[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5176-S5177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       CLARIFICATION OF OPPOSITION TO GRASSLEY AMENDMENT NO. 3963

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday, during debate on an amendment 
to cut defense levels in the budget resolution, the senior Senator from 
Iowa cited certain statements contained in my recent paper on military 
readiness. I have great respect and friendship for my colleague. 
However, I must point out that those quotations were taken out of 
context and were used to give the impression that I supported the 
Senator's amendment to reduce the defense spending level in the pending 
resolution.
  I want to take this opportunity once again to state very clearly my 
strong opposition to the Grassley amendment.
  First, I strongly oppose any amendments to reduce the level of 
defense spending in the pending resolution. Last year, I was at the 
forefront of efforts in the Senate to add funding to the President's 
defense budget. Ultimately, the Congress added $7 billion, most of 
which was allocated to modernization programs.
  And I strongly supported the Senate Armed Services Committee's 
bipartisan letter to the Senate Budget Committee requesting a 
significant increase in the Defense budget. The pending resolution 
includes the increase we requested.
  Second, President Clinton's defense budget request for the coming 
fiscal year seriously neglects future readiness, putting at risk the 
ability of our military forces to prevail in future conflicts. Our 
highest ranking military officers, including the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, cited the need for increased procurement funding to 
ensure a modern, ready force in the future. The Senate Armed Services 
Committee recently reported to the Senate a Defense authorization bill 
for the coming fiscal year that includes significant increases in the 
procurement and research and development accounts for future 
modernization.
  Third, the statements cited yesterday by the Senator from Iowa were 
taken completely out of the full context of my paper. The Senator 
should re-read the paper in its entirety, in which it is clearly stated 
that funding for our Nation's military is far too little to fully meet 
our vital national security needs.
  I do believe, as the Senator quoted, that we must look for ways to do 
more with less. That statement is based both on an acknowledgment of 
fiscal reality as well as a sense of responsibility to the taxpayers. 
Regardless of whether we increase the top line of the Defense budget, 
we have a responsibility to the American people to spend their tax 
dollars wisely. Every dollar of defense spending should be spent 
carefully and for programs which enhance the ability of our service men 
and women to do their jobs, whether they are assigned to combat units, 
support units, or the Reserve components.
  I also believe, as the Senator quoted, that eliminating excess 
infrastructure is necessary and would free up funds for military 
modernization. The Department of Defense, with the help of Congress, 
must continue its ongoing efforts to streamline operations and improve 
efficiency by eliminating wasteful spending and practices. The Senator 
from Iowa has been active in promoting financial and other reform 
efforts in the Department of Defense, and I commend him for his 
efforts.
  However, the Senator seems to have missed the larger point of my 
paper.
  On page 19 of the paper, I clearly stated, as follows:

       There are many approaches to streamlining defense 
     operations and activities that could result in cost savings 
     and which should be done to ensure the best value to the 
     American taxpayer. However, the magnitude of savings from 
     these efficiencies is negligible in comparison to the funding 
     required to modernize and maintain a ready military force.

  Finally, let me note this clear concluding statement:

       In all of the decisions we face about our future defense 
     requirements, we must not allow fiscal considerations to be 
     the single, dominant factor. Instead, we must focus on the 
     most cost-effective means of maintaining the military 
     capabilities necessary to ensure our future security. We must 
     pay what it costs for a military force capable of deterring 
     aggression and achieving success in any future conflict. In 
     short, we must be prepared to accept the cost of being a 
     world power.

These statements clearly represent the full context of my paper, which 
focused principally on a proposal to reform the military readiness 
system, but also repeatedly cited the need for additional funding for 
military modernization. I am sorry the Senator from Iowa seems to have 
missed the point of my paper.
  Just like the quotations from my paper, the amendment of the Senator 
from Iowa missed the mark. His amendment would have done nothing to 
encourage the Department of Defense to operate more efficiently, if 
that was his intention. His amendment did not even address alleged 
Pentagon waste and mismanagement, which would be permitted to continue 
unabated even if his amendment had been adopted. Instead, his amendment 
would have cut needed funding for the military modernization programs 
added by the Senate Armed Services Committee in the recently reported 
Defense Authorization bill for Fiscal Year 1997.
  I voted against the Grassley amendment, which failed by a vote of 57 
to 42. I intend to vote against other such amendments to cut the 
defense function.


                      unanimous-consent agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only remaining first-degree amendments that 
will be in order to Senate Concurrent Resolution 57, and that all other 
provisions of the Budget Act remain in effect, provided that the 
amendments may be offered by a designee.
  The list is as follows:

                            Republican List

       Chafee/Breaux--alternative budget.
       Simpson--SOS accurate inflation index.
       Brown/Simpson--CPI.
       Brown/Simpson--SOS eligibility ages.
       Lott--U.N.
       Campbell--at risk youth.
       Thompson--delete Presidential check off.
       Hutchison--SOS homemaker IRA.
       Faircloth--SOS national debt.
       Faircloth--welfare.
       Kyl--LIHEP.
       Kyl--SOS tax limitation.
       Kyl--Americorp.
       Murkowski--relevant.
       Domenici/Gorton--Medicare Part A.
       Domenici--Spectrum.
       Snowe--SOS tax cut sunsets.
       Ashcroft--payroll taxes.
       Gramm--SOS Soc. Sec. taxes.
       Thomas--biannual budgeting.
       Grams--SOS bal. budget/taxes.
       Snowe--SOS student loans.
       Roth--Amtrack.
       Specter--Labor-HHS
       Domenici--tax reform.
       Jeffords--relevant.
       Nickles--unified budget.
       Nickles--relevant.
       McCain--SOS spectrum.
       Helms--SOS education.
       Dole--SOS drug crimes.
       Dole--relevant.
       Domenici--EITC spending.

             Democratic Amendments to the Budget Resolution

       Baucus--SOS essential air service.
       Biden--(1) crime; (2) higher education.
       Bingaman--(1) EDA; (2) relevant.
       Boxer--(1) SOS taxes; (2) Medicaid and nursing homes.
       Bradley--EITC restoration.
       Bryan--CBO certification.
       Bumpers--(1) asset sales; (2) fire walls; (3) mining 
     reclamation.
       Byrd--(1) restore infrastructure investment; (2) relevant; 
     (3) relevant; (4) relevant; (5) relevant.
       Conrad--relevant.
       Daschle--relevant.
       Dorgan--relevant.
       Exon--relevant.
       Feingold--tax cut.
       Graham--Medicare solvency waste/fraud.
       Harkin--(1) Medicaid changes; (2) relevant.
       Hollings--gas tax to highway and aviation trust fund.
       Kennedy--(1) spousal impoverishment; (2) seniors abuse; (3) 
     prescription drugs; (4) premium surcharge; (5) Davis-Bacon; 
     (6) worker safety.
       Kerrey--(1) SOS reduction CPI; (2) SOS long term 
     entitlement.
       Kerry--(1) environment; (2) education, (3) crime; (4) 
     preserve Presidential campaign checkoff; (5) LIHEAP; (6) 
     relevant.
       Kohl--SOS crime prevention funds.
       Lautenberg--(1) relevant; (2) relevant.
       Levin--(1) reduction defense number; (2) drug blocker 
     research money.
       Mosely-Braun--SOS budget priorities.
       Murray--(1) SOS GSA priority transfer excess property re: 
     education and technology.
       Nunn--(1) Long-term entitlement reform; (2) SOS CPI.
       Pryor--Glaxol/GATT.
     Reid--environment.
       Rockefeller--medicare.

[[Page S5177]]

       Simon--shifting defense spending.
       Wellstone--(1) COPS; (2) children's impact; (3) welfare and 
     domestic violence; (4) LIHEAP; (5) SOS education tax 
     language; (6) relevant.
       Wyden--(1) SOS eliminating deductibility environmental 
     damage; (2) DOD expenditures.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The list has been submitted along with that unanimous-
consent request. They are both Democrat and Republican amendments.
  Mr. EXON. We have agreed to the list. The chairman has submitted 
that. We agree those will be the only amendments in the first degree.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That does not mean, Mr. President, that every one there 
will be offered. It depends on the offerer or their designee. But we 
surmise some will not. But there will not be any other first degrees 
submitted that are not on that list. We have not waived the Budget Act, 
as we indicated, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I have another statement to discuss with the Senate.

                          ____________________