,320 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Includes $850 million for the cost of restarting the C-5 production line.                                     
b Includes $275 million in costs to develop the C-33.                                                           
c Cost declines in 2000 because advanced procurement funds are no longer needed for the C-17.                   
Note: All options exclude any costs associated with procuring or operating the first 40 C-17s.                  
                                                                                                                
Source: Congressional Budget Office.                                                                            

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I am prepared to yield some time to the Senator from 
Maine. But I want to say to the Senator from New Mexico, I am saddened 
to hear those comments. I wish we had a little more time. I would be 
glad to disabuse him of some of the comments he made.
  To the contrary, I am sure there are New Mexican men and women around 
the world in some of these deployments we have made. I will be very 
interested to see how he is going to vote on the deployment to Bosnia, 
whether he supported the deployment to Somalia, whether he supported 
the support for the Kurds, the humanitarian assistance to Bosnia that 
is going on now or the deployment to Macedonia or the Adriatic blockade 
or the blockade of Iraq.
  I do not see how we can send our people, our young men and women, 
throughout the world, and then complain we are providing them the 
equipment they need to survive. And in my judgment, the amount of money 
in this bill is literally a decline from last year in real terms. And I 
really think that to request the President to veto this bill, and at 
the same time to consider deploying forces to the Balkans, is just the 
height of really--well, I do not want to use the word here on the floor 
of the Senate.
  It boggles my mind to think some people will vote against this bill 
and then vote to deploy forces to the Balkans.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Would the Senator from Alaska yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. I will be glad to get to the Senator later on. But I 
want to yield to the Senator from Maine 4 or 5 minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, first let me thank both the Senator from 
Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for their efforts in trying to 
negotiate with their House counterparts. I and other Members have been 
locked in negotiations for weeks now with our House counterparts on the 
authorization bill, and we have yet to reach success. And so I 
appreciate the work that the Senators have put in and, especially, in 
working out the differences in the funding requirements.
  One area that troubles me is the B-2 bomber. For several years now I 
think we have gone on record as saying no more than 20. We decided that 
several years ago.
  At first there was a notion we had to have a penetrating bomber 
because after we fired off our ICBM's in an exchange with the Soviet 
Union, we would need the B-2 bomber to penetrate Soviet air defenses, 
what remained of them, to go in and hunt down mobile missiles. When 
that became rather impractical, to say the least, when we finally 
exposed the rationale for that, the Air Force at that point came back 
and said, well, we do not really need it as a nuclear penetrating 
bomber, perhaps we can use it as a conventional bomber.
  They used to present us with a chart indicating that the B-2 will 
replace some--I cannot recall the number now--but somewhere from 40 to 
50 aircraft. If you have one B-2, you will not need all these other 
aircraft. This one B-2 can fly back and over. No jamming aircraft 
needed, no F-15 escorts, and so on. I said, ``Fine, take all the B-2's 
and eliminate all the other aircraft. We do not want that tradeoff,'' 
they said. ``We want to have the B-2 and all the other aircraft.''
  But we are now on the eve of this particular conference report, and 
once again, we find there is roughly $500 million included for the B-2 
bomber. I want to ask a question of my colleague from Alaska as to 
whether or not it is his and his colleague's intent, the managers of 
the bill, to open up the B-2 line to start producing more B-2 bombers?
  I can tell you why I am concerned about this. We are in the process 
now of negotiating with the other body. The other body by 3 votes--3 
votes--approved additional funds for the B-2 bomber. They want to open 
up an entire new line to produce another 20 B-2 bombers. That is with 
life-cycle costs of roughly $30 billion.
  I want to know, where is the $30 billion going to come from? Now, I 
could see some are making the case, saying, ``Well, maybe we need to do 
a little more experimentation here on the B-2, that this is, by the 
way, 1970's technology. We are moving into the 21st century. We may 
have to update the B-

[[Page S 17157]]
2 with some new research and development.''
  I can see the case being made for the purchase of even spare parts 
for the existing B-2 fleet. But I am really concerned that we might 
start down the path, an irrevocable path, to build 20 more B-2 bombers, 
at a cost of $30 billion, and I do not know where the money is going to 
come from.
  So, I want to know from my friend from Alaska as to whether or not 
the Appropriations Committee is committing itself and committing this 
body to opening up this line, to taking the cap off, to starting 
another process of building at least 5, 10, 20, more B-2 bombers. If 
that is the case, I would have great difficulty with this measure.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Maine 
that, as I made the statement in the opening part of this discussion on 
the bill, we have provided the money for the continuation of the line. 
The decision will be the President's as to whether that will go 
forward, or at least it will be with the Armed Services Committee, 
because we have no authorizing language in the bill. We have just 
funded it.
  It is not within our province to start a multiyear procurement line 
with an annual appropriations bill. I will say, though--I am 
constrained to say that 20 B-2 bombers is equivalent to four Seawolf 
submarines. I have fought every Seawolf that has come before the 
Senate, and yet they are going forward. And we need Seawolf submarines 
a lot less than we need B-2 bombers. At least B-2's are force 
projections and capable of meeting some of our needs on an 
international basis. The Seawolf, in my judgment, is not needed at all. 
But I tell the Senator that some of these decisions are not made by 
individual members of either the Armed Services Committee, on which the 
Senator serves, or the Appropriations Committee, of which I am pleased 
to chair the subcommittee.
  The answer to the question directly is, we have not opened up this 
line by the language in this bill.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank my friend for his comments. I point out this body 
has gone on record saying no more than 20. Whether or not the Senator 
agrees with the need for the Seawolf--that is a debatable matter 
obviously--the fact is that the Senate has gone on record that no more 
than 20 B-2 bombers should be built. And here we are at least opening 
up the prospect of a new line of more B-2's at a time when, in the 
outyears, I do not know where the money is going to come from.
  I know that the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Hawaii, have 
been creative over the years in coming up with money that is necessary 
to fund our programs. But if you look past the year 2000, I do not know 
that even he and the Senator from Hawaii can be persuasive enough for 
their colleagues to say we have to appropriate that kind of money.
  By the way, looking at the SCN account, the Navy's shipbuilding and 
conversion account--and the Senator from Alaska can correct me on 
this--we have roughly $4 billion in the SCN account. And in order to 
meet the Navy's needs, by the year 2000, it is going to go up to----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COHEN. Could I have 1 more minute?
  Mr. STEVENS. I will be glad to give the Senator 1 more minute, but 
let me precede that by saying we have provided the money for long lead-
time items for the new B-2 line, should the President decide to open it 
up. We have not funded money for any single B-2.
  We have given the administration a chance to revisit the question of 
keeping the B-2 line open by virtue of making the money available for 
long-lead-time items for new B-2's should the decision be made to 
procure them.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank my friend.
  As I indicated before, we are going to be going in the SCN account, 
the shipbuilding account, from $4 billion, roughly, up to $15 billion 
in the year 2000 and beyond to get the ships that the Navy indicates it 
is going to have to have in order to meet its requirements.
  I do not know where that money is going to come from. I do not know 
how we are going to have enough money in the shipbuilding account at 
the turn of the century, and I am not sure there will be a Congress 
willing to vote the money to fund it. That is one reason why I raise 
the issue on the B-2.
  I am at least consoled somewhat by the Senator's statement that it is 
not the intent of the appropriators to open up a new line but rather it 
is the intent to leave it up to the President to decide whether he is 
going to overrule his own Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, both of whom indicated they do not need the B-2 or want 
it given the cost requirements of the program.
  I thank the Senator for yielding me this time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for his 
contribution and his comments. Although we were criticized by another 
Senator on the floor, it is a fact that we have saved money by 
accelerating the decision to buy the LPD and LHD now. That, in fact, 
will make room for the outlays that are necessary to carry on the ship 
procurement that the Senator from Maine has mentioned.
  But there is severe strain in the Department's budget in the 
outyears, and both the President and the Congress have noted that in 
terms of the last 2 years of the 7-year period. It will be a difficult 
thing to fund the items that are started, both in the shipbuilding and 
the aircraft procurement accounts. However, there are decisions that 
are going to be made, I assume, that will take care of the outyears by 
the authorizing committee.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I do not think I will consume the entire time allotted to me, I 
tell my colleagues.
  First of all, I paid close attention to the colloquy between Senator 
Cohen and the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, who I 
believe, along with the Senator from Hawaii, has worked very hard on 
these issues for many, many years.
  I note and I think it is an important aspect of what I am about to 
say, that since 1985, the defense budgets have declined by 35 percent 
in real dollars, with another 10 percent decline by the turn of the 
century.
  There is no possible way that we will be able to meet a Bottom-Up 
Review, a modified Bottom-Up Review or anything resembling it with 
those kind of numbers staring us in the face, which is one reason why I 
was a strong supporter of the $7 billion increase in defense spending, 
because I believe that we are terribly short and facing block 
obsolescence in items such as sealift, airlift, amphibious capability, 
tactical air, depot maintenance, that terribly unsexy word, 4 or 5, 6, 
10 years behind. Training funds are miserably short. We had a situation 
not too long ago where the U.S.S. Inchon came back from 7 months off 
the coast of Somalia, was back home approximately 2 weeks and then went 
out for another 3 months off the coast of Haiti. Mr. President, there 
is no way you will keep qualified men and women in the military under 
those kinds of conditions that the crew of the Inchon was subjected to.
  So, I believe that there is a clear and compelling requirement for us 
to increase spending, which increases the depth of my bitterness at how 
we have spent this additional $7 billion. I can identify, and I will in 
my statement, $4.1 billion, or over 60 percent of this total $7 
billion, wasted on projects which do little or nothing to enhance the 
readiness of our forces today or to modernize our forces to ensure 
their future readiness.
  We live in a very dangerous world. I strongly disagree with the 
comments of the Senator from North Dakota about the fact, in his view, 
we do not need to spend money on ballistic missile defense. I think any 
casual observer of the passing scene will recognize the incredible 
threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
the means to deliver them. We are finding out that in Iraq, Saddam 
Hussein was very, very close to having both delivery capability and the 
weapons needed to have changed that conflict in a most dramatic and 
significant fashion.
  So, I am not arguing for cuts in defense spending, but I am saying 
this, 

[[Page S 17158]]
and I am saying it as much and as sincerely as I have said anything on 
the floor of this Senate: If we do not stop wasting these tax dollars, 
if we do not stop this pork barreling, if we do not stop spending money 
on projects and programs that have no relevance to the post-cold-war 
era, the American people will not support a minimum level of defense 
spending.
  One of the problems, I have to tell you, Mr. President, is we no 
longer have a conceptual framework for the threats that face our 
national security interest. The Bottom-Up Review, in its day, was an 
important step forward. It is no longer relevant because it cannot be 
built. There is no way that we are going to maintain the Bottom-Up 
Review. But what we have to do is ascertain what the threats are to our 
national security, which I have been over many times on this floor, and 
what we need to meet those.
  The administration has failed to do it, and we in the Congress have 
failed to recognize them. So, therefore, it opens the door wide to not 
only pork barreling of additional projects, but also funding of major 
weapons systems, major commitments to multibillions of dollars in the 
future years that have no relevance to the threat.
  I, obviously, speak specifically of the B-2 bomber and the Seawolf 
submarine. I was pleased to hear that the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman said this additional $493 million for the B-2, which is in 
this bill, does not commit us to an additional $36 billion. I have been 
around here long enough, I have been around here long enough to know 
that once you get your fist in the tar baby, you do not get out. If we 
start that line up again, we are not going to shut it down until we 
have expended an additional $36 billion, which we simply do not have.
  Mr. President, I want to also point out, I find it interesting that 
the President has threatened to veto this bill on the grounds that much 
of the spending is unneeded and much of it may be wasteful and 
unrequested items. If he should have ever vetoed a bill, he should have 
vetoed the military construction appropriations bill.
  Did the President miss the fact that there was $700 million added on 
in the military construction bill which was neither requested nor 
required, items such as hypervelocity ballistic-range facilities, such 
as fire stations, such as a foundry renovation at Philadelphia Navy 
Shipyard that is being closed, such as a dining facility at Fort Bliss, 
a highway overpass at Fort Sam Houston?
  Did the President miss all those? If the President was serious, then 
the President of the United States would have vetoed the MilCon bill in 
a New York minute.
  What we are doing, I will tell you again, and, as I say, I am dead 
serious and the reason why I risk offending my hard-working colleagues 
on these appropriations bills is the American people in 1994 said they 
do not want any more of this pork barreling and wasteful expenditures 
on defense and they will not support it. Everyplace I go, it is almost 
a joke. I am not going to go through all of these tonight, because I 
have gone through them so many times before.

  Earmarks: $5 million grant to the Marine and Environmental Research 
and Training Station in Oregon for ``programs of major importance''; 
$25 million to the Kaho'olawe Island conveyance, where I am led to 
understand there is already $50 million sitting idle, not in either 
bill, not in either bill, it comes out in the conference; $3.4 million 
for private physicians ``who have used and will use the antibacterial 
treatment method based upon the excretion of dead, decaying spherical 
bacteria'' to work with Walter Reed Army Medical Center for a treatment 
of Desert Storm Syndrome. That may be a valid requirement. Why did we 
not discuss it? Why did it appear in the final bill?
  Authority to provide free medical care at Army medical facilities in 
Hawaii to citizens of surrounding islands. I visited Hawaii, I 
understand that there are needs on the islands around Hawaii for 
medical care. I also know that there are rural places in my State and 
there are rural places all over America that do not have medical care 
either. Why do we not provide free medical care for all of them?
  Prohibition on downsizing or disestablishing the 53d weather 
reconnaissance squadron; prohibition on using Edwards Air Force base as 
the interim airhead for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. 
There is a little more to these than meets the eye.
  Somebody wants to have a runway extended at Barstow Daggett Airport 
when the Army has determined that Edwards Air Force Base is the 
facility that should be used and has plenty of facilities there.
  So how do we beat that? We beat it by prohibiting using Edwards Air 
Force Base for our people to land and then be transported over to Fort 
Irwin. It goes on and on. Cleanup of the National Presto Industries 
site in Eau Claire, WI. I have been through before. It was in 
litigation in the courts. We had no business providing $15 million for 
that until the courts had settled it. Then there is $7 million for the 
Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Science; $6 million for a 
Pacific Disaster Center; $1.5 million for the Beaumont Army Medical 
Center computer support; $3.5 million for distributed manufacturing 
demonstration project; over $200 million in earmarked medical research 
projects; a natural gas boiler demonstration, $2 million; earmark for 
Mississippi Resource Development Center.
  Here is one of my favorites: $5.4 million in unrequested funding to 
continue ongoing efforts with an established small business development 
center to be administered as in previous years, focused on developing 
agricultural-based services, such as bioremediation. The committee 
supports targeted research and development projects and agricultural 
development activities in zones surrounding military installations.
  What in the world does that mean? ``The committee supports targeted 
research and development projects and agricultural development 
activities in zones surrounding military installations.''
  Next is $8 million to be ``competitive awarded to a qualified 
Washington, DC, region-based institution of higher education with 
expertise and programs in computational sciences and informatics 
capable of conducting research and development that will further 
efforts to establish an effective metacomputing testbed.''
  I will not even ask what that means.
  ``The committee urges the Department to provide not less than $8 
million in financial and technical support toward the study of 
neurofibromatosis. The committee urges the Department to provide not 
less than $1 million in financial and technical support toward the 
study of Paget's and related bone diseases.''
  Report language calls for $5 million for instrumented factory for 
gears; $2.7 million for standard monitoring control system; $10 million 
for FDS-deployable refurbishment and spares procurement.
  The list goes on and on and on and on. I saw the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill that we passed yesterday. It was a clean bill, a 
good bill. It did not have earmarks, it did not have special projects 
in it, which was a dramatic change from the previous years. It proved 
to me that we do not have to have this practice in appropriations 
bills.
  Mr. President, we have 50,000 enlisted families in America in our 
Armed Forces that are eligible for food stamps. I suggest that if we 
had additional money, maybe we ought to give them a pay raise--the 
enlisted people. Maybe we ought to do that and take them off of 
eligibility for food stamps. Maybe we ought to do a lot more in the way 
of quality of life and make sure that there are enough ships like 
U.S.S. Inchon, so they do not have to spend 7 months at sea and come 
back and then go out for another 3 months.
  Instead, we make sure that the Reserve and National Guard are not 
only taken care of, but we also earmark funds and a list of specific 
equipment for them.
  The bill also includes $977.4 million for unrequested Guard and 
Reserve equipment. While the report allocates the funds among generic 
categories of miscellaneous equipment for the Reserve components, the 
report also strongly suggests that priority be given to a long list of 
specific items. The report also specifies that the funds will be used 
to buy C-130 and C-126 aircraft, long a staple of congressional add-ons 
for the Guard and Reserve. 

[[Page S 17159]]

  Mr. President, I support the Guard and Reserve. I think the Guard and 
Reserve are vital components in our ability to defend our Nation. But 
when we do not have the fundamental basics that our active duty forces 
need, and the prospects of them getting it any time soon are remote, we 
have to stop the earmarking.
  I want to waste a little more time here on both the B-2 and the 
Seawolf. If this were 1989, before the cold war was over, there would 
be no stronger supporter on the floor of the Senate than this Senator 
for both of those programs. The B-2 bomber would have really been a 
vital and important part of the triad, which I was always supportive 
of. Now the B-2 bomber is being advertised as some kind of long-range 
attack weapons delivery system which will be stealthy.
  I do not argue that, Mr. President. I really do not argue that at 
all. I would be curious which commander is going to send an over $1 
billion per copy aircraft anywhere in a conventional scenario. I have 
long recommended that we not put ejection seats into that plane because 
the pilot that ejected would be the subject of investigation for the 
rest of his or her natural life.
  The fact is that this is an incredibly expensive weapon system for 
which there is no relevance today in the post-cold war era. What we 
need in the post-cold war era, Mr. President, is the ability to project 
power over long distances with an ability to remain there for a 
significant period of time and have enough firepower to affect the 
battlefield equation. The B-2 can do a little of that. But we do not 
have enough of the tactical aircraft, the carriers, amphibious ships, 
the airlift that were really the fundamental components of that 
capability. So we have opened the door to another $36 billion over the 
next 20 years to spend on B-2 bombers.
  This, interestingly enough, is despite the objection of the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and even the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Why does the Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force, who is a fine and decent man, oppose the B-2 bomber? He opposes 
it for a broad variety of reasons, and I do not want to put words in 
his mouth. But one of the reasons is he does not see enough money there 
in order to fund the F-22, which the Air Force and he believes--and 
this could be a subject for debate on the floor--are a vital component 
in our ability to defend the Nation's vital national security interests 
in the next century. They need a follow-on fighter aircraft. If you 
siphon off $36 billion in the next 20 years for the B-2 bomber, it is 
hard for them to see where you will get the money for the F-22.
  As far as the Seawolf is concerned, Mr. President, it is well known 
that during the Presidential primary, President Clinton went to 
Connecticut and said he would support the Seawolf submarine. It is 
clear that this is a jobs program. There is no doubt that there have 
been tremendous cost overruns. We now have two shipyards that can build 
nuclear powered submarines. We now have two of them. I can envision no 
scenario in the future where we have a requirement for two shipyards to 
build nuclear submarines. But perhaps more important, Mr. President, is 
that we continue to hear this argument that the former Soviet Union, 
Russia, today, which cannot meet anywhere near its quota of 
conscription for the year; estimates are between a quarter and a third 
of those conscripted show up; they have an incipient revolt in Chechnya 
on their hands, which has cost them the blood of many hundreds of their 
young fighting men and women; and their officers, which were moved out, 
and their families, out of Eastern Europe back into Russia, are living 
in boxcars.
  The state of their military establishment, by all objective 
observers' estimates, is in a terrible and horrendous condition--not to 
mention the threat that we have of how we are going to dispose of the 
nuclear weapons that abound throughout the former Soviet Union.
  So, Mr. President, what we are supposed to believe, given the 
conditions and the threats to Russia's vital national security 
interest, which they see clearly are as they have been for most of its 
history in the so-called ``near abroad,'' that they are going to spend 
an enormous amount of money that they do not have on fast, quiet 
submarines.
  Mr. President, they are not. It does not make any sense. It does not 
make any sense to believe that the Russians are spending billions of 
dollars on fast, quiet submarines when they cannot even get their 
officers out of boxcars into houses, when they cannot make their yearly 
annual conscription to man their armed forces to any degree whatever, 
when they are fighting a guerrilla war in Chechnya, when they have 
problems in practically every part of what the Russians call ``near 
abroad.''
  I do not believe that the Russian defense experts are so naive and so 
uninformed that they sit around and say, gee, forget all those problems 
I just articulated, build some fast, quiet submarines.
  Mr. President, we are really doing the American taxpayers a great 
disservice.
  I want to say, finally again, I appreciate the hard work that is done 
by the members of the Appropriations Committee. I know they have 
difficult issues to wrestle with. I am sure that, in fairness, the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member should bring up the 
legitimate point that the authorizing committee has so far failed to 
come up with any legislation, so they have had to make many of these 
decisions. I think that is a very legitimate statement on the part of 
the appropriators.
  I will say, finally, one more time, Mr. President, and the last time, 
and mark my words, if we keep doing this, if we keep wasting taxpayers' 
dollars in this fashion, we are going to lose the confidence of the 
American people and at some point there will be great resistance to 
adequately fund our defense forces and we may see a threat posed to our 
national security that we cannot meet because of our failure to 
articulate to authorize and to appropriate adequate funding to meet the 
real threats to our vital national security interests.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Ten minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 10 minutes, but I do want to thank 
the Senator from Arizona for his contribution. He does not know how 
often we use his positions in conference in order to achieve savings--
which he does not mention.
  Some of the items he mentioned, I think, are legitimate complaints. 
Others I think have legitimate military value. We can discuss that on 
the floor.
  His last comment is the correct one. We did not have the guidance of 
the Armed Services Committee this time and we just did our best. I 
think that is because of some of the problems we face here on the 
floor.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on the 
conference report on the Department of Defense [DOD] appropriation 
bill.
  The amount of money provided in this measure is too high.
  I argued for a lower figure when we debated the budget resolution.
  And I argued for a lower figure when we debated the defense 
authorization bill.
  The cold war is over.
  The Soviet military threat is gone.
  We are closing military bases. Our force structure is shrinking.
  Defense budgets should be coming down--not going up. But we lost that 
battle.
  For unknown reasons, Congress decided on the higher number, and 
that's that.
  Mr. President, I didn't come here to argue about the size of the 
defense budget.
  I come to the floor to thank my friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, 
for his advice and assistance with the DOD unmatched disbursements 
problem.
  Last year, with the help of my friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, we 
began the process of trying to fix the $30 billion unmatched 
disbursement problem.
  We established thresholds at which DOD must match disbursements with 
obligations--before making a payment.
  This year, Senator Stevens helped to reenergize and continue that 
process. He is helping to keep the pressure on.
  And DOD Comptroller John Hamre is doing his part. He's helping, too.

[[Page S 17160]]

  In the coming months, both the General Accounting Office [GAO] and 
DOD Inspector General [IG] will be conducting detailed reviews of DOD's 
emerging capability to prematch disbursements.
  Next year, at this time, I hope we are in a position to lay out a 
road map for ratcheting down the thresholds.
  Next year, I hope we can move the threshold to zero.
  Mr. President, as I have said many times, with $30 billion in 
unmatched disbursements, there are no effective internal controls over 
a big chunk of the DOD budget.
  That means those accounts are vulnerable to theft and abuse.
  Mr. President, we must keep the pressure on and keep moving down the 
road toward the time when all DOD payments are prematched.
  I thank Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, and Mr. John Hamre for their 
help in trying to fix this problem.
  Mr. President, I would also like to seek the advice and assistance of 
the committee's leadership on another issue.
  I am concerned about the possible existence of a slush fund at the 
Central Intelligence Agency [CIA].
  Recent press reports suggest that bureaucrats in just one CIA 
office--the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO]--accumulated a pool of 
unspent money that totaled between $1 and $2 billion.
  Now, I know that the committee has taken certain steps in this bill 
to recover some of the money.
  The bill also includes restrictive language governing the 
availability of CIA appropriations.
  The restrictive language is embodied in section 8070 of the bill.
  I commend the committee for taking these important steps.
  However, in my mind, the action taken in the bill is a short-term 
fix.
  We need to get at the root cause of the problem.
  We need to understand the mechanisms that allowed bureaucrats in the 
NRO--and possibly other CIA offices--to accumulate huge sums of money.
  And we need to develop a long-term solution.
  Mr. President, we must not allow the CIA to accumulate huge sums of 
money in a honey pot that lies outside of the law.
  The CIA must handle unspent appropriations in ways that are 
consistent with the requirements of title 31 of the United States Code, 
and in particular, the M account reform law.
  Senator Roth and I have sent a letter on this matter to the committee 
chairman, Senator Hatfield.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter to Senator Hatfield, along with an article from the 
Washington Post on the same issue.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mark: We are writing to express concern about the 
     possible existence of a slush fund at the Central 
     Intelligence Agency (CIA) and to seek your help in launching 
     an independent review to determine the origins of the money 
     and root cause of the problem.
       The source of our concern is a series of reports that 
     appeared recently in the Washington Post and New York Times. 
     These reports suggest that one office within the CIA--the 
     National Reconnaissance Office--has accumulated ``a pool of 
     unspent money'' that totals between $1 billion and $1.7 
     billion and that some of these funds may have been used for 
     unauthorized purposes.
       In the wake of these disturbing revelations, unnamed 
     intelligence officials readily admitted: ``The agency's 
     financial practices were governed by custom, not by written 
     rules. . . . Many of the financial practices were time-
     honored, but they were not documented. . . . They were just 
     folklore'' [New York Times, September 25, 1995, page 11].
       On the surface, based solely on these very sketchy news 
     reports, we have to conclude that the CIA's books need more 
     scrutiny. A potential multi-billion dollar slush fund in just 
     one CIA office plus a possible breakdown of discipline and 
     integrity in accounting equals a recipe for abuse.
       We must not allow the CIA to accumulate a ``pot of gold'' 
     that lies outside of the law.
       As you may remember, back in the late 1980's, Congress 
     discovered the infamous M account slush fund at the 
     Department of Defense (DOD) and at other agencies as well. 
     The M accounts, which were also known as the ``honey pot,'' 
     were being used by DOD to circumvent the law--primarily the 
     Anti-Deficiency Act (31 USC 1341)--and to fund cost overruns 
     and other unauthorized activities beyond the purview of 
     Congress. DOD, for instance, had stashed at least $50 billion 
     in these accounts.
       After holding extensive hearings that examined abusive M 
     account practices as revealed in audit reports prepared by 
     the Inspectors General and General Accounting Office, 
     Congress took decisive steps to close down the entire M 
     account operation.
       The M account reform legislation was signed into law by the 
     President on December 5, 1990. It is embodied in Sections 
     1405 and 1406 of Public Law 101-510. It closed the M 
     accounts, canceled billions in unspent balances in ``merged 
     surplus authority,'' and place strict limits on the 
     availability of ``unspent'' appropriations of the kind 
     described in the above-mentioned press reports. To the best 
     of my knowledge, this law applies to all government agencies, 
     including the CIA.
       The M account reform law in combination with all the other 
     laws governing the use of appropriations--as spelled out in 
     Title 31 of the U.S. Code--are supposed to make it very 
     difficult--if not impossible--to create a slush fund within 
     any government institution.
       If the CIA is indeed ``hoarding'' money, as White House 
     Chief of Staff Leon Panetta has suggested, and stashing it 
     away for a rainy day, then Congress needs to know about it. 
     We should know about it because we have passed a law that is 
     designed to prevent bureaucrats from accumulating money 
     outside of the law. If the CIA has succeeded in doing that, 
     then we would like to understand exactly how it was done. 
     There may be a loophole in the law that needs to be plugged.
       For these reasons, we are seeking your advice and 
     assistance on how to initiate an independent review of the 
     CIA's accounting records pertaining to balances of 
     unobligated and unexpended appropriations.
       We need to know if the CIA is complying with the M account 
     reform act. Toward that end, certain questions need to be 
     answered: Were the agency's merged surplus and M accounts 
     closed and balances canceled as required by law? Are expired 
     appropriation account balances being canceled after five 
     years as required by law? Is the agency protecting the 
     integrity of expired appropriations accounts as required by 
     law? Have the agency's no-year accounts been handled 
     according to law? No doubt, there are other important 
     questions, but these are the ones that immediately come to 
     mind.
       Between August 1991 and October 1992, the GAO conducted an 
     audit of residual M account monies throughout the government. 
     The results of this audit were published in a report entitled 
     ``Agencies Actions to Eliminate M Accounts and Merged Surplus 
     Authority'' in June 1993, Report Number AFMD-93-7. 
     Unfortunately, the CIA was not among the agencies reviewed. 
     The GAO, we are told, cannot get the access needed to audit 
     CIA accounts. The inability of the GAO to audit the CIA's 
     books leaves a gaping hole in our knowledge regarding 
     government-wide compliance with the M account reform law.
       Mark, we would like to feel confident that the monies 
     Congress appropriates for the CIA are being controlled and 
     used in ways that are consistent with the requirements for 
     Title 31 of the U.S. Code, and in particular, the M account 
     reform law.
       We have never examined a financial management issue at the 
     CIA and need your advice on how to proceed with such a 
     review.
       Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Charles E. Grassley,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
     William V. Roth, Jr.,
     U.S. Senator.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 15, 1995]

               Defense Gives Its Accounting System a `3'

                            (By Dana Priest)

       Despite efforts to turn around what the Pentagon concedes 
     is an error-prone, cross-eyed financial accounting system, 
     top Defense Department officials yesterday said that on a 
     scale of 1 to 10, the ability to track where $260 billion is 
     spent each year rates only a sorry ``3.''
       ``We are far short'' of being able to produce clean, 
     auditable annual financial statements, Richard F. Keevey, 
     director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, told 
     a congressional panel yesterday.
       Summoned by a subcommittee of the House Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight--called in part to respond to 
     Washington Post articles about the problem in May--the 
     department's top financial officers and investigators from 
     the General Accounting Office and the inspector general's 
     office explained, defended and criticized the way the 
     department manages the money Congress gives it.
       Only three members of the subcommittee showed up, and one 
     only briefly, perhaps a testimony to how arcane and 
     complicated the subject can be.
       Chairman Rep. Steve Horn (R-Calif.) described the state of 
     Pentagon bookkeeping as something not even up to the 
     standards of ``every Mom and Pop store in America.''
       ``What you're telling us today is a disgrace to the 
     American fighting men and women,'' said ranking minority 
     member Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), her voice rising in 
     frustration before she bolted out the door for a quick floor 
     vote. ``I'm sorry, I'm a little upset.''
       What was upsetting to Maloney and Horn was good news to the 
     Pentagon officials who 

[[Page S 17161]]
     point out that their accounting problems are decades-old and are only 
     now getting better. For instance:
       The accumulated amount of payments that cannot be traced 
     with certainty to particular purchases has fallen from $50 
     billion in June 1993 to $20.5 billion in September.
       The department now refuses to pay any bill larger than $1 
     million without the proper bookkeeping. The threshold used to 
     be $5 million, although the higher figure still applies to 
     its major, trouble-plagued Columbus, Ohio, check writing 
     center because contractors there complained that a new 
     standard would dramatically slow payments.
       On the other hand, department Inspector General Eleanor 
     Hill testified the financial data ``for the vast majority of 
     [Defense Department] funds remain essentially not in 
     condition to audit,'' according to Hill's written statement.
       ``The same types of system problems and internal control 
     weaknesses that hamper preparation of annual financial 
     statements,'' she said, ``also impair the efficiency of day-
     to-day operations.''
       So concerned is the IG's office about the problems that it 
     is deploying 700 auditors to snoop around the finance and 
     auditing areas at the department. Still, it does not expect a 
     significant turnaround until the year 2000, she said.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. We are asking for advice on how to initiate an 
independent review of the CIA's accounting records pertaining to 
balances of unobligated and unexpended appropriations.
  Mr. President, I would like some assurances from the chairman and 
ranking minority member that they will work with us in developing an 
acceptable approach to our request.
  Our purpose is simple.
  We want an independent review of the CIA's unspent balances.
  Are they being maintained and controlled according to law?
  But how do we do that?
  We need the committee's advice and assistance.
  We have been told, in news reports, that CIA Director John Deutch is 
launching his own investigation to review the NRO's ``deliberately 
obscure fiscal practices.''
  That is fine and dandy.
  But that's not an independent review.
  I hope the committee will work with us to find a way to conduct an 
independent review of the CIA's unspent balances.
  The taxpayers of this country have a right to know that their money 
is being spent according to law.
  Mr. President, I would also like to ask the committee's leadership 
these three questions:
  First, could the committee conduct an examination of the CIA's 
appropriations accounts to determine whether they are maintained and 
controlled as required by law?
  Second, could the committee do the job if assisted by knowledgeable 
personnel from the DOD IG's office and the GAO?
  Third, could the DOD IG do the job?
  I just hope my two colleagues help us get to the bottom of sense 
things. I know you have the same concerns I do. But I would like to 
move forward with this, to make sure we are not--my point is, we are 
not relying just upon internal CIA investigations to make sure this 
does not happen. We ought to have some sort of independent, outside 
group, make sure that the job is being done and done correctly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I welcome the attention of the Senator 
from Iowa to what we call the classified annex that discusses some of 
the problems that are raised with regard to the CIA carryforward funds. 
Others have referred to them as slush funds. I found no slush funds. I 
have found carryforward funds that represent program changes, 
programmatic decisions not to spend money but carry the money into the 
future, and downsizing that led to savings that were from money that 
was not limited in terms of years.
  We have dealt with that. It is not proper, in my opinion, for us to 
discuss that here. I direct the consideration of the Senator from Iowa 
to discussing it with the Intelligence Committee. We take our lead from 
the Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committee, but this year 
we did take an extraordinary initiative in dealing with these funds to 
make sure they would not be carried forward. It is discussed in our 
classified annex. I invite my colleague's attention to that.
  I do not want to delay, if the Senator from South Carolina wishes 
some time. I am saddened to hear my friend discuss the needs of the 
Department of Defense, however, in the terms he has. I wish he would 
see these needs through my eyes. I get tired of seeing pilots fly C-130 
E's that were made in 1964. I get tired of flying in VC-137's that were 
made in 1938. I get tired of going out and watching the people on the 
flightline go to fly and train in F-14's that were made in the 1970's, 
the early 1970's.
  The 5-ton trucks we have in our Army were made in the 1960's, and we 
have not replaced them since. The M-1 tanks were made in the 1970's.
  You find me any other part of our economy that is asked to train and 
live in things that are 30 years old. I remember, when I was a young 
man, how much General Patton criticized the Army because they were 
training in the 1940's in things that were made in the early 1930's. 
Our people pray that they train in things that were made in the early 
1990's.
  Again, I say to my friend, criticize the amount of this money if you 
wish, but if you do wish to criticize them, then take action to reduce 
the commitments of our people abroad. I read earlier today the number 
of our people who are permanently living abroad now. Almost 250,000 
Americans plus their dependents live abroad permanently as members of 
the armed services. There is just no reason for those people to live 
and be in harm's way. Many of them are daily in harm's way, in 
equipment that is old. We are trying to upgrade our procurement. That 
is the basic decision we have made. We are trying to upgrade our 
research and development. That is another basic decision we made.
  Senator Inouye and I face a severe amount of criticism concerning the 
amount of money in this bill. We are now in a 7-year, level-funded 
concept for the Department of Defense. We reached out and brought some 
of that, from the late 1990's, into this bill because we can save 
money. We are doing our best to stretch this money out so it will not 
make additional demands on the American taxpayers.
  At the same time, I ask, how many of us are driving home in 1964 
cars? If the American public wants us to have a status as a world 
power, and we are the only world power left; if we want someone in the 
world to have the capabilities we have; then we must fund our people so 
they can carry out their responsibilities and live in doing it. We are 
losing too many people, now, because they are flying and driving in and 
on vessels that are too old. We are doing our very best to do it, and I 
do not like to hear Members of the Senate complain about the amount of 
money we are spending given the commitments.
  If you do not like the commitments, then use your power to stop the 
deployment of our forces abroad. Consider again deployment of forces to 
Bosnia. Consider whether we need to still have people in Haiti.
  Did you know they were supposed to be out by March? They are still 
there.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. They will be there until after the election, because 
things are going to blowup if they get out, and it will make the 
President look bad.
  Mr. STEVENS. But you have to finance them. If they are not going to 
get them back and you have to keep them there, keep them there safe. 
They are still in Rwanda. Around Iraq, we have a no-fly zone. There are 
young pilots flying over that country every day to prevent them from 
launching once again and becoming the second largest Air Force in the 
world.
  I tell you, my friend, I understand the Senator from Iowa with regard 
to the financial management. Incidentally, those problems came about 
because we brought all the records into Washington. It used to be if 
you wanted to audit these things, you could go to Denver, go to San 
Francisco, go to Panama, go somewhere in the world and find those 
records.
  Five years ago we just consolidated them in Washington. That is still 
going on. It is true that there are a lot of those disbursements and 
the record of what was gotten for the disbursements have not been 
matched up. That is a delay in the computerization program in terms of 
verifying expenditures once they have been authorized. I agree 100 
percent. 

[[Page S 17162]]

  We have done more in this bill, I think, than the Senator has ever 
had done before to meet his objectives, and we agree we ought to have--
and by the end of next fiscal year, 1997, I hope we will have--the zero 
amount there.
  We should be able to balance our checkbook. I do not know about the 
Senator from Iowa, but I still have trouble balancing my checkbook and 
figuring out what I wrote the check for. I know where I wrote the check 
that I got something for, but sometimes I do not write down what I 
write it for. That is what happened at the Department of Defense. No 
one has brought before us positive fraud or thievery. It is a question 
of lining up the records of actual acquisitions with regards to 
authorization for expenditure. We are doing our best to do that.
  The other committee which I chair, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, will be happy to work with the Senator from Iowa on that 
matter. I thank him for his consideration. The only thing I wish we 
would do is look again at the amount of money we need to put up for the 
armed services, for the people who are doing the job for us to be in 
harm's way as a superpower. If we do not want to do that, then let us 
cut the budget. If you want us to do the job we are doing, then you 
have to fund what these people need, and you have to give them the 
assistance that will help keep them alive.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Could I please have 2 minutes?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, in Iowa for the benefit of 
the Senator, I drive a 1961 Oldsmobile 98. So some of us do drive 
around in old cars.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mine is a 1965 Ford.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The second thing is you complimented me for what I was 
doing on accounting. But you castigated me for what I was saying about 
the level of expenditures, it seemed to me. My point is they are very, 
very tied together. It seems to me that before we put more money into 
the pot, we ought to be able to prove what we are buying, and have a 
system of accounting that makes sure that every dollar that we put into 
defense gets us a dollar's worth of defense.
  The second thing, and more appropriate to what the Senator from 
Alaska was saying about the level of expenditure--I think I said this 
on the floor in the debate originally--but I was told by leaders on 
military issues in the House of Representatives when we were on the 
budget--and I am the second senior person on the Budget Committee; so I 
was involved in those discussions--confidentially they said to me, 
``Chuck, you know we have to have about $6 or $7 billion more than what 
the President wants because we have to take care of our Members. We 
have to take care of our Members.''
  Mr. STEVENS. Who said that?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am not going tell the Senator who said that.
  Mr. STEVENS. It was not this Senator.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am talking about leaders in the other body. ``We need 
$6 or $7 billion to take care of our Members,'' meaning projects that 
Members had that they wanted in the Defense budget.
  That is just exactly the amount of money that we are above the 
President's figures. So I figure we have about $6 or $7 billion in here 
just to take care of a bunch of pork barrelers.
  That is what I am complaining about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from South Carolina, if you do not mind, 
asked us to yield him time. I will do so. Then we would be happy to 
take care of the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from South Carolina.
  How long does the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Such time as he uses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in 
complimenting Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Defense Appropriations and Senator Inouye, the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for bringing this conference report to the floor. This has 
been a difficult conference for them and I congratulate them on their 
diligence and perseverance in arriving at this conference report.
  Mr. President, as I have indicated many times, these conference 
reports represent compromises made by both the House and Senate. They 
will never please everyone. There are items in this report that I 
believe could be better, but on the whole it provides the critical 
funds to ensure the continued readiness of our forces both in the near 
term and in the out years.
  Mr. President, we may soon have to vote on commiting our forces to 
maintain the peace agreement in Bosnia. Although I may object to 
sending the forces, I am confident that they will have the means and 
training to carry out the mission. I am confident of that fact because 
over the past years the Congress has provided the funds to ensure their 
capabilities. The conference report that we are considering today 
provides the funds to ensure our armed services can continue to fulfill 
their mission and the tasks that are placed on them by our Nation.
  Mr. President, I want to thank my good friends, Senator Stevens and 
Senator Inouye for their dedication to and support of our Armed Forces. 
They have brought a sound conference report to the Senate and I urge 
the Senate to support them and this conference report.
  In closing, I want to say this: There is nothing more important to 
this Nation than to keep a strong defense. It means our very survival. 
We could do without a lot of things, many things. But we cannot neglect 
our defense, if we want to maintain this great Nation. Our Constitution 
provides this country with the greatest freedom of any nation in the 
world. It provides us with more justice, more opportunity, and more 
hope than any people have ever been provided in the history of the 
world. And we want to keep this. But, to keep this, we have to keep a 
strong defense.
  Again, I compliment Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for this fine 
report.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I reserve the remainder of our time and Senator McCain's 
time under my control.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INOUYE. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I wanted to comment on Senator Grassley's 
concern. His concern is very well taken about the fact that we have an 
inadequate accounting system over at the Defense Department. But let me 
carry it beyond defense also.
  We also have an inadequate accounting system across all of our 
Government. Governmental Affairs worked on this going back about 7 or 8 
years in the late 1980's, and for the first time--it is unbelievable 
that up until 1990 there was no requirement in the Federal Government 
to do a bottom-line audit at the end of the year. Some departments did 
it. Some agencies did it. Some did not. The Defense Department was one 
that basically did not. We put through a Chief Financial Officer Act; 
arcane, people did not even show up at hearings because it was such a 
boring subject. But once we passed that act, as Charles Bowsher, head 
of the GAO, said, it was probably the ``best financial management act 
that we passed around here in the last 40 years,'' to quote his words.

  Over in Department of Defense, they are trying to get that under 
control. But back in the years before that we would not even give them 
the money to do the upgrades on computers, and so on, to manage their 
equipment, manage their accounts.
  I have been out to the DFAS Center, the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service, and have gone through what they go through on 
trying to decide whether to pay a bill or not. Do you know what they 
are doing? They go from an office, and they go down the hall to a 
warehouse. They go down a long line of hundreds of thousands of manila 
envelopes, folders on metal racks, bring those files back, and lay them 
out on the table to decide. Yes, we will pay this, or not that, or 
something else. That is the way much of this work has been done.
  They are making great strides. They have even contracted some of this 
out. 

[[Page S 17163]]
 I have been out there. I think we are making great strides and John 
Hamre deserves a lot of credit for taking this on.
  Have we solved the problems yet in the time period to 1990? No, we 
have not. So we do not have the problem solved yet. But we are making 
progress. Meanwhile, I can quote horror story after horror story about 
how contractors have sent back in $700 million they said we had not 
sent bills in for, and things like that.
  I wanted to add my support for Senator Grassley's concern. I share 
his concern. I just want everyone to know that we are making progress 
in this area. I do not think we will have it by the end of next year, 
as Senator Stevens said. It is still a big job over there to get done. 
We are making a lot of progress in this area. We never required that 
until 1990.
  Mr. STEVENS. I said the end of fiscal 1997.
  Mr. GLENN. I misunderstood. I am sorry.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report on the Department of Defense appropriations bill, and 
I would like to take this opportunity to outline several of my 
concerns.
  In the coming year, American families across this country will begin 
to feel the very real effects of the budget cuts this Congress has made 
in most of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. Programs across 
the spectrum are being deeply cut or eliminated in an attempt to 
eliminate this country's spiraling national debt.
  Unfortunately, while the Republican spending bills make deep cuts in 
programs for children, the poor, veterans, and the elderly, defense 
spending has been insulated from cuts and, in fact, increased 
dramatically. The bill before us increases defense spending by $7 
billion above the President's request, at a time when we are cutting 
$270 billion from Medicare, $170 billion from Medicaid, $114 billion 
from welfare, $36 billion from nutrition programs, and $5 billion from 
student loans.
  Mr. President, I have a deep and strong respect for our Nation's 
military, which is second to none in the world. Our Armed Forces 
deserve the gratitude of this Nation for the protection and security 
they provide to the American people. Congress has an obligation to 
ensure that our military personnel are adequately compensated for their 
work, and that they have the best tools possible to work with as they 
undertake their many and difficult missions.
  But in this era of shared sacrifice where no one is spared the budget 
ax--not children, seniors, nor veterans--I cannot support a bill that 
goes so far beyond the Pentagon's request for defense spending and 
fails to cancel even a single major weapons program. This bill is a bad 
deal for the taxpayer and a bad deal for our military, who will have to 
live with unrequested and unneeded weapons systems provided for them 
from a Congress that refuses to take no for an answer.
  During the cold war, Americans made sacrifices here at home so that 
our national resources could be used to defeat communism around the 
globe. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and with it, the Warsaw Pack. The 
Soviet Union officially dissolved in 1991. We fought the war, and we 
won.
  In the aftermath of the cold war, I believe American families deserve 
to live in a safer and more stable world. They deserve to know that 
more of their tax dollars are going to educate their children and 
police their streets.
  Time and again when this body has debated domestic spending bills my 
Republican colleagues have urged us to have the courage to cut funding 
for this program or that program--saying they have outlived their 
usefulness.
  So why, Mr. President, does the bill we are voting on today continue 
funding for several cold war-era programs that have clearly outlived 
their usefulness? And where, Mr. President, are the calls for courage 
to terminate programs we cannot afford?
  For example, the conference report provides $700 million as a 
downpayment on a third Seawolf nuclear-powered attack submarine. Nearly 
everyone acknowledges that this third Seawolf is not necessary to meet 
force structure requirements. This program, as my colleagues know, was 
designed to combat the ``great Soviet Navy''--a Navy that is now in 
port and in serious need of repair.
  Supporters of this program claim that construction of this third 
Seawolf is needed to preserve the submarine industrial base. But Mr. 
President, overall the Seawolf program has cost the taxpayers of this 
Nation $12.9 billion. In this budget climate, it is inexcusable to 
continue funding the Seawolf, especially given the lack of mission for 
this submarine.
  Likewise, it is simply unforgivable that the bill before us 
resurrects funding for the B-2 bomber program, providing $493 million 
to keep that program alive. This, despite the fact that several years 
ago Congress agreed to terminate this program after 20 planes had been 
built, because Congress recognized that in the aftermath of the cold 
war, this aircraft lacks a realistic mission.

  Nonetheless, it appears that Congress is on a path to fund yet 
another 20 planes which, according to the Pentagon, will cost $31.5 
billion in the coming years. The Pentagon does not want this program, 
and clearly cannot afford it.
  The Pentagon does not want to take on the immense financial 
obligations of further B-2 procurement--knowing that this unneeded 
system will take precious and scarce dollars away from other 
priorities.
  Let's keep these issues in perspective. The unmasked for and unneeded 
funding this bill provides for the B-2 bomber--the $493 million--is 
more than enough money to pay the tuition, room and board, and book 
costs of all the undergraduates at the University of Washington for 
their entire 4 years. That's 20,500 students.
  And as I've noted, the money provided this year is just a downpayment 
on the $31.5 billion that will ultimately be needed to build 20 more 
planes. For that amount, 1.3 million Washington State residents could 
get a 4-year education at the University of Washington.
  Ironically, the conference report we are considering today fails to 
fund one program that I believe is a real cost saver for the Pentagon 
and the taxpayer, and provides an effective response to our Nation's 
airlift problems. The Non-Developmental Airlift Aircraft Program 
[NDAA], designated as a pilot program under the Federal Acquisition and 
Streamlining Act of 1994, is an ideal model that demonstrates how 
commercial products can support military missions. I am disappointed 
that the conference committee failed to provide funding for NDAA, which 
stands to improve our current airlift shortfall and provide several 
billion dollars in budgetary cost savings.
  So, Mr. President, as we ask teachers and students to accept dramatic 
cuts in education spending, worker training programs, and student loan 
programs, so too must we find ways to trim our defense budget.
  And as we ask preschoolers and their parents to accept deep cuts in 
Head Start funding, we must find ways to trim our defense budget.
  And as we ask rural Americans to accept cuts in mandatory agriculture 
spending, we must find ways to trim our defense spending.
  And as we ask children and the elderly to shoulder billions in 
Medicare and Medicaid cuts, we must find ways to trim our defense 
budget. In America today, one in four children, and one in three 
infants, are covered by Medicaid.
  And as we ask our Nation's scientific community to accept millions in 
cuts for basic research, we must find ways to cut our defense spending.
  In the coming years, the Republican budget blueprint increases the 
veterans' contribution for GI bill education benefits, and freezes 
funding for the VA's medical system at the 1995 level for the next 7 
years, cutting access to health care for veterans around the Nation. 
Under the Republican proposal, the VA will be forced to close the 
equivalent of 35 of its 170 hospitals and deny care to over 1 million 
of our Nation's vets.
  Proponents of this bill point to recent declines in defense spending 
with alarm. While spending for our military is down from the mid-1980's 
level, we must keep this trend in perspective. The United States today 
has the largest military budget and the most powerful military force in 
the world.
  The combined military budgets of Russia, Iraq, China, North Korea, 

[[Page S 17164]]
  Libya, Iran, Syria, and Cuba total $95 billion annually. That is one-
third the level of U.S. defense spending. Each year, the United States 
spends more than the next nine of the world's biggest military spenders 
combined.
  In fact, this country spends so much for defense, even the Pentagon 
can't keep track of it all. According to the GAO and the Pentagon's 
inspector general, as well as the Pentagon's Controller John Hamre, 
billions of defense dollars are lost year after year due to poor 
recordkeeping and lax accounting practices at the Department of 
Defense.
  At the very least, Congress should hold defense spending to the 
President's level until the Pentagon can fix their payment procedures 
and bring some accountability to the system. We owe that much to the 
Nation's taxpayers.
  But most of all, in order to project strength abroad, we must gain 
strength here at home. Our national security, in my view, will not be 
strengthened by yet more guns and missiles. We need to restore global 
economic leadership. We must invest in our children and their future--
in their education and their health. We must rebuild our cities and our 
infrastructure, and invest in technology and scientific research.
  We must ensure that the economy our children inherit in the next 
century is sound and growing.
  So, in closing, Mr. President, it is with regret and disappointment 
that I must vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President I am pleased that we are able to consider the 
Defense appropriations bill conference report today. I commend Chairman 
Stevens and Senator Inouye for their work in hammering out the 
necessary compromise allowing us to bring this bill to the floor. The 
Defense appropriations bill, which funds the greatest share of the 
Nation's defense spending, is one of the most important bills we pass 
each year.
  This year the Republican-led Congress is keeping our promise to the 
American people to restore our national security. We have turned the 
corner on defense spending. As a result of the Republican leadership 
and the hard work of the chairman, Senator Stevens, we no longer head 
down the path to a hollow military. Most of the funds Congress added 
will restore funding for the procurement and research & developments 
accounts--accounts neglected by the current administration. Without 
this funding, the armed services face a nearly insurmountable 
modernization bow wave in the very near future.
  The President and administration officials have spoken at length 
about maintaining readiness, but they've failed to consider the impact 
of the insufficient funding on the readiness of our forces in the 
future. This administration has maintained short term readiness at the 
expense of our future forces. And no one should forget that the 
President's force plan required significant force enhancements. But 
those enhancements have not been fielded. The bottom line is that under 
the Clinton administration, our forces have become smaller, but not 
more capable.
  With this bill the Republican-led Congress sends a very clear 
message. We have fulfilled our responsibility to provide our forces 
with the most modern equipment available, ensuring their overwhelming 
superiority on the battlefield. We have taken steps to ensure that our 
forces, though smaller, maintain the ability to project power around 
the world--quickly and decisively. This Congress has taken the lead in 
protecting both our deployed forces and our home land against ballistic 
missile attack.
  The President and many on the other side of the aisle oppose this 
bill. But the choice is clear. If you vote for this bill, you vote to 
restore our national defense. If you vote against it, you vote to 
continue down the path to a hollow force.
  In closing, I again commend the chairman and ranking member for their 
work on this critical legislation and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, providing funds for our national defense is 
one of the most important functions we in Congress are entrusted with. 
I take with particular seriousness my duties on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Defense, since we provide taxpayer dollars for weapons, 
people, and training.
  I have the deepest respect for our subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Stevens, and for our ranking member, Senator Inouye. For many years, 
whether the Congress is controlled by Republicans or Democrats, the 
heads of this subcommittee have provided reasoned, nonpartisan 
leadership on defense issues.
  This bill will spend $6.9 billion more than the President's request 
at a time when virtually every other discretionary spending account is 
being cut. I would support this expenditure if there were an imminent 
threat to the Nation, of if there were some glaring deficiency in our 
defenses. Neither of those conditions have been met, in my judgment. 
While we are cutting Medicare, school loans, and veterans benefits, 
this bill spends $493 million for more B-2 bombers that the President 
didn't request and that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 
the Air Force Chief of Staff say they do not want. Twenty more B-2's 
will cost us $31 billion, and there are no funds in our 5-year defense 
plan for these planes. This program is questionable from a defense 
perspective, and especially irresponsible in the larger context of our 
pursuit of a balanced budget.
  I was also disappointed that the House conferees were successful in 
including restrictions on a woman's right to choose an abortion at 
Department of Defense medical facilities. This provision has no place 
on an appropriations bill and I am saddened that the Senate has 
accepted this provision in conference.
  There are other aspects of this bill that I disagree with, but the 
increased funding, additional B-2 bomber procurement, and antiabortion 
language caused me to respectfully disagree with my chairman and 
ranking member, and to vote against this conference report.
  Mr. BRADLEY. October 1, Mr. President. Every year, we have until 
October 1 to pass the 13 necessary spending bills that keep our 
Government running. This year, when it became clear that Congress would 
not be able to complete floor action on these bills by this deadline, 
we passed a continuing resolution to keep the Government running until 
November 13. Still, the additional 6 weeks proved insufficient for 
Congress to complete action on these bills.
  Our Government is now shut down because Republicans in the House and 
Republicans in the Senate cannot agree with each other on what should 
and should not be included in these bills. In large part, the 
appropriations bills presented before us have been seriously flawed, so 
much so that Republicans themselves cannot agree on them. As Republican 
House and Senate conferees continue to bicker in back rooms, several 
hundred thousand Federal employees are home, waiting for a paycheck 
that is not coming. The so-called faceless, nameless bureaucrat waits, 
wondering how he or she will put food on the table, make the next 
mortgage payment, or prepare for the coming holiday season. Thousands 
of citizens wait to obtain a passport, a visa, file for Social 
Security, and so on. Congress has once again failed the American 
people.
  It is time to put this budget impasse behind us. We will only be able 
to do so if the majority party presents us with fair and responsible 
spending bills to send to the President's desk.
  This brings me to the legislation we now face, the Department of 
Defense appropriations report. As the Republicans claim to want a 
balanced budget, they now put before us a defense spending bill bloated 
beyond one's wildest imagination. Let me remind my colleagues on the 
opposite side of the aisle that the cold war is over. Let me repeat 
that. The cold war is over.
  We must put an end to outdated notions--outdated notions of America's 
defense needs and outdated notions of the threats to U.S. security. The 
Defense appropriations bill reported out of the conference committee is 
designed for the cold war era--an era that has ended. This budget 
embodies outdated notions and adopts an outdated approach to our 
national security. I therefore urge that the conference report be 
rejected.
  Rather than focusing on threats that no longer exist, we must begin 
focusing on the realities of the present day and the fundamental 
transformations that are shaping the world and our country. 

[[Page S 17165]]
Chief among those transformations are the end of the cold war and our 
runaway debt. These transformations have enormous political, strategic, 
and economic implications. They are changing the way we must view the 
world and the role of the United States in that world.
  The end of the cold war, for example, has brought a period of 
transition. We are no longer faced with a Soviet threat. Rather, we are 
confronted with a period of transition--a work in progress--as Russia 
and other countries move to define themselves and their relationships 
with the United States and the rest of the world. This transition 
period has brought with it different and very real threats for which we 
must be prepared. Ethnic conflicts and renegade nuclear proliferation, 
among others, are threats that must be recognized, met, and defeated.
  Economically, these transformations have changed the way that we 
produce things, the services that are offered and the way that we must 
compete in global markets to be successful. Jobs have been lost and our 
enormous debt places very real limits on our spending choices. This has 
very real implications for U.S. security interests, which obviously 
depend not only on military power, but on economic power as well. It is 
crucial that our military power be supported by a strong and vital 
economy and work force. This in turn requires fiscal responsibility, 
not the current runaway deficit spending. It also requires difficult 
choices. In short, we simply cannot afford to waste millions of dollars 
on outdated programs that will not serve our national security or our 
economic interests.
  But that is precisely what this defense budget does. Rather than 
directing scarce resources where they are needed, this budget funds 
exorbitantly expensive and unnecessary programs.
  As you will remember, I spoke against the Defense appropriations bill 
when it was considered by this body in August. Since then, that bill 
has gone to committee to be reconciled with the House version. What has 
resulted is even worse than could have been expected. No program was 
eliminated. Rather, when there were competing budget items in the House 
and Senate bills, the committee accepted the extravagances of both, 
never mind that they were redundant or not even necessary in the first 
place.
  Take, for example, the funding of two types of marine amphibious 
assault ships--the LHD-7 amphibious assault ship included in the Senate 
bill--a ship that the administration did not even request. In the House 
bill, funding was provided for the similar PD-17 amphibious assault 
ship. Rather than choose one or the other, this budget funds both at a 
cost of almost $2.3 billion. This is fiscal irresponsibility and it is 
not in our national security interests.
  This budget also provides for increases for the B-2 bomber program--
an increase that the Pentagon doesn't even want. Indeed, the Pentagon-
sponsored May 1995 study opposed any further purchases for this system. 
But throwing such recommendations to the wind, this budget increases 
funding by $493 million.
  Not only does this budget fund B-2 increases, it provides over $2.2 
billion for the competing F-22--a program that the House appropriations 
subcommittee zeroed out as long ago as 1989 for its highly unrealistic 
assumptions about funding levels and possibly unrealizable technical 
goals. Now, the F-22 is 1,300 pounds overweight, its stealth signature 
is larger than expected and there are questions about its software. But 
this budget continues to fund it although both the CBO and GAO found 
that the lower cost F/A-18E/F could do the job.
  This budget also provides $700 million for a third Seawolf submarine 
that we simply do not need and that is far too costly. Although the 
Bush administration proposed halting this program in 1992, we have 
already funded a second one, and this budget would add a clearly 
unnecessary third.
  This budget provides $757.6 million for the continued development of 
the V-22 Osprey, a program that the Bush administration tried to kill 4 
years ago and whose mission can be performed more cheaply and reliably 
with the procurement of CH-53E helicopters.
  This budget provides $299 million for the Comanche. Not only is the 
Comanche unproven and experiencing developmental problems, its air 
combat missions can be performed at a much lower cost by the Apache. 
Even the Defense Department had proposed limiting this program to the 
production of two prototypes. But this budget not only continues to 
fund those prototypes, it increases funding by $100 million over the 
administration's request for full-scale production.
  With all these increases, it is not surprising that this budget 
exceeds the administration's request by nearly $7 billion. But this 
increase in funding does not represent an increase in our national 
security. Rather such fiscal irresponsibility will do more to harm our 
national security than to improve it.
  Too much of this $243 billion Defense budget represents nothing more 
than a jobs program. It funds defense contractors for weapons that we 
simply do not need and increases funding for programs like the B-2 
against the Pentagon's own recommendations. It is true that the end of 
the cold war era has required a substantial drop in jobs in the defense 
sector. Defense jobs will decline from 7.2 million to 4.2 million by 
1996. This job loss in the defense industry clearly must be addressed. 
However, the answer is not found in funding jobs through unnecessary 
weapons programs.
  This is a budget for a time now gone, not a budget for today, let 
alone tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report accompanying H.R. 2126, the 1996 Department of 
Defense appropriations bill.
  I commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member, and all the 
conferees, for bringing the Senate a bill that meets the most critical 
needs of the U.S. military for the defense of our Nation.
  The conferees have achieved this significant accomplishment even 
though the Defense Subcommittee contributed additional defense spending 
authority to both the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Subcommittee, which I chair, and the Military Construction 
Subcommittee. These subcommittees also fund vital programs related to 
our national defense.
  Mr. President, the conference agreement on defense appropriations 
provides a total of $243.3 billion in budget authority and $163.2 
billion in new outlays for the programs of the Department of Defense in 
fiscal year 1996.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the conference agreement provides a 
total of $243.3 billion in budget authority and $242.9 billion in 
outlays for fiscal year 1996.
  The Senate bill is within the subcommittee's revised section 602(b) 
allocation for both budget authority and outlays.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the 
relationship of the pending bill to the subcommittee's 602(b) 
allocation pursuant to the 1996 budget resolution be printed in the 
Record.
  I thank the conferees for their consideration of several important 
items that I brought to their attention.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         DEFENSE SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT        
               [Fiscal year 1996, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................        -50     79,678
  H.R. 2126, conference report....................    243,087    163,009
  Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal defense discretionary..............    243,037    242,688
                                                   =====================
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................  .........         40
  H.R. 2126, conference report....................  .........  .........
  Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal nondefense discretionary...........  .........         40
                                                   =====================
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................  .........  .........
  H.R. 2126, conference report....................        214        214
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget Resolution assumptions..................          0          0
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal mandatory..........................        214        214
                                                   =====================
      Adjusted bill total.........................    243,251    242,941
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary...........................    243,042    243,472

[[Page S 17166]]
                                                                        
  Nondefense discretionary........................  .........         40
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................        214        214
      Total allocation............................    243,256    243,726
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
  Defense discretionary...........................         -5       -784
  Nondefense discretionary........................  .........         -0
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Total allocation............................         -5      -785 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                




           research efforts at hispanic-serving institutions

  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if I might engage the distinguished chairman 
in a brief colloquy.
  Mr. STEVENS. Certainly. I am always happy to hear from the senior 
Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, let me begin by 
acknowledging again the efforts of the chairman and the committee for 
their diligent and steadfast efforts to produce a fiscal year 1996 
Defense appropriations bill.
  Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the committee's support for 
the historically black college and university and minority institutions 
[HBCU/MI] account, particularly language within the account that 
encourages the Department to continue its support for minority 
institutions, including Hispanic-serving institutions [HSI's], through 
academic collaborations for research and education related to science 
and technology. This language carries a considerable amount of 
importance for the education and research community in my home State of 
New Mexico.
  Three Hispanic-serving institutions in my State; the University of 
New Mexico, New Mexico State University, and New Mexico Highlands 
University have teamed up with the University of Puerto Rico, the 
largest minority institution in the country, to develop an academic 
program that will foster the growth of Hispanic students in science and 
technology. This collaboration was created out of the need to 
strengthen the competitiveness and capabilities of Hispanic students in 
these fields. Such a collaborative effort will effectively contribute 
to the development of a critical mass of talent and substantially 
enhanced research opportunities for DOD that are uniquely available at 
these institutions. As we look to advance the Department's research 
capabilities, programs such as the ones established between these fine 
institutions of higher learning should be encouraged.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would note that my colleague makes a strong case in 
support of this initiative. I, too, understand the importance HBCU/MI 
programs play in the research efforts and capabilities of the 
Department.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the chairman for his support of the HBCU/MI 
account and I urge the committee's continued support for future 
research activities at these institutions related to our national 
security interests.


     ballistic missile defense organization technology development

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss an item that 
concerns the Phillips Laboratory.
  Mr. STEVENS. I welcome such a discussion with the senior Senator from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am concerned that language in the report accompanying 
the Senate-passed Defense appropriation bill, specifically Report 104-
124, contains language regarding ballistic missile defense that is 
subject to misinterpretation. The language states the following:

       In order to optimize follow-on technology development, the 
     Committee directs BMDO to designate the Army Space and 
     Strategic Defense Command (SSDC) as a center of excellence 
     for technology development. The Committee believes that 
     commonality in requirements offers the potential for cost 
     savings through centralized screening and common, technology 
     development, with SSDC functioning as the executive agent to 
     BMDO, to help assure that duplication is avoided, and 
     efficiencies are maximized.

  Mr. STEVENS. We certainly would not want this language to be 
misinterpreted. Would you elaborate on your concerns?
  Mr. DOMENICI. One of the goals of this language is to avoid 
duplication, save funds, and maximize efficiency. These goals are 
supported by everyone. However, certain aspects of the language, as 
written, could be misconstrued to mean that Phillips Laboratory missile 
defense programs and the associated technologies could be transferred 
to SSDC.
  Mr. STEVENS. It was not the intention to transfer any programs. I am 
told that SSDC works primarily on ground-based systems, while the 
Phillips Laboratory works primarily on space-base systems. Furthermore, 
there are a number of order DOD commands and laboratories which can 
serve BMDO's technology needs in these and other areas.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I agree with the chairman of the Defense 
Subcommittee. I sought clarification to make clear that the intent is 
not to move programs. Thus, the proposed space-based laser, the 
airborne laser, and the supporting space-related technologies should 
remain at Phillips Laboratory. The laboratory has made great progress 
in these areas.
  Mr. STEVENS. It was never our intention to do otherwise.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator and would just like to clarify one 
additional point. It is clearly not the intent of this language to give 
any authority to SSDC or BMDO with regard to any Air Force-funded 
programs at the Phillips Laboratory. It is only intended to have effect 
on the SSDC and BMDO Programs. Is that the understanding of the 
distinguished chairman?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is my understanding of the language's intent.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman for the opportunity 
to be heard on this issue.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I had hoped we could avoid a train wreck as 
we try to wrap up our budget and appropriations work. Now I hope we can 
work together in a bipartisan way to solve these problems, for that is 
surely what the public wants. And the public wants us to function with 
common sense in an intelligent way to keep the Government going as we 
make these decisions.
  But the public also knows it does not make sense to be adding $7 
billion to the defense budget so we can build more B-2 bombers, F-15 
and F-16 fighters, and other equipment that the Pentagon doesn't want, 
and at the same time threaten to cut education, crime prevention, and 
other programs that are so critical to the security of our people.
  And so I rise to indicate that I cannot support this conference 
report, as I voted against final passage of the Senate bill several 
months ago. While the conferees have removed some of the provisions of 
the bill that I opposed, this bill still has far more total funding 
than the Pentagon needs and more than the Department of Defense asked 
for.
  The President has already indicated that he would veto the bill. On 
October 18, in a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman 
Livingston, where he said:

       . . . by appropriating $6.9 billion more than I requested, 
     the Conference Report did not address my fundamental concerns 
     about spending priorities. . . . Absent a broader agreement 
     with Congress that adequately funds crucial domestic programs 
     in other appropriations bills, I will veto any defense 
     appropriations bill that adds extra billions for defense 
     programs not in my request.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the President's letter 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 1995.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     conference report on the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense 
     Appropriations Act. I want you to know that I appreciate your 
     hard work and leadership on this bill, as well as that of 
     Senators Stevens and Inouye. The Conference Report had many 
     commendable features. For example, a number of policy 
     provisions that raised serious constitutional and national 
     security concerns were satisfactorily resolved in conference, 
     and funding was secured for several programs that were of 
     particular importance to me and to the national security of 
     this country, including the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
     program and the Technology Reinvestment Project.
       However, by appropriating $6.9 billion more than I 
     requested, the Conference Report did not address my 
     fundamental concerns about spending priorities. As the bill 
     now goes back to conference following its defeat on the House 
     floor, it is important that the conferees understand where I 
     stand. Absent a broader agreement with Congress that 

[[Page S 17167]]
     adequately funds crucial domestic programs in other appropriations 
     bills, I will veto any defense appropriations bill that adds 
     extra billions for defense program not in my request.
       I am ready to work with Congress to ensure that we reach 
     that agreement.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, that veto writing has been on the wall even 
longer. Alice Rivlin, OMB Director indicated 10 weeks ago, when this 
conference report first went before the House, that the President would 
veto it. I would ask unanimous consent that her letter to House 
Minority Leader Gephardt of September 29, 1995 be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                            Executive Office of the President,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 1995.
     Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: I understand that the House may consider 
     the conference report on the FY '96 defense appropriations 
     bill today.
       As he has shown in his 10-year plan, the President that we 
     can balance the budget and maintain a strong defense without 
     sacrificing critical investments in education and training, 
     science and technology, environmental protection, and other 
     priorities--all of which are essential to raise the standard 
     of living for average Americans. By providing $6.9 billion 
     more than the President requested, however, this bill would 
     divert funds from our needed investment in these critical 
     areas.
       Now that the House has passed 12 of the 13 appropriations 
     bills and the Senate all but two, the trade-of between 
     defense and domestic investments are all the more clear. In 
     an environment of limited resources, we have to use available 
     funds as prudently as possible. We simply cannot allocate 
     nearly $7 billion more than we need at this time for defense, 
     and starve our needed investments in education and training 
     and other priorities.
       The changes to the bill in conference, while commendable in 
     many instances, do not address the Administration's 
     fundamental concerns about spending priorities. For this 
     reason, in the absence of an agreement between the 
     Administration and Congress resolving these important issues, 
     the President would veto this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Alice M. Rivlin, Director.

  Mr. LEVIN. The President's original Pentagon budget provided for a 
strong defense. It funded the priorities of the armed services and 
recognized that in the post-cold war world we have to prepare for 
different threats, not conduct business as usual. We cannot afford to 
buy equipment that is in excess of our military requirements, or make 
long-term funding commitments that are not sustainable, like signing up 
for another $30 billion or higher tab for 20 more B-2 bombers. If we 
follow that course, we are actually robbing from our future security, 
robbing resources that should go into keeping our troops well-trained 
and keeping our forces in high readiness and high morale, modernizing 
equipment in areas we ignored for too long, and continuing research and 
development on future modernization.
  Instead, the conferees have sent us a bill that includes $493 million 
as a down-payment on what will be at least a $30 billion program to 
build 20 more B-2 bombers not requested by the Pentagon. Secretary of 
Defense Perry has been saying all year that we should not add funding 
for more B-2's. He said, as this bill was taking shape in September 
that the B-2 money ``was put in against my explicit advice.''
  Was Bill Perry, the acknowledged ``father of stealth'', alone in his 
judgment? No, that judgment is shared by the General Shalikashvili, by 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by the President. The Senate bill did 
not include that money for B-2's. In fact, it was in the original 
Defense authorization bill mark of the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, and the committee voted to cut it out, by a strong 
bipartisan vote of 13-8.
  What else did the conferees include that was not requested by the 
Pentagon and not authorized by the Senate? For 6 new F-16 fighters, 
$159 million. That is a program we in the Senate have voted to 
terminate at least three times, including this year. We have a surplus 
of F-16's in the force; we do not need any more. The conferees included 
$311 million for 6 new F-15 fighters, also not requested and not 
authorized by the Senate this year. For an LHD-7 landing ship $1.3 
billion that was not even in the 5-year defense plan, but was moved 
forward for purchase in this appropriations bill.
  That is not all. The conference report also doubles the Defense 
Department's request for national missile defense research, from $370 
million to $745 million, and funds a $30 million Antisatellite Weapons 
Program that was not requested by the Pentagon.
  What was not funded in the conference report? Ongoing operations, 
misnamed ``contingencies'' by the Pentagon, receive some finding, about 
$600 million, but not the full $1.1 billion we know we will have to pay 
in fiscal year 1996 for ongoing operations that are already in place. 
This shortfall is a direct threat to readiness, precisely the area that 
so many in Congress expressed concern about just within the last year. 
Training and maintenance accounts could end up being the source of 
funds to pay for these operations and that could hurt the readiness of 
some divisions.
  The Technology Reinvestment Program, which is trying to preserve our 
cutting edge research capability for the future by supporting dual-use 
development programs on a cost-shared, competitive basis, was slashed 
by more than half by the conferees to only $195 million. And Mr. 
President, there is much more.
  This conference report is not in step with our priority security 
requirements; not in step with the priorities of the Joint Chiefs, the 
Secretary of Defense and the President. It is not fiscally responsible. 
We can and should do better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time does the Senator seek?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Five minutes or three minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 15 minutes 
and 30 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I want to say that I have been watching this 
subcommittee deliberation on this very important defense authorization 
appropriations bill. I know how hard it has been to get this bill 
through. I have watched the negotiations with the House Members. I have 
watched the negotiations between the Members. I have heard some of the 
debate on the floor in the last few hours. Of course, there are things 
that one Member may not think are the priorities for another Member. 
But there is an equal force on the other side that does not like 
something else in it. It is very difficult to bring people together.
  But the bottom line here in the big picture is that we have put more 
into defense appropriations this year than the President sent up here, 
and we did that in a bipartisan effort because so many of us are 
concerned that we have a false sense of security, that we are in a safe 
world, that the United States can pare down its military, and we do not 
have to be the superpower that is ready in any eventuality. That is not 
the case. I compliment Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for bringing 
the parties together and forging a bill that does spend enough money to 
make sure that we are going into the next century strong.

  It is not as strong as I would like it to be. There are other 
priorities that I might like to see. I understand the concerns of some 
of the Senators who have spoken here, but the bottom line is, we are a 
deliberative body and we have to give and take on priorities as long as 
we meet the cap that we have put in the budget resolution, and that is 
exactly what we have done here.
  So I compliment the two Senators who are the chairman and ranking 
member of this very important committee.
  I want to say especially that one of the concerns that I have that 
has been met in this bill is something I hope we are going to talk 
about in the next few days, and that is the sense of the Senate that is 
a part of this bill which says that ``no funds available to the 
Department of Defense shall be obligated or expended for deployment or 
participation of United States Armed Forces in any peacekeeping 
operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina unless such deployment or 
participation is specifically 

[[Page S 17168]]
authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this act.''
  Now, this excludes the kind of operations we have had this year--the 
air cover, the participation that we have had on the periphery. That is 
excluded, but it does have a sense of the Senate that we will not spend 
funds unless we specifically authorize those funds for that kind of 
peacekeeping operation.
  This is just the beginning of the real debate that is going to come 
on the floor of this Senate in the next few weeks about what the role 
of our armed services should be in Bosnia. I am going to argue very 
forcefully that it is not our role to send American troops on the 
ground in Bosnia. We are starting that debate tonight when we pass this 
bill.
  We are saying it is the sense of the Senate that we must be consulted 
and we must pass specific authorization and appropriations before we 
send our troops in, and that that is for a number of reasons. It is 
because we have not staked out the United States security interest that 
would require troops on the ground. It is because we have not staked 
out that this is going to be the death of NATO if American troops are 
not on the ground. In fact, I think it is the opposite. I think it is 
important that we have the strength of NATO by saying exactly what our 
leadership role will be, and there are many things we can do that do 
not include our troops on the ground.

  So, Mr. President, I am just saying that the sense of the Senate will 
be passed tonight. It is very important, and I hope the President of 
the United States is listening to this debate. I hope he is listening 
to the importance to all of us that he come to Congress for enactment 
before he sends peacekeeping troops to Bosnia.
  I thank the two leaders on this bill. I appreciate what they are 
doing for this country, and I am going to support the bill 
wholeheartedly. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield back all the time on this side.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator 
from Hawaii, which I understand will take 10 minutes, and I apologize 
for limiting the time, that the rollcall vote commence at 6:25.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. [Nunn], is 
unable to be with us this afternoon because of circumstances beyond his 
control, and he has requested that his statement be made a part of the 
Record.
  Before I submit the statement, I would like to read from his second 
paragraph, and I quote:

       This is a good bill, Mr. President, and I believe the 
     Senate should support it and the President should sign it. 
     Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye have produced a conference 
     report which addresses our national security needs in a 
     fiscally responsible manner.

  (At the request of Mr. Inouye, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record):
 Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I want to start by commending the 
Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for the all hard work I 
know they have put in to bring this conference report before the 
senate.
  This is a good bill, Mr. President, and I believe the Senate should 
support it and the President should sign it. Senator Stevens and 
Senator Inouye have produced a conference report which addresses our 
national security needs in a fiscally responsible manner. Anybody who 
has known Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye as long as I have would 
expect nothing less.
  This conference report preserves funding for some of the 
administration's top priorities, such as the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program, the Technology Reinvestment Program known as TRP, 
and the third Seawolf submarine.
  The House bill eliminated funding for the Seawolf and the TRP, and 
cut the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program almost in half, so this 
conference agreement preserve the Senate position on some key items of 
interest to the administration. This bill also avoids legislative 
provisions that try to dictate to the President when or how he can 
deploy our military forces.
  As I have stated on many occasions, I believe the defense budget has 
been cut too far, too fast. Our forces are simply much busier than I 
believe anyone really anticipated when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw 
Pact were dissolving. Today our force structure is much smaller than it 
was 5 years ago. We all agreed that based on the reductions in the 
threat and the increased warning time for any kind of global conflict, 
these reductions were prudent and necessary.
  But the smaller force we have left is busier than it has ever been. 
The fact is we simply cannot keep on reducing the defense budget the 
way we have been. The people are wearing out. The equipment is wearing 
out. So I think the budget resolution moved us in the right direction 
by providing for a small increase for defense over the next few years.
  I do not think a lot of people realize how small that increase is. 
First of all, compared to the baseline concept that we use for 
entitlement programs, defense is not even getting an increase. The 
amounts provided for defense in the budget resolution over the next 7 
years do not even come close to keeping the defense budget as large as 
it is today, after taking account of inflation. We would need to add at 
least another $100 billion over the next few years to stay even 
compared to a so-called current services baseline.
  Compared to the administration's plan, the budget resolution 
increases defense by only $19 billion over the next 7 years, which is 
equivalent to a 1-percent increase over the administration plan. That 
is the defense increase Congress has agreed to. Many of us felt the 
increase should be larger, especially in the outyears from 2000 through 
2002, when defense is projected to be lower under the budget resolution 
than under the administration's plan. I also recall very well that over 
the past 5 or 6 years defense was the only part of the budget coming 
down, so it seems that the principle that defense has to be cut if 
something else is being cut is not always applied consistently.
  Most of the increases in this bill over the administration's plan are 
in the modernization accounts which are the key to future readiness. We 
cannot continue to stay in the deep procurement through we have been in 
for the past few years indefinitely. We have cut procurement deeply to 
take advantage of the shrinking force structure, but our military can't 
live off its stock of old capital forever any more than any business 
could.
  I want to briefly discuss the one program that represents two tenths 
of 1 percent of the funding in this bill, but that seems to get more 
discussion than the other 99.8 percent of the programs in this 
conference report. Many people argue, and I am sure they truly believe, 
that the B-2 bomber is unaffordable. In my view, Mr. President, the 
argument that the B-2 is unaffordable is No. 1, false, and No. 2, a 
false issue.
  Over and over I have seen people focus on the price of the B-2 
without ever hearing a word about the cost of the collection of systems 
you would need to do the same job without the B-2. People tend to look 
at it as if the choice were buying the B-2 or doing nothing. They don't 
look at the whole picture.
  The only real argument I hear from the Defense Department against the 
B-2 is that they would like to have it but they don't want to give 
anything up to get it. But that is a false issue, because Congress has 
made more funds available over the next few years specifically for 
programs like the B-2. It is not necessary to slow down the 
modernization of one part of our forces in order to modernize our 
bombers.
  I am disappointed that this conference agreement does not fund the 
Corps SAM program at the requested level as in the Senate bill. The 
Corps SAM program represents just 1 percent of the funding for the 
ballistic missile defense program, and I regret that this conference 
agreement did not contain full funding for this important program on 
which we have asked for allied cooperation.

[[Page S 17169]]

  While the modernization accounts always get the most attention, this 
conference agreement also seeks to protect current readiness by 
partially funding the cost of ongoing operations which were not 
included in the administration's budget. The conference agreement 
includes $647 million to fund the fiscal year 1996 costs of our 
continuing missions in and around Iraq, operations Provide Comfort in 
Northern Iraq and Southern Watch in Southern Iraq. This was one of the 
administration's highest funding priorities, if not the highest. The 
conferees added nearly $1 billion to the requested level in the 
readiness accounts--pesonnel and operation and maintenance--and much of 
it was to fund these ongoing operations.
  In my view, it made no sense to add substantial funds to the defense 
budget request without taking account of must-pay bills we know we are 
going to face either this fall or next spring.
  By providing funding for these ongoing operations, Congress has not 
only attempted to avoid a readiness problem in next year, but it may 
allow us to actually make some progress in one of reducing the backlog 
of maintenance and repair on our barracks and other facilities where 
our forces live and work. The bill adds $700 million to the request to 
the reduce the maintenance backlog on barracks and other facilities. 
This is not the first time Congress has added funding for real property 
maintenance or depot maintenance.
  But what usually happens, and what would most certainly happen this 
year if we did not set aside funds to cover the cost of these ongoing 
operations, is that the increases we set aside for maintenance get 
diverted to cover must pay bills. I hope that the approach the 
conferees have taken in this bill will allow us to avoid that trap.
  Mr. President, this is not a perfect bill. No bill is. But I think 
this is a good bill, a bill that should be signed, and I once again 
commend Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their 
leadership.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to this 
conference report. The conference agreement is a good compromise 
between the interests of the House and Senate. It is truly a bipartisan 
effort in the long tradition of the Appropriations Committee.
  Chairman Stevens and I worked together with Chairman Bill Young and 
the ranking member, Jack Murtha, of the House National Security 
Subcommittee in formulating the final conference agreement.
  It has been a long journey, but the end result is a bill that 
warrants the support of all my colleagues.
  The conference agreement under consideration has three priorities: It 
protects critical military readiness programs, it fully funds the needs 
of our men and women in uniform, and also provides a much-needed 
increase for modernizing our forces.
  In total, the conference agreement recommends $243.3 billion for the 
Department of Defense, an increase of $6.9 billion compared to the 
President's request.
  Mr. President, I want to point out to my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle, that this bill is consistent with the administration's 
policy objectives. It does not legislate changes in the ABM Treaty or 
the Missile Defense Act. It contains no limitation on the President in 
his conduct of foreign affairs.
  One of the most contentious issues to be resolved by the conferees 
was abortion. On September 29, the House voted against the first 
conference agreement because of abortion language.
  For the past 6 weeks we have worked hard to reach a compromise which 
can pass both Houses. The conferees agreed last night to incorporate 
language mirrored on that which both the House and Senate passed 
yesterday on the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill.
  The language would allow for abortions to be performed in military 
hospitals when the life of the woman was endangered or in the case of 
rape and incest.
  Most of my colleagues will remember that both the chairman and I have 
voted against this policy many times over the past two and a half 
decades. We are recommending it now because it reflects the policy 
already agreed to by both bodies.
  The bill before you provides $81.5 billion for operation and 
maintenance to protect the readiness of our forces. This amount is $700 
million more than requested by the President. It supports the military 
personnel levels requested by the President; it funds a 2.4 percent pay 
raise for our military personnel and increases their basic allowances 
substantially--all consistent with Senate recommendations.
  The bill also raises procurement spending by nearly $6 billion, up to 
$44 billion.
  To those who suggest that the bill provides too much for 
modernization I would note that, even with these increases, we are 
still spending less than half of the amount the Senate recommended for 
procurement 10 years ago.
  Throughout this year, Chairman Stevens and I asked each of the 
military Chiefs of Staff to meet with the Defense Subcommittee to 
review the needs of their respective services. The recommendations for 
procurement spending match these requirements very closely.
  Let me also point out that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are reportedly 
seeking an increase of an additional $60 billion for procurement in 
future budgets. That amount is $16 billion higher than we recommend in 
this bill. I think my colleagues should realize that recommendations on 
procurement in this bill are the minimum that must be provided.
  Mr. President, there have been reports that the White House might 
veto this bill. I hope that this is not correct.
  The conferees have gone a long way to resolving the objections that 
were raised by the President when the bills passed their respective 
Houses. The policy statements on Bosnia, and abortion have been 
eliminated. Funding eliminated by the House for technology 
reinvestment, for cooperative threat reduction, and the Seawolf 
submarine have been restored as requested by the President. The 
conferees have reduced funds from the House-passed level for missile 
defense. In each case these recommendations are consistent with White 
House wishes.
  Mr. President, I believe it is essential that we invest in the 
readiness, quality of life, and modernization programs funded by this 
bill. I am in full support of this legislation. It is a good, fair, and 
very important bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I just wish to spend 9 minutes commenting on 
statements made by my colleagues in this debate.
  One of my illustrious colleagues stated that he sees no threat on the 
horizon; why are we spending all of this money, which reminded me of 
the early days of a war that was fought 50 years ago.
  Five days ago, we gathered to commemorate the end, the victorious end 
of this war, but I also recall those years just before December 7. I 
was young enough to remember that, Mr. President. A year before 
December 7, because Members of the Congress did not see the threat 
which many of us thought was just obvious, we nearly defeated the 
Selective Service law. It passed by one vote. At the moment of its 
passage, our merchant vessels were being sunk in the Atlantic Ocean by 
German submarines, the Germans were rampaging all over Europe, London 
was being bombed, the Japanese were rampaging all over China, Nanking 
was being raped, Peking was falling and we saw no threat. And December 
7 came as a brutal surprise to many of us. Not to me, Mr. President, 
and thank God for that one vote, we had the draft.
  Two years before December 7, the very famous general from Virginia, 
General Patton, reported for duty at Fort Benning in Georgia. He was 
told to organize an armored division. When he got there, he saw 375 
tanks. At least they looked like tanks. The only trouble is that over 
half of them would not roll. They were not operational.
  This may sound facetious, but it is not. He called up the War 
Department and said, ``I need some money because these tanks need 
parts, otherwise they won't move.'' And the War Department said, 
``Sorry, sir, we have no money.''
  Fortunately, General Patton was one of the wealthiest men in the 
United States at that time. He took his checkbook, went to Sears, 
Roebuck in Atlanta, GA, and bought parts, and that is how we developed 
the 1st Armored Division in the United States. Thank God somebody had a 
checkbook.
  One of my colleagues also said that some of these activities that we 
have 

[[Page S 17170]]
funded in this bill were not authorized, were not requested by the 
President, were not requested by the Senate.
  Mr. President, the freedom to criticize, the freedom to disagree, the 
freedom to discuss, to debate and make decisions are very important in 
this democracy. This is not a dictatorship. The President does not tell 
us I want that ship and nothing else.
  I want to review history, recent history.
  We have been told that the most important weapon system in Desert 
Storm was the F-117, the Stealth fighter bomber, and if it were not for 
that, we would have lost lives, many lives, because this Stealth bomber 
was the one that was able to knock out all of the radar stations, which 
made it possible for our fighter planes and bombers to go in. It might 
interest you to know, and I think we should remind ourselves, that the 
administration and the Pentagon opposed building the F-117. This 
Congress persisted. I am certain the chairman of the committee 
remembers that.
  Let us take another weapon system that was most important in Desert 
Storm, the Patriot. If it were not for the Patriots, the casualties on 
our side would have been at least double. The Patriots were able to 
knock out the Scuds. Thank God we had the Patriot. The administration 
opposed it, the Pentagon opposed it, but we in the Congress and in this 
committee insisted upon it.
  In 1978, the President of the United States vetoed a defense 
appropriations bill that carried the Nimitz-class nuclear carrier. It 
is the most powerful weapon system we have today. Thank God the 
Congress persisted, and we overrode that veto.
  There is another aircraft that my colleague from Alaska is the most 
knowledgeable expert on, the V-22 Osprey. The Pentagon did not want it. 
The White House did not want it. This committee insisted upon it. Now 
everyone wants it.
  So, Mr. President, much as we would like to suggest that we are the 
repository of all wisdom, it is not so. The democracy that we cherish 
here is made up of many minds, and the wisdom from all of these many 
minds, hopefully, will reach the right decision. And we would like to 
believe, Mr. President, that the decision we present to you today is 
the right decision. I cannot tell you, in all honesty, that there is no 
pork in this bill. But those who advocate and those who have fought and 
supported these provisions in their belief that it is essential to our 
democracy. And, also, I am certain all of us agree that when one enters 
into a conference, you cannot hope to get everything you want. You can 
get some of it. You will have to give in to some.

  This is the compromise that we have reached. It was not easy, Mr. 
President. But I think we have done a job that we can stand before our 
colleagues and say that we have done our best, and we are presenting 
our best to the Senate of the United States. I notice that my time is 
up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 6:25 having arrived, under the 
previous order, the yeas and nays having been ordered, the question is 
on agreeing to the conference report.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 579 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Nunn
       
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have voted today for the Defense 
Appropriations Conference Report because I believe it is fundamentally 
a sound and necessary bill which will fund critical defense functions 
for the current fiscal year. This bill is not perfect. It funds 
procurement of a few weapons systems which the Secretary of Defense and 
the military service chiefs have said they do not need or want; I would 
have preferred that such systems not be funded. But on balance I 
believe the right programs are funded, critical modernization for our 
armed forces will take place, and critical skills of defense workers 
across the country, including in my State of Connecticut, will be 
maintained. At the same time, I am very troubled that this 
appropriations conference report includes language that prohibits 
abortions in military facilities. My record of opposition to language 
that creates unfair barriers to legal abortion services is clear. I see 
no reason why this restrictive provision needed to be included on a 
defense appropriation bill and I oppose it. No one should misconstrue 
my vote today for this important appropriations bill--a bill which is 
even more critical as many defense workers have been furloughed along 
with thousands of other Federal employees caught up in our current 
budget crisis.

                          ____________________