[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6949-S6960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 4345

(Purpose: To ensure that the total amount authorized to be appropriated 
 by the bill does not exceed the total amount of the authorizations of 
      appropriations reported by the Committee on Armed Services)

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

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for himself, Mr. 
     Kohl, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4345.

  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


       After section 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 4. GENERAL LIMITATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total 
     amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1997 
     under the provisions to this Act is $263,362,000,000.

  Mr. EXON. Madam President, there are several important cosponsors of 
this amendment. One is on the floor at the present time. I simply 
inquire of the Senator from Wisconsin--and I have agreed to yield him 7 
minutes--if his time will allow him to wait, I will make opening 
remarks. However, if the Senator is cramped for time, I will yield at 
this juncture.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I will wait for the Senator from Nebraska 
to deliver his opening remarks.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Wisconsin for his usual courtesy.
  Madam President, the amendment I have just sent to the desk is on 
behalf of myself, Senator Bingaman, Senator Kohl, Senator Dorgan, and 
Senator Levin. This amendment reduces--Madam President, reduces--the 
total funding level in the bill by $4 billion. This would still allow, 
I emphasize, this would still allow an increase--increase--in the 
President's request of $9.0 billion. A $9 billion increase would be 
allowed even if the Exon amendment is accepted. This is an increase of 
$155 million --an increase of $155 million--above this year's funding 
level.
  To put that in perspective, I have a chart to which I will direct the 
attention of the Senate. It is headed ``Comparison of the Fiscal Year 
1997 Defense Spending Proposals.'' Billions of dollars are on the left 
side, with the first graph showing $263.2 billion, which would be if we 
had just taken the whole defense budget and froze it at last year's 
level, $263.2 billion. Under the Exon proposal, from the standpoint of 
last year, there would be an increase of something around $200 million 
or up to $263.4 billion, an increase of about $200 million still going 
up in national defense over last year's expenditures.
  Compare that, if you will, with this big broad green graph on the 
right. If we go with the defense authorization bill that is presently 
before the Senate, we would balloon that to $267.4 billion for the same 
time period of fiscal year 1997.
  Madam President, this amendment is a modest attempt, and I underline 
the word modest, a modest attempt to control Federal spending within 
reason, reduce the budget deficit and eliminate wasteful spending.
  The bill before the Senate contains some $4.6 billion more than the 
Pentagon requested for fiscal year 1997 or for any of the next 5 years. 
I think the Congress could easily be able to identify $4 billion, 
either from this pork-barrel-laden $4.6 billion or from other sources 
to meet the requirement of this amendment.
  Madam President, we are debating legislation that increases the 
Pentagon's request by a whopping $13 billion, nearly double last year's 
increase of $7 billion. At a time when we are considering deep 
reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, and other 
programs, I find it absolutely astonishing that between last year and 
this year we are proposing to give the Pentagon $20 billion more--to 
give the Pentagon $20 billion more--than the Pentagon had requested. 
Certainly in this case it is not the Pentagon that we can blame. The 
Pentagon came forth in cooperation with the President with what I 
thought was a workable program.
  Madam President, I am under no illusion whatever. I understand the 
dynamics and the politics of the situation. I understand that Congress 
will, inevitably, increase this year's defense request, although it is 
still uncertain whether the President will sign a bill calling for such 
an excessive increase of $13 billion.

  What this Senator from Nebraska is saying is, rather than $13 
billion, maybe if the President recognizes that we just reduce that to 
$9 billion over his request, there may be some chance of avoiding a 
veto.
  Before this Congress sanctions this $13 billion increase, I think we 
should first examine how the majority proposes to spend it. For several 
weeks we

[[Page S6950]]

have been hearing that most of the increase will be devoted to 
accelerating acquisition of weapons systems that the Pentagon wanted in 
future years but could not afford this year. If that were true, some of 
the increase would almost seem reasonable under that argument.
  We have since learned otherwise. According to the Defense Department 
itself, of the $12 billion this bill adds for procurement, research and 
development, the so-called modernization--that is a great term; for 
modernization--$4.6 billion of that, or almost 40 percent was neither 
in the Pentagon's 1997 request nor in its 5-year plan for 1997 through 
the year 2001.
  This second and last chart that I reference at this time I think 
elaborates and demonstrates the size of this increase. As I have just 
said, increases to the Pentagon's fiscal 1997 request for procurement 
and research and development is vividly demonstrated here. $11.4 
billion is the total; $4.6 billion was not even in DOD's 5-year plan.
  That is some way for conservatives to budget. I simply say that the 
budget request that was suggested by the Pentagon, and recommended and 
approved by all of the people in the Pentagon, was aimed at long-range 
budget planning that was realistic. And I might add, it was approved 
and endorsed by the Secretary of Defense, the joint staff, and the 
individual service chiefs, as the optimal way of allocating the roughly 
$1.3 trillion that both parties agreed to spend on defense over the 
next 5 years to fulfill our joint military requirements.
  Madam President, I should also note that the Pentagon has calculated 
that, over the next 5 years, increases for these items not in its 5-
year plan would cost $25 billion. Let me say that again, Madam 
President. This plan that is being forced down the throat of the 
Pentagon and the President would cost $25 billion above and beyond what 
is already budgeted for. In essence, it amounts to an unfunded mandate 
on the Pentagon.
  To bring this point home, Madam President, I will read a letter dated 
June 26 from John White, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, written to 
Senator Daschle:

       In response to your question with regard to the funding 
     levels contained in the FY 1997 Department of Defense 
     Authorization Bill, I want to assure you that the President's 
     defense budget and Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) as 
     submitted to the Congress is sufficient to meet the security 
     requirements of the Nation and to satisfy the policy 
     directions of the Administration. Three times in three years 
     the President has increased the level of resources made 
     available to the Department to support the Bottom Up Review. 
     We can achieve the objectives of the national security 
     strategy with the resources requested by the Administration.
       I am particularly concerned that many of the proposed 
     increases contained in the Defense Bill now under 
     consideration are for systems or programs which are not 
     included in the Department's FYDP. These increases bring with 
     them funding tails for the outyears which could limit future 
     production of critical technologically advanced modernization 
     programs now in development.

  Madam President, that drives home the point that I referenced just a 
few moments ago about this $25 billion above and beyond what has 
already been budgeted for. Let us look at some of these increases. Let 
us look at some of the programs that these increases propose to 
embrace. Remember, Madam President, none of them was in the Pentagon's 
5-year plan. I am going to mention a few: $202 million for the Navy's 
Distributed Surveillance System; $183 million for the Army's AH-64 
Apache helicopter; $158 million for the Army Kiowa Warrior helicopter; 
$234 million for Navy's F/A-18 C/D fighter; $107 million for the Air 
Force's F-16 C/D; $205 million for the Air Force's WC-130.
  There are some 100 examples, none of which are in the Pentagon's 
comprehensive 5-year plan.
  You can spend all day looking for them, and you will not find them. 
They are an expensive collection of pet projects, congressional pork, 
and outright wasteful spending. These increases are precisely the sort 
of deficit and budget-busting spending that would be subject to the 
line-item veto, if Congress had given that power to the President this 
year, as we once voted for here in the U.S. Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent that a complete list of these increases be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 FISCAL YEAR 1997 SENATE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL: SUMMARY OF ADDS NOT
                      IN THE PENTAGON'S 5-YEAR PLAN                     
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percent of
                                      Total adds   Adds not    total add
                                        in bill    in 5-year    not in  
                                                     plan        FYDP   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
            RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION (RDT&E)            
                                                                        
Army................................         653         342          52
Navy................................       1,717         685          40
Air Force...........................         555         160          29
Defense-Wide........................       1,185         278          13
                                     -----------------------------------
  Total.............................       4,109       1,465          36
                                     ===================================
                                                                        
                               PROCUREMENT                              
                                                                        
Army................................       2,269       1,053      \1\ 46
Navy................................       3,357         506      \1\ 15
Air Force...........................       1,430         777      \1\ 54
Defense-Wide........................         830         760      \1\ 92
                                     -----------------------------------
  Total.............................       7,885       3,095          39
                                     ===================================
  Grand total.......................      11,994       4,560      \1\ 38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percent of total add not in 5-year plan.                            
                                                                        
Note: Prepared by Senate Budget Committee, based on DoD Comptroller     
  Data.                                                                 


 Fiscal year 1997 Senate defense authorization bill: List of adds not in
                       the Pentagon's 5-year plan                       
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
           Research, Dev., Test & Evaluation (RDT&E)                    
                                                                        
Army:                                                                   
  Weapons and Munitions Technology............................      20.0
  Nautilus Thel...............................................      25.0
  Tractor Red.................................................       3.5
  Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology............       4.0
  Tractor Dump................................................      13.6
  Armored System Modernization: Advanced Development..........      12.0
  Javelin.....................................................       4.5
  Air Defense Command, Control, and Intelligence--Eng. Dev....      61.8
  Longbow: Engine Development.................................      12.0
  Force XXI Initiatives.......................................     100.0
  DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility.........................      21.7
  Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program.............      55.0
  Other Missile Product Improvement Programs..................       9.0
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal, Army RDT&E....................................     342.1
                                                               =========
Navy:                                                                   
  Surface/Aerospace Surveillance and Weapons Technology.......       9.0
  Surface Ship Technology.....................................       6.0
  Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology.................       7.5
  Ship Propulsion System......................................       8.0
  Advanced Submarine Combat Systems Development...............      48.0
  Advanced Submarine System Development.......................      60.0
  Gun Weapon System Technology................................      27.0
  Other Helicopter Development................................      11.0
  Electronic Warfare Development..............................      65.0
  Aegis Combat System Engineering.............................      21.9
  Arsenal Ship................................................     147.0
  Airborne Mine Countermeasures (MCM).........................      10.0
  Distributed Surveillance System.............................     202.0
  Marine Corps Program Wide Support...........................      40.0
  Joint Service Non-Lethal Weapons Technology Program.........      15.0
  Acquisition Center of Excellence............................       8.0
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal, Navy RDT&E....................................     685.4
                                                               =========
Air Force:                                                              
  Advanced Spacecraft Technology..............................      75.0
  Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator......................       1.4
  Rocket Systems Launch Program (Space).......................      25.1
  F-15E Squadrons.............................................      29.0
  Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles...................      10.0
  Sensor Fused Weapons........................................      19.1
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal, Air force RDT&E...............................     159.6
                                                               =========
Defense-Wide:                                                           
  Anti-Satellite Program (ASAT)...............................      75.0
  Tactical Technology.........................................       3.0
  Materials and Electronics Technology........................      15.0
  Defense Nuclear Agency......................................      12.0
  Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative Technologies....      72.3
  CALS Initiative.............................................      14.0
  Environmental Security Technical Certification Plan.........       8.0
  Boost Phase Intercept Theater Missile.......................      15.0
  National Missile Defense-Dem/Val............................      50.0
  Other Theater Missile Defense/Follow-On TMD Activities-Demo.      10.7
  Defense Support Activities..................................       3.0
                                                               ---------

[[Page S6951]]

                                                                        
      Subtotal, Defense-wide RDT&E............................     278.0
                                                               =========
      Total, RDT&E............................................   1,465.1
                                                               =========
                          Procurement                                   
                                                                        
Army:                                                                   
  Aircraft:                                                             
    C-XX (Medium Range) Aircraft..............................      35.0
    AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter............................     183.0
    CH-47 Cargo Helicopter Modifications (Multi-year Program).      52.3
    Kiowa Warrior Helicopter..................................     158.4
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................     428.7
                                                               =========
  Missile:                                                              
    Mobile Launcher Rocket Systems (MLRS).....................     147.0
    Patriot Modifications.....................................      12.0
    Avenger Modifications.....................................      29.0
    Dragon Modifications......................................      25.0
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................     213.0
                                                               =========
  Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles (W&TCV):                            
    Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicles...............      50.8
    Howitzer, Medium SP FT 155mm M109A6 (Modification)........      61.2
    M1 Abrams Tank (Modification).............................      26.5
    Medium Machine Guns (Modifications).......................      20.0
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................     158.5
                                                               =========
  Ammunition:                                                           
    CTG Mortar 60mm Illum M721/M767...........................       7.0
    CTG Mortar 60mm HE M720...................................      12.5
    Proj Arty 155MM HE M795...................................      55.0
    Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions (SLAM)............       3.0
    Armament Retooling Manufacturing Support (ARMS)...........      58.0
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................     135.5
                                                               =========
  Other:                                                                
    Medium Truck Extended Service PGM (ESP) (PREV SLEP).......       3.0
    Inland Petroleum Distribution System......................      33.0
    Items less than $2 million (Construction Equipment).......      54.0
    Base Level Commercial Equipment...........................      27.0
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................     117.0
                                                               =========
      Total, Army procurement.................................   1,052.7
                                                               =========
Navy:                                                                   
  Combat Aircraft and Weapons:                                          
    F/A-18C/D (Fighter) Hornet................................     234.0
    EA-6 Series...............................................      33.3
    F-18 Series...............................................      50.0
    H-53 Series...............................................      14.0
    Tomahawk Modifications....................................      14.4
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................     345.7
                                                               =========
  Shipbuilding & Conversion: Oceanographic Ships--SWATH.......      45.0
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................      45.0
                                                               =========
  Other: Oceanographic Support Equipment......................       6.0
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................       6.0
                                                               =========
  Marine Corps:                                                         
    155mm CHG, Prop, Red Bag..................................      24.0
    155mm D864, Base Bleed....................................      45.0
    FUZE, ET, XM752...........................................      29.0
    AN/TPQ-36 Fire Finder Radar Upgrade.......................       1.7
    Trailers..................................................       9.3
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................     109.0
                                                               =========
      Total, Navy procurement.................................     505.7
                                                               =========
Air Force:                                                              
  Aircraft:                                                             
    F-16 C/D (Multi-year Program).............................     107.4
    WC-130....................................................     204.5
    B-1B......................................................      56.5
    AWACS Reengineering.......................................     109.0
    Other Aircraft............................................      21.2
    DARP......................................................     182.2
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................     680.8
                                                               =========
  Missile:                                                              
    HAVE NAP..................................................      39.0
    AGM-130 Powered GBU-15....................................      40.0
    Conventional ALCMs........................................      15.0
    Hard Target Smart FUZES...................................       2.0
                                                               ---------
      Subtotal................................................      96.0
                                                               =========
      Total, Air Force procurement............................     776.8
                                                               =========
  Defense-wide: National Guard & Reserve Equipment............     759.8
                                                               =========
      Total, Defense-wide procurement.........................     759.8
                                                               =========
      Grand total, procurement................................   3,095.0
                                                               =========
      Grand total RDT&E.......................................   1,465.1
      Grand total, procurement................................   3,095.0
      Super-total.............................................   4,560.1
                                                                        



  Mr. EXON. Madam President, these programs, in the opinion of most 
senior military leaders, are unnecessary. Even if the Pentagon had the 
money, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs have said that 
they would not fund these programs this year, not next year, not in 
1999, not in the year 2000, and not in the year 2001.
  Since both the administration and the Republican majority propose to 
spend virtually the exact same amount on defense over the next 6 years, 
funding these programs directly takes away from others that the 
Pentagon says it needs. Is this a way to budget responsibly for our 
national security? I suggest not. Is this a way we should spend the 
taxpayer's hard-earned dollars? I think not.
  Some of my colleagues will assert that some of these increases are 
justified because they were included on one of the infamous wish lists 
that the services circulated on Capitol Hill. But none of these service 
lists was ever approved by the joint staff, who determines what is 
necessary. They are the experts.
  It seems to me that we should realize and recognize that the full 
coordination with the services and our joint military needs should be 
kept in mind when we implement our military strategy.
  Over the past 40 years, Congress has worked hard in a bipartisan 
manner to strengthen the joint capabilities of our armed services--
first, by unifying the command of the services under the Secretary of 
Defense, and then by creating a strong joint staff and a strong 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This year's use of the wish 
lists directly undermines 40 years of work by promoting the services' 
parochial interests at the expense of our overall national defense 
strategy.
  Madam President, I believe my friend and colleague on the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Coats from Indiana, a dedicated Republican, 
who has great knowledge of national defense issues, summarized the 
situation well when he said at a conference on April 24, 1996:

       Few priorities on the ``wish lists'' stress how the 
     programs can improve joint war-fighting capabilities. It 
     seems counterproductive that the services would work to a 
     consensus . . . only to deviate from this course during the 
     authorization cycle. . . Such lists are not effective ``gap 
     closers'' when they do not adhere to a logical, overreaching 
     defense plan.

  So the fact that some of these increases in the defense authorization 
bill were on a wish list is in reality no justification whatsoever for 
Congress to fund them.
  Madam President, how long can this Congress continue doling out 
scarce discretionary funds to the Pentagon with this blank check 
philosophy? As many have warned, spending of the taxpayers' dollars so 
irresponsibly will undermine the public's confidence in the Congress as 
well as erode its support for adequate funding for national defense.
  We have heard many speeches about how we need to cut unnecessary 
Government spending. This is an ideal opportunity for Senators to stand 
up and do just that.
  This amendment is reasonable. This amendment is moderate. I wish we 
could do more. I am willing, although reluctantly, to give the Pentagon 
this year an additional $9 billion for programs it did not request this 
year. I am even willing to give the Pentagon an additional $600 million 
so that it can fund so-called congressional priorities. But enough is 
enough. Some sense of fiscal sanity is necessary.
  Madam President, I simply say that the $4 billion in the cut that 
myself and the others are proposing is going to be accepted, at least 
in part, by a follow-on amendment that I understand will soon follow my 
amendment offered by the two leaders of the Armed Services Committee, 
by my distinguished friends, Senator Thurmond from South Carolina and 
Senator Nunn from Georgia. What they are proposing to do is to take 
roughly half of the cuts

[[Page S6952]]

that this Senator has proposed and reduce the Senate Armed Services 
Committee bill from its $13 billion increase figure down to the budget 
resolution figure of $11.4 billion. I salute them for that. It is a 
step in the right direction.
  The Exon amendment roughly cuts $2.4 billion below that to make an 
overall reduction in the armed services authorization figure of $13 
billion less $4 billion down to a $9 billion increase.
  In a nutshell, that is the difference between what the Exon amendment 
does and what is proposed to be done on a lesser scale by the chairman 
and ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. EXON. I will be glad to yield in a moment.
  I am even willing to give the Pentagon an additional $600 million so 
that it can fund some of these so-called priorities. I want to 
emphasize that. But I still say that we are going way too far.
  I think that is such a reasonable amendment that I cannot imagine it 
not being endorsed and accepted by the Senate as a whole.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in saying ``no'' to some 
of these wasteful increases to the Pentagon's request. They are unwise 
and they are unaffordable in the budget climate that we find ourselves 
in.
  I urge all to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I yield the floor. I will be glad to yield for a question so long as 
it is on his time.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am glad to have this charged to time 
under my control.
  I have the greatest respect for my colleague. We have served together 
on this committee many, many years, and his work on the Budget 
Committee has been a tremendous benefit to our committee through the 
years.

  I would like to draw his attention to a document he is aware of, the 
Congressional Budget Office document of May 15, 1996, in which on 
page--does the Senator have one of these?
  Mr. EXON. I do not have it.
  Mr. WARNER. I will send it back so the Senator can examine it. But on 
page 2, the Congressional Budget Office analyzes the outyears spending 
subject to appropriations actions and proposed changes. The estimated 
authorization level for fiscal 1997 is 268, and then they have a series 
of zeros out here showing no tailing increase.
  I will send this up to my distinguished colleague and allow him to 
look it over. Maybe after he has had a chance to examine it, he can 
respond to my question.
  Mr. EXON. I will be glad to look at it and give you my explanation of 
it.
  I will simply point out that the Exon amendment still allows for a $9 
billion increase over what the President and the Pentagon has 
recommended. I would think, regardless of the technical details, that 
most realize and recognize that such should be fully adequate given the 
budget constraints that we face.
  I yield 7 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I sent a document. It is right behind 
the Senator. Will he have an opportunity to look at it and at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the other colleagues perhaps he can 
address that?
  Mr. EXON. I will be glad to do that.
  Mr. WARNER. My recollection is that the Senator from Nebraska 
specifically talked about the outyear implications of this funding 
request by our committee. It seems to me that this document attempts to 
refute that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Nebraska in 
offering this amendment to eliminate $4.0 billion in defense spending 
for items that are not included in any of the next 5 year's defense 
budgets. The Pentagon does not want or need these additional funds. 
There is no reasonable rationale for Congress to provide them.
  I have listened to the arguments that we need to be spending more on 
defense because of a shortfall in procurement funding, and I have heard 
the justifications for the $13 billion increase in budget authority 
contained in this bill, on the grounds that we are only accelerating 
projects the service chiefs have said they want and need. I say to my 
colleagues who embrace these concerns--even though I have to say that I 
am skepical--listen carefully to the details of this amendment. This 
amendment targets the special interest projects and wasteful spending 
in this bill which were not requested by the service chiefs.
  There are more than 4 billion dollar's worth of projects in the bill 
before us which were not requested by the service chiefs. There are 
more than 4 billion dollar's worth of projects in the bill before us 
that appear no where in the Pentagon's future years defense plan. They 
are not priorities, and we cannot afford to be spending scarce taxpayer 
dollars on programs that at best are marginal.
  After our amendment is adopted, and I am hopeful it will be, the 
defense authorization bill will still be $9 billion more than the 
administration has requested.
  I am weary of hearing how this defense budget compares to defense 
budgets in previous years in real terms. Why do we not look at other 
budget functions in real terms? The reason is that if we did, we would 
realize that all domestic accounts are being cut in real terms. Many of 
them deeply. Yet, the defense authorization bill before us would 
increase defense spending $4.2 billion above last year's defense 
budget. Only in Washington is an increase in defense spending a cut. 
When we freeze education spending, we hear denials that we are actually 
cutting education funding. It is just a freeze they say, the same as 
last year. Well, in real terms we are cutting hundreds of domestic 
programs that contribute to the well being of our society. We are 
holding no one harmless in our effort to balance the budget.
  Except defense.
  How can we make a credible case to the American people that we are 
serious about reducing the deficit when we continue to increase defense 
spending? No one has made an effective case as to why we must be 
spending more on weapons systems that have not been identified by the 
service chiefs and are not in any of the next 5 year's defense plans. 
And we certainly gave the services the opportunity to ask for this 
funding.
  Why is it that we cannot approach defense spending in the same way 
that we approach any other spending? The services have been more than 
forthcoming in telling us their requirements and identifying their 
needs. Now it is our responsibility to determine how best to meet these 
needs against all other competing requirements. This is how we fulfill 
our responsibility to oversee the budget and set spending. For some 
reason, however, we are reluctant to do so with defense.
  We must ask ourselves over and over again: Is our defense spending 
relevant to the threats of the future? Are the projects included in the 
$4 billion we would cut in our amendment so crucial to our response to 
these future threats? This amendment was carefully crafted to identify 
those programs that do not meet even the most conservative 
requirements. This amendment cuts $4 billion in programs we cannot 
afford and should not buy.
  Above all, let's remember that we are facing no major threats today. 
When the American people talk today about insecurity, they are talking 
about job security, personal security, and perhaps moral security. Even 
the threats to our national security posed by episodes of regional 
instability and conflict are less likely to be resolved with military 
force, and more likely to be resolved through political or diplomatic 
intervention. To be sure, we need a strong defense. We need to develop 
a strategy and maintain a force structure to protect and advance our 
interests in a constantly changing global environment. If we could 
start over again and create a new force structure from scratch to meet 
the challenges of this era, I am confident that we would have a leaner, 
more mobile and more efficient force at far less cost.

  I am puzzled by arguments that we must front load defense spending in 
the early years of a 7-year plan because spending in the outyears 
cannot be relied upon.
  Madam President, the spending we vote for today--much of it devoted 
to new procurement and new research and development projects--lays the 
groundwork for increased spending down the

[[Page S6953]]

road. The spending proposed today ensures the reductions proposed for 
the outyears will not occur. However, if we adopt this amendment and 
cut $4 billion in spending in this year's budget, then we will be 
eliminating $25 billion in unnecessary spending in future years.
  Last year, we passed a defense budget that was $7 billion more than 
what the Pentagon wanted. I came to the floor during last year's 
defense authorization bill and offered a bipartisan amendment to cut 
out that extra $7 billion, and we almost succeeded. That amendment was 
endorsed by a variety of groups focused on deficit reduction and 
included in the annual scores generated by the Council for a Livable 
World and the Concord Coalition. And now, here we are, a year later, 
considering a defense bill that adds $12.9 billion more than what the 
Pentagon wants.
  Is it any surprise that in the budget resolution we passed last week 
we increase the deficit during the first 2 years of the plan? No one 
has explained how we can afford to increase defense spending above even 
the highest levels identified by the services and yet reduce the 
deficit. We cannot continue to spare the Defense Department from the 
deep regimen of cuts that we are asking the rest of our society to 
absorb. The $4 billion that we propose to cut in this amendment is a 
modest cut.

  If we are committed to reducing the deficit and balancing our budget, 
then we must make the hard votes. And I know for some this will be a 
hard vote. However, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very 
responsible approach to defense spending.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, as I listened to the arguments being 
offered by my colleagues, it seems to me they start from the premise 
that Congress really should not take any action which differs from that 
of the requests sent up here by the administration. All we need do is 
have the President of the United States send up a budget and what we 
need to do is to look at the budget and either give it our stamp of 
approval or withhold that stamp of approval; there is no room for 
discretion. After all, if we were to add something, that would simply 
be another pork barrel project, would it not, under the logic that is 
being utilized by my colleagues who are offering this amendment? Why 
should Congress have any role in this? After all, they are the experts 
over there. The service chiefs, those who are involved in our military 
personnel, they are the experts, so why should we have any role 
whatsoever in terms of altering, increasing, or decreasing the spending 
for our defense needs?
  That is the position, it would seem to me, that those who are arguing 
on behalf of this amendment are taking--that Congress really, any time 
it makes a change in the Defense Department request, is simply adding 
pork barrel spending.
  I suggest, how about the Nunn-Lugar proposal? That will most likely 
be added. Is that pork barrel? Or is that something that is 
substantive, that will contribute to the national security interests of 
this country?
  What about when we add more funding for the C-17, to buy more of 
them, so they can be produced at a more efficient rate and save 
hundreds of millions of dollars. I suppose that is just pork barreling 
as well. What about the V-22 replacing our aging helicopter aircraft 
that are ferrying about our Marine Corps? I suppose that is pork 
barrel, too. So the notion is somehow, whenever Congress adds funding, 
whenever the Armed Services Committee adds funding for programs, that 
is just simply pork barrel. And I suggest to you that is simply pure 
nonsense. That is pure nonsense.
  Also, it seems to me we would think that it is the requirements, the 
military requirements that ought to determine how much we spend and to 
drive policy. But, in fact, most of us know it is not the military 
requirements that drive policy but, rather, it is the political 
policies and the priorities established by the President that drive the 
requirements.
  Year after year, we have been listening to our military experts come 
to the Congress and say, look, it is getting very thin. We are getting 
to the ragged edge. Yes, we can carry out the mission, but it is 
getting very difficult to do so. And we cannot give you assurances we 
can do so in future years; it is getting that close.
  I hear my colleagues talk about cuts in other programs. In terms of 
percentage of real change in outlays between the years 1990 and 2002, 
this chart shows domestic discretionary outlays going up almost 12.5 
percent; national defense outlays decrease by almost 35 percent, 
mandatory outlays increase 34.2 percent. So we can see where the 
priorities are. Defense spending is coming down and discretionary 
spending, mandatory entitlement programs are going up.

  However, there is another issue I want to focus on, and that is the 
issue of promises. This is something that is of concern to me. It has 
been to a majority of our colleagues in the Senate and the House. We 
have had promise after promise that we are going to deal with the 
shortfalls that are coming next year.
  In 1993, we were promised that defense procurement spending was going 
to go up, and here is where it came out, where this green line is now. 
It went down. We were promised by the President it was going to go up 
again in 1995. It went down, saying wait until next year, a promise to 
go up. It went down. In fact, it will not go up in procurement spending 
until after the next term of either President Clinton or President Dole 
expires. And so the absolute military necessities are being pushed out 
into the year 2001, 2002, saying, well, we will get to it just like the 
Red Sox are going to win the pennant next year and every time next year 
comes by say, well, we cannot afford it.
  Let me read to you what Admiral Owens, former Vice Chairman and 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Oversight Council, had to say about the 
administration's procurement plans for our Armed Forces. I am going to 
read this. ``We are facing a procurement crisis.''

       Here you can see that in 1993 the President's budget had 
     for procurement $62 billion. In 1994, procurement would be at 
     $64 billion. Of course, what really happens, it went down to 
     $48 billion. In 1995, the administration was projecting $55 
     billion. In fact, it was $46 billion. But then the 
     administration promised it was going to go up. And in 1996 we 
     are now down to $39 billion. And we keep promising and 
     promising ourselves it is going to go up. We have got to stop 
     promising and start doing business.

  That is from a very highly respected member of the military. Stop 
breaking promise after promise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield myself an additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will yield to the Senator such time as 
he requires and charge it to me. I would like to ask the Senator a 
question at the conclusion of his presentation.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, shortly prior to his death, I had a 
conversation with Admiral Boorda. We spoke initially on the phone and 
then he came to my office because we went through this process. We said 
look, we understand. You are under orders to come up to the Hill and 
testify as to whether you can live with this particular budget. And 
each time the military has done their duty as required apparently by 
their obligations and they said, yes, we can live with what the 
President has requested; he is our Commander in Chief; we can live with 
this, this year for the first time they started sending other signals 
that said ask us basically what we really need over and above what is 
being requested.
  And so we asked the question: If more money were added, what would 
you request? Admiral Boorda sent a request to me that was in excess of 
$7 billion, alone, for the Navy--$7.9 billion over and above the 
President's request just for the Navy. And I told him it was completely 
and wholly unrealistic. He said, look, we have a bow wave coming. I am 
not going to be here. I am retiring. He would not be here when his 
period for being CNO had expired and left the Navy, he said, but in the 
year 2000, 2005, 2010, we have an enormous tidal wave of procurement 
coming and, frankly, he did not see whether we could ever have the will 
or spirit to measure up to the responsibilities to fund the programs. 
So he said, I am

[[Page S6954]]

putting in my request. This is what I need.
  So that is just one service. Here we are on the Senate floor saying 
let's just take another $4 billion out totally across the board.
  Madam President, I think that we have to get realistic about where we 
are headed, that we know and everybody knows that by the year 2000 
spending is going to have to go up dramatically in order to meet the 
requirements of our military, or else what?
  We can simply revise what we have to do throughout the world. We can 
say, fine, we are not going to defend our interests in the Pacific. We 
are not going to defend our interests in Europe or NATO. We are simply 
going to shrink back to the continental United States.
  We can do that. We can revise the Bottom-Up Review. We can say we are 
not going to meet major regional contingencies, two of them 
simultaneously, and say we will just meet one. We can do that, and it 
will be a much more honest approach than what we are currently taking 
because what we are doing today is saying, yes, we can meet the Bottom-
Up Review requirements when, in fact, we cannot--when, in fact, we are 
holding out an illusion, when in fact many of the same personnel and 
equipment required to fight in one particular regional conflict will be 
required to fight in another.
  So, it is time we get honest with ourselves and, if we do not want to 
be the superpower, capable of extending our reach in various parts of 
the globe, if we do not want to exercise military power and projection 
in various parts of the globe, say so. But let us not go through this 
routine, saying we will do it next year and next year and next year. 
This year is an election year. This year it is more for education and 
environment and other things. We will push the requirements of the 
military out into future years, and we will let that generation deal 
with the problem. We will not be here. We will be gone, be out of 
office.
  When we heard statements made--the Deputy Secretary of Defense has 
issued a statement; Senator Warner has referred to it--that there is a 
tail attached to this particular authorization, some $25 billion, we 
said, ``Prove it to us. Where is the evidence it is $25 billion?'' They 
have yet to submit an analysis that shows any justification for the $25 
billion so-called tail. They issued a letter saying it is a $25 billion 
add-on, and we have looked at the analysis and it does not hold up.
  I will save that analysis for my other colleagues who wish to talk 
about this particular matter, but it seems to me the Defense Department 
has an obligation that goes beyond simply issuing letters at the last 
moment saying it is $25 billion without any demonstration of the 
analysis by which that judgment was rendered. I am here to say, when we 
look at what they have done, what they do is say, if money is 
requested, for example to close out an account, they will take the 
amount requested--let us say it is $60 million--and they will stretch 
it out $15 million a year for the next 4 years. That is completely 
false. If you, in fact, spend more money to purchase equipment up 
front--aircraft, ships--which they know will save money in the 
outyears, they nonetheless add that as a total increase. If you look 
closely--and they have admitted this--if you look closely at their 
analysis, it will not hold up to scrutiny.
  So, Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be rejected. We do know 
Senator Nunn and others will be offering an amendment later that would 
have a more modest reduction. But for us to come to the floor and say 
this is simply pork barrel spending, unnecessary, the military did not 
request it, therefore let us not add it, seems to me it undermines the 
historic role of the U.S. Senate and that of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. President, I hope this will be rejected and overwhelmingly so.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COHEN. I yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague. He 
has very concisely and accurately reflected the facts.
  I suggest he take another minute to include in his remarks that, 
while he did meet with Admiral Boorda, Admiral Boorda was but one of 
the entire set of Chiefs who came forward with the request that they 
needed $60 billion, of which the President's budget only allowed $38 
billion, and under the current projections, you would not reach the 
level recommended by the Chiefs until the year 2001.
  Mr. COHEN. Let me respond to my colleague. I only pointed to one 
individual. I tried to point to what Admiral Boorda had to say to me as 
an example. Here is just the Navy. Just for Navy programs he said, ``I 
need another $7 to $8 billion to start meeting the obligations that are 
mandated and that we will have to face in just a few short years.'' But 
Admiral Boorda, like every other service chief, as such, realizes each 
year we have to face this red line. It goes down to the green line, and 
the green line drops to the blue line, and the blue line drops to the 
orange line, and we do not get to it until the year 2000. He is saying, 
``We cannot do this. It is a misrepresentation. It is a dereliction of 
our responsibilities.''
  That is just one service, the CNO. But now we have the Army, Air 
Force, Marine Corps, and they similarly made requests saying if we are 
really going to be measuring up to our responsibilities, we need more. 
It was the figure that the Senator from Virginia has cited.
  So I think we are not to be charged with simply pork barreling, 
spending money wastefully. Whenever something happens in the world, we 
are the ones to answer the 911 call. When there was a problem with 
Taiwan and China, President Clinton did not hesitate. He is going to 
send the troops, aircraft carriers--two of them, as a matter of fact.
  If we are going to be spending for these programs and protecting the 
lives of our young men and women who are dedicating them to the service 
of this country, we better make sure they do not have aircraft that are 
wearing out, they are not operating at tempos that cannot be sustained, 
that we start doing what needs to be done in order to make sure we have 
the finest capability we can possibly have.
  I thank my friend for yielding me so much time.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Sea Power 
Committee. Indeed, he did present Admiral Boorda's request to him and 
now has supplemented it by the fact that all the Chiefs essentially are 
in agreement on this.
  Mr. President, I would like to add a comment or two of my own here. 
This is the fourth attempt, I say to my good friends, the fourth 
attempt to cut the defense budget that we have debated here on this 
floor of the Senate within just the past 30, say, legislative days. All 
previous attempts have been declined by the Senate. The arguments on 
both sides are well known. We have shared them here today. I am not 
sure why we are spending more time, indeed, on this issue, on this 
important piece of legislation which is badly needed. The position of 
the Senate is clear.
  Now, the chairman, Chairman Thurmond, and the distinguished ranking 
member--and I join with him in this effort--are going to come forward 
to bring in a reduction, calculated at roughly $1.7 billion, to 
reconcile this bill's overall spending with the budget resolution. That 
is a responsible approach to reduction in spending, and it will have my 
strongest support. Even with the increases in the defense budget made 
by the Budget Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, the 
defense budget will continue to decline in real terms in fiscal 1997. 
We are not increasing defense spending with this bill before us. We are 
simply slowing down--slowing down--the rate of reduction sent to the 
Congress by the President of the United States.
  Fiscal 1997 will mark the 12th consecutive year of declining defense 
budgets. I am confident the pending measure will, likewise, be the 
fifth effort to reduce this defense budget, which will be rejected by 
the Senate on vote, and that the Senate will turn to the 
recommendations of the chairman and the ranking member.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
member

[[Page S6955]]

of the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me start by saying what I am sure is 
true for all those speaking for this amendment and that is we agree 
that the United States needs to maintain the most capable and effective 
military anywhere in the world. But I rise to support Senator Exon's 
amendment, his freeze amendment to trim spending in this defense 
authorization bill to the same level as is in the current fiscal year 
because I believe that kind of fiscal discipline is possible and 
prudent and still allows us to maintain the most capable military on 
the face of the planet.
  The Pentagon is able to live with a freeze. We are outspending all of 
our potential foes by at least a factor of 2. The foes that we most 
often hear discussed when we are talking about defense issues are Iraq 
and North Korea. Mr. President, both of those countries are bankrupt. 
The combined defense budgets of both of those countries equal about 5 
percent of our defense budget. We have allies in Europe, in Asia, whose 
defense budgets also dwarf those of our potential foes.
  Our colleagues who voted for the concurrent resolution last week are 
asking our nondefense agencies to live with a freeze in discretionary 
spending after the budgets of those same agencies were cut by more than 
$10 billion last year.
  The civilian agencies, those that we are asking to live with the 
freeze, face huge challenges as this country prepares for the 21st 
century--challenges of educating our children, preserving our 
environment, of caring for our veterans, of enforcing our criminal 
laws, of maintaining our transportation infrastructure, and developing 
new technologies. But we have told those agencies that we must live 
with a freeze this year, a $15 billion cut from the President's request 
for funds for those agencies.
  But, for the Pentagon, even with the cold war long over and security 
challenges facing this country reduced to a level that would have been 
inconceivable when I entered the Senate 14 years ago, our colleagues 
propose a budget resolution to open up their purses for one last 
spending spree, adding an additional $11.3 billion above what the 
Pentagon requested for fiscal year 1997.
  Senator Exon's amendment would cut a total of $4 billion in spending 
from the bill. It would leave an increase of $9 billion for defense 
spending above what the President requested. The level we are proposing 
would fund every single add-on proposed by the committee that is 
actually included in the Pentagon's future year defense program; that 
is the long-range planning document that the Pentagon works off. This 
bill is going to have to be trimmed by $1.7 billion, as several 
Senators have already indicated. We know that. Senator Exon essentially 
proposes an additional $3.2 billion cut. From my experience on the 
committee during the last 14 years, I am sure that the conferees can 
find $4 billion in low-priority add-ons to eliminate in the conference.
  Mr. President, Senator Exon's amendment is almost identical in 
magnitude to the one that was offered by Congressmen Shays and Neumann 
2 weeks ago to the House defense appropriations bill. Their amendment 
received 60 Republican votes. I hope that Senator Exon's amendment will 
be similarly attractive to some of the Republican Senators who are 
committed to deficit reduction this year. It is our intention that this 
reduction in spending authority would be used to reduce the Federal 
budget deficit which is projected to increase in 1997 under both the 
budget plan passed by Congress last year and the one submitted by the 
President earlier this year.
  Mr. President, I honestly believe that this bill could be cut even 
more than the $4 billion Senator Exon proposes and with no adverse 
effect on our security.
  There is an advertisement that appeared in the New York Times the 
other day on the 23d of June, on Sunday, by a group of business leaders 
pointing out that the last sacred cow in our budget needs to also share 
in this burden of budget cuts.
  I think that is good advice. I hope we will follow that advice. I 
believe most Americans would like to see us hold the line on defense 
spending at the President's request, and I urge my colleagues to adopt 
the Exon amendment and do so.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just wish at some point in time, the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska will reply to the question of the 
Senator from Virginia relative to the CBO letter which I posed, but 
that can be done at his convenience. I think we should allow our 
colleague from Michigan to proceed. That is perfectly agreeable to the 
Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to a very distinguished 
member of the Armed Services Committee who has sat next to me on that 
committee for 18 years, the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 8 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we, indeed, have had an enjoyable 18 years. 
I thank my good friend from Nebraska. And we have been joined by our 
good friend from Virginia in that 18 years as well. We may disagree on 
this, but we are close friends, indeed.
  I rise in support of the Exon amendment. I want to emphasize 
something which Senator Bingaman just said. The so-called cut which is 
proposed in this amendment would leave an increase of $9 billion above 
the President's budget request; $9 billion would be left in this bill 
above that which the administration asked for and the Defense 
Department signed off on.
  The majority of the Armed Services Committee added $13 billion. Over 
$4 billion of that is not even in the 5-year defense plan, the future 
years defense plan of the Defense Department. The Defense Department 
has no plan for over $4 billion of the add-ons, so that the Exon 
amendment, in cutting $4 billion, is cutting an amendment which is 
actually slightly less than the amount which the Defense Department has 
absolutely no plans for in its budget projection.
  It is one thing to be strong, and we all want to be strong on the 
Armed Services Committee, and I think every Member of this body wants 
the United States to be the strongest Nation in the world. We are 
spending 2\1/2\ times more than Russia, 100 times more than China, and 
40 percent of the world's defense expenditures are being spent by the 
United States. So, yes, we want to be strong, but we do not want to 
throw money away, even in the defense budget, even in the name of 
defense.

  This budget that came out of the Armed Services Committee, in adding 
$13 billion to the administration request, which had been signed off on 
by the uniformed military, is throwing money at problems and adding 
items that have not been requested by the military, adding items not in 
the defense plan for the future and, as a matter of fact, Mr. 
President, adding items that were not even in these wish lists which we 
solicited from the military.
  What the Armed Services Committee did is we asked each of the 
services: ``If we had additional funds for you, what would you spend 
the money on?"
  Very obviously, the services said, ``Oh, we'd spend it for this, we'd 
spend it for that, we'd spend it for something else.'' Any agency of 
Government would do that.
  What we did in soliciting these wish lists from each separate 
department--an Army wish list, a Marines wish list, a Navy wish list 
and Air Force wish list--what we did is violate the very rules of 
jointness and discipline which we ourselves, as an Armed Services 
Committee, very proudly put into law a few years back, called 
Goldwater-Nichols.
  We require jointness. We require the military services to come 
together and to scrub their requests together and to jointly request 
funds, so they are not pitted off against each other, so they do not 
compete with each other up here. They first scrub their requests 
together and jointly come here and say, ``We've gone through a process; 
we've gone through a joint requirements process. This is the uniformed 
military

[[Page S6956]]

joint request.'' That is what the budget request is.
  But on these wish lists that were submitted to us and that we 
solicited, on these wish lists, we just ask each of the services, 
``What is your wish? What are your wishes?''--violating the very rules 
of jointness and discipline which we ourselves had installed just a few 
years back. Of course, they came in with billions of dollars. There is 
no surprise in that.

  Admiral Owens' name was invoked here. What Admiral Owens has also 
told us, in addition to worrying about some of the future 
modernization--and we all have concerns in that area--but what Admiral 
Owens said in testimony before the committee was that, while 
procurement should ideally be at the level of $60 billion per year, 
Congress should not add the money on top of the defense budget 
request--should not add the money on top of the defense budget request.
  Instead, he said, the Pentagon should work to save the money 
internally from reduced infrastructure. We have had a reduced size for 
the military. We have bases which have been closed. He testified in 
front of our committee that the Pentagon should make savings which 
would allow the modernization to occur at a rate of $60 billion per 
year, the procurement at the rate of $60 billion per year, and that 
these moneys should come from reduced infrastructure--base closure, 
privatization, and so forth. That is the No. 2 person at the Pentagon 
speaking to us. That is not on the civilian side; that is on the 
uniform side.
  We have actually added items here that, again, are not even on the 
wish list. We have added money for F-16's, a couple extra F-16's. Why 
not? That is only $50 million. Those are not even on the Air Force wish 
list. That is above what the Air Force added on their wish list. How 
about some more helicopters? Why not? We want to be strong. Add some 
more helicopters. The trouble is that the so-called Kiowa Warriors are 
not even on the wish list. They are not in the budget. They are not in 
the 5-year plan. They are not in the wish list we solicited.
  But do we have a right to add this money? Of course we do. The 
Senator from Maine is absolutely right; we have a right to add any more 
funds we want or to subtract any more funds. But should we have some 
requirement, some logic, some compelling purpose, some jointness in 
this process that the military come together and say, ``Yes, we want to 
spend an additional $120 million on the extra Kiowa Warriors''? I hope 
so. We cannot just paint these requests as being, ``Well, it's defense, 
therefore, they must be needed.''
  We have a responsibility with taxpayers' dollars to look at what we 
are adding this $120 million for. This budget coming out of our 
committee does not meet that responsibility; $4 billion-plus that is 
not even in the future defense plans of the military, not justified. 
Let us take a look at the Kiowa Warrior. That is the OH-58 scout 
helicopter called the Kiowa Warrior, the AHIP's. That is the add-on by 
the committee.
  They were there in Desert Storm. But we used Apaches instead to 
perform the function which the OH-58's were supposed to perform. The 
OH-58's could not even keep up with the Apaches, so to perform their 
functions we had to use Apaches. So let us add on OH-58's instead. Just 
add them on because it is the defense budget, and paint it defense, 
label it defense, and then everybody is going to be told, ``Don't cut 
it. It's the national security of our Nation.''
  The Pentagon already consumes nearly 40 percent of the world's 
military budget, and we spend nearly as much as all of our allies 
combined. The United States spends 100 times as much annually as Iraq, 
the largest spender among nations the Pentagon considers potential 
threats. Even as other Federal agencies continue to take sharp cuts in 
high-priority programs that directly contribute to the immediate and 
long-term security of Americans, including crime-fighting, education 
and environmental protection, the committee added billions not 
requested by the Department of Defense, and in many cases not even 
included by the services on the wish lists solicited by the Committee.
  On top of the fact that this authorization has resorted to using ad 
hoc wish lists from the services in order to decide where to spend the 
extra $13 billion, is the fact that the DOD financial systems necessary 
to account for the expenditure of this money are broken. We still 
haven't gotten a handle on it.
  The General Accounting Office [GAO] in fact, says that ``the 
Department does not yet have adequate financial management processes in 
place to produce the information it needs to support its decision.'' 
``No military service or other major DOD component,'' says GAO, ``has 
been able to withstand the scrutiny of an independent financial 
statement audit.''
  But the committee's action would add another $13 billion to the pot 
without any concern for financial mismanagement issues.
  If the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department 
of Health and Human Services were the subject of the same type of 
reports on their financial management systems that we're getting from 
the DOD inspector general and GAO and the DOD Comptroller, himself, we 
would never be adding wish list money to their programs.
  The GAO describes DOD's financial management problems as ``serious'' 
and ``pervasive.'' GAO in testimony late last year listed the key 
problems as follows:

       Serious problems in accounting for billions of dollars in 
     annual disbursements.
       Breakdowns in the Department's ability to protect its 
     assets from fraud, waste and abuse.
       Continuing problems in reliably reporting on the cost of 
     its operations.

  As long as Congress adds money like this, the Department will not 
have adequate incentive to solve these financial management problems. 
No major corporation in the United States would approve a subsidiary's 
budget at a wish list level if the subsidiary suffered from financial 
management failures like the Department of Defense.
  While the committee is critical of the level of procurement spending 
in the President's defense budget request, its answer is simply to add 
more money, much of which is not for the items that the Pentagon wants. 
This is a poor choice for several reasons.
  First, Adm. William Owens, the former Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council [JROC] testified to the committee at its first hearing this 
year that while DOD is seeking to increase its procurement funds, 
Congress should not add the money on top of the defense budget. 
Instead, he said that the Defense Department needs to create savings 
from within its own programs to provide additional funds for 
procurement. The Secretaries of the Military Departments provided 
valuable testimony in support of that notion. But the committee did not 
pursue this avenue. Instead, it simply added money to the budget 
request, reducing incentives for the Department to operate more 
efficiently.

  Second, the committee's addition of nearly $13 billion is consistent 
with last year's congressional budget resolution, which added $7 
billion in fiscal year 1996, and suggested a $13 billion add this year. 
But that budget resolution frontloads the defense increases in the 
nearterm and shortchanges the department in the out-years. After the 
year 2000, the budget resolution would provide the Pentagon with less 
money than planned in the President's future years defense plan, and 
could substantially underfund the programs that the committee says it 
supports.
  In fiscal year 2001, the President's budget plan for the defense 
budget would be $2.5 billion above the current budget resolution 
number. And for fiscal year 2002, the President's defense budget figure 
is $7.9 billion higher than the budget resolution plan. So in those 2 
years alone, the budget resolution would be more than $10 billion less 
than the President's defense budget plan.
  The President's budget request and outyear plans provide a more 
stable and sustainable funding profile, while the plan of the 
congressional majority would jeopardize the long-term health and 
stability of defense funding. And the committee's spending priorities 
are not the same as those of the Pentagon, so by funding other items, 
the committee is funneling resources away from the programs that the 
Joint Chiefs and the Defense Secretary say are most needed.

[[Page S6957]]

  The Defense Department is in an unusual position among Federal 
agencies by virtue of its budget and the length of its future budgeting 
plans. Six-year plans are required. When inflation rises above the 
expected level, the Defense Department gets an upward inflation 
adjustment. But when inflation is lower than expected, DOD gets a large 
share of the dividend to plow back into additional programs. This year, 
DOD experienced a $45 billion lower inflation estimate. While some $15 
billion went back to the Treasury, the other $31.5 billion went to the 
military to spend over 6 years. This fact was not even taken into 
account by the committee in its addition of $13 billion.
  While Congress has criticized the military for inter-service rivalry, 
this bill's significant funding increases for the unfunded projects of 
the services actually fuels such rivalry by providing items that could 
not gain approval in the jointly oriented budget review by the Joint 
Chiefs and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We should not be 
surprised if the services compete with each other for additional 
funds--a result we should not be encouraging.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to put the issue of defense 
spending in some context. I have a chart that shows the levels of 
defense spending for about 15 nations, including the United States. 
Some of these nations are our allies, some are not allies and not 
adversaries, and some we consider adversaries. These figures are from 
1994 because that is the most recent year for which we have data on 
these countries, and they are in constant 1993 dollars. Here is how 
defense spending stacks up among these countries:
  First, it is no surprise that we spend more than any of the other 
nations. With spending of some $278 billion, we outspend Russia by two 
one-half times. I would point out that Russian defense spending is 
declining quite rapidly still. We outspend China by a factor of 10. We 
sometimes hear people caution that China is the coming military power 
to keep a watch on. We should remember that our spending dwarfs that of 
China by ten times.
  The next group of countries on the list represents our allies with 
significant defense expenditures. I would note that the country in this 
group with the highest spending is Japan, which spends less than one-
sixth as much as the United States. These are major allies who would be 
partners in any conflict affecting their interests, whether in Europe 
or in Asia. Together they spent almost $190 billion in 1994.
  The United States spends almost one one-half times as much as all 
these allies combined. And they would be partners with us in many 
conflict situations, so their spending should be considered a 
supplement to our own.
  Finally, there is the category of nations with interests inimical to 
our own, sometimes called rogue nations, most of which are suspected or 
known to be pursuing ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction 
programs. This includes North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and 
Cuba. All together, their spending totals almost $14 billion, which is 
nearly 20 times less than what the United States alone spends. So our 
spending is massively higher than all these nations combined.
  This is just to keep in perspective the fact that our military 
spending is far greater than that of the nations about which we are 
concerned, and our military capabilities are also far greater.
  I thank the Chair and I thank my good friend from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again solicit from our distinguished 
colleague from Nebraska a reply with reference to my observations about 
the CBO report, a copy of which he now has.
  Mr. EXON. I am glad to reply. I have only 4 minutes left for closing 
remarks.
  Mr. WARNER. How much time does the Senator from Virginia have?
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield me time to answer?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 22 minutes 42 
seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. I am happy to have my friend reply on my time.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator.
  I think the Senator asks a very legitimate question. We have checked 
with the comptroller at the Pentagon for the answer. The answer is 
quite obvious when you recognize that when we look at the various 
charts here, we are talking about direct spending and indirect 
spending.
  Certainly, the funding tail that I referenced is a very real thing. 
The Congressional Budget Office, in making their cost estimates, looks 
at direct spending. And then there is indirect spending. The initial 
airplanes, helicopters, ships, and so forth that we have, as far as the 
chart that the Senator referenced is concerned, is right. But that 
would contemplate, I would say to my friend from Virginia, that we 
would buy this additional equipment and then we would not use it.
  So, at least primarily, the difference between what the Senator has 
referenced as zero in his chart does not address what the Pentagon 
tells us, the comptroller at the Pentagon, who, I think we both agree 
since we know him and trust him, says that the problem that you have is 
that not all of the direct and indirect spending expenditures for this 
equipment have been considered. Therefore, the Pentagon has done that 
analysis, which is not part of the CBO cursory review. They conclude 
that it will take $25 million more, if we go ahead and purchase the 
equipment, and then use it, than is included in the budget. This, I 
think, can best be described as an indirect spending impact that has a 
very definite effect on the budget of the Pentagon.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I draw your attention to the title that 
says, ``Spending Subject to Appropriations Action.'' So it seems to me 
it is both direct and indirect. I think the most that can be made of 
this argument is that we come to a draw. Clearly, the comptroller of 
the Department of Defense, as you say, is a very distinguished former 
staff member of the Armed Services Committee, in whom we repose a lot 
of confidence.
  Mr. EXON. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. They say one thing; the Congressional Budget Office says 
the other. They are diametrically opposed on this question of the tail 
spending. I think that is the most that can be stated out of this 
debate. It is kind of like that great statement, ``If you take the 
economists and you lay them end to end all around the Earth, they still 
don't reach a conclusion.'' Is that not right, Senator?
  Mr. EXON. No, that is not right. I reply on the Senator's time. I 
happen to have the feeling that the comptroller at the Pentagon is a 
very honest, straightforward individual.
  Mr. WARNER. I am not questioning his integrity.
  Mr. EXON. I am glad we straightened that out.
  Mr. WARNER. I am glad we straightened that out, too. I was, in a 
friendly way, giving the Senator a draw on this debate. But if the 
Senator wishes, I will go with the CBO.
  Mr. EXON. I always have the highest regard for my friend from 
Virginia, and he knows that. If we want to go to a draw on this, let us 
call it a draw and move on----
  Mr. WARNER. Splendid.
  Mr. EXON. To the discussion of how we can justify this increase that 
is not requested by the Pentagon.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are awaiting the distinguished Senator 
from Indiana, who is quite an authority on this subject, a member of 
the Armed Services Committee, as is the Presiding Officer. I shall 
yield to him such time as he may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I now yield the balance of the time under 
my control to the distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, 
Mr. Coats. Mr. President, before that, I ask the Senator how much time 
is required?
  Mr. COATS. Probably not more than 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Then the chairman of the committee will require some 
additional time. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia controls 12 minutes 
30 seconds.
  Mr. THURMOND. I will take 7 or 8 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana 
have, say, 9 minutes, and that the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina have 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?

[[Page S6958]]

  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Thank you, Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I 
will not take the full 9 minutes unless I need it. Otherwise, I will 
yield some back.
  I rise to question the Department of Defense's recent assertion that 
the Senate Armed Service Committee authorization for fiscal year 1997 
will create huge costs in years to come. This information has come 
somewhat as a surprise, since the Congressional Budget Office recently 
reviewed the committee's fiscal year 1997 authorization and found no 
additional spending attributed to the committee's decision. And so we 
have somewhat of a disconnect here between the assertions of the 
Department and the CBO analysis of the committee's action. I know this 
has been discussed on this floor, and I think it is important for 
Members to hear the other side of the issue.
  When Secretary Perry, Deputy Secretary White, and General 
Shalikashvili met with the Armed Services Committee members last week, 
Under Secretary White asserted that the funding additions the committee 
made to the budget request created a $25 billion additional cost in the 
Future Years Defense Program. The estimate has since been refined down 
to $20 billion. But since neither Secretary White nor the Comptroller, 
John Hamre, was able to explain at the time how such additional costs 
might be incurred, Senator Nunn asked that a report be provided to the 
committee to explain the rationale and analysis that led to their 
conclusion.
  Mr. President, in my opinion, the Department's analysis--and in the 
opinions of many, including CBO--the Department's analysis of future 
years' costs is seriously flawed. The Department made assumptions about 
the effects of any funding restorations, and then did their 
multiplications, without any reference to the committee's own report, 
which explained the committee's intention.
  The method of analyzing research and development accounts was to 
multiply any committee addition by a factor of four and add up the 
result. Such an analysis ignores reality. Some of the program elements 
provided the Department the option to use the additional funds to close 
out a program, but instead, the program was scored as having an outyear 
cost of four times the add. There was no analysis, no reference to the 
committee's report that outlined the committee's intentions. Simply 
put, the Department assumed the worst-case scenario, assumed no future 
savings, and did the multiplication, with a predictable result. 
Recently, John Hamre, the DOD Comptroller has agreed that their 
analysis was very mechanical and should have considered offsetting 
savings.
  As far as the procurement accounts are concerned, the Department's 
own briefers admitted to having no consistent set of assumptions to 
score procurement accounts. In fact, briefers from DOD could not 
explain why they scored no future savings when old equipment was 
replaced, or modified with more efficient engines. They showed only 
outyear costs, but no savings in operation costs. This flies in the 
face of the Department's own information papers provided during the 
markup on the authorization bill. In one case, the Department's own 
information paper claiming outyear savings of $1.5 billion if RC-135 
aircraft were re-engined. Now, we find no savings were accounted for in 
the Department's analysis of future year costs.
  So, Mr. President, let me just outline this for Members. When the 
committee came forward with the recommendation for purchase of new 
equipment, say, engines for certain types of aircraft, which engines, 
if modified, or if they replaced old engines, there would be an outyear 
savings because of the efficiencies of the new engines. Yet, that was 
not scored against the cost of the new equipment. That cost was taken 
and multiplied into outyears and labeled as a gross cost, without a net 
savings that come back from the efficiencies.
  Here are a couple more examples: The comptroller's analysis of the 
two major elements of the National Missile Defense Program are scored 
as having a $9.3 billion outyear cost through fiscal year 2001. That is 
the amount that most estimate is required to field a national missile 
system. Yet, not even the most optimistic projections contemplate 
deployment of a system until 2003. When asked how this was scored, 
comptroller analysts had no answer, nor recourse to any consistent 
assumptions to explain such an assertion.
  Another example: The committee recommended an authorization of $12 
million for material technology because the committee had statements 
from the Army that $8 million would be used to complete one portion of 
the program, and another could be finished for an additional $8 
million. The committee authorized an additional $4 million for that 
portion of the program, leaving an outyear tail of $4 million. The 
comptroller scored the program as having $48 million outyear cost, $44 
million above the actual outyear cost.
  For electronics materials and the space-based infrared program, the 
same scenario takes place. Space-based infrared was cut in this year's 
budget request by $19 million, with no changes made to the outyear 
program. When the committee restored the cut, the comptroller scored it 
as an outyear add, which was erroneous.
  Mr. President, real life experience does not support this kind of 
cost analysis. Anyone in business knows that replacing aging equipment 
provides operating savings, otherwise, why replace it? Also, anyone 
with common sense knows that buying systems at economic quantities 
saves money both now and later. This is what the committee did. In many 
cases, the committee actually restored cuts in programs made by the 
Department--cuts that drove up unit costs--and now the Department 
scores the restorations as having outyear costs.

  Mr. President, the notion that the committee's authorization will 
drive the Department to outyear spending does not square with our 
analysis or square with reality. In fiscal year 1996, the committee 
authorized spending at a level above the administration's request.
  This year, the administration forwarded a reduced fiscal year 1997 
request to Congress. Following the Department's logic in this analysis, 
the fiscal 1997 request should have increased, not decreased.
  Mr. President, the $20 billion outyear tail from this authorization 
does not exist. The analysis that asserts so is now in its sixth 
version in the last few weeks. It is no analysis, but rather an 
assertion that does not square with the facts. We would be better off 
to take General Shalikashvili's words at face value because when 
testifying before this year's Defense Department posture hearings, he 
was asked about last year's authorization, whether it was needed 
equipment, or whether it was ``congressional pork.'' He answered that:

       I think that the vast majority of the money was against 
     things that we were going to buy later. They were brought 
     forward as a result of what you did, and in many, probably 
     all cases, in the long run will result in savings, because we 
     are able to get them sooner at a more advantageous price.

  If you are going to buy it anyway, and you can buy it in a quantity 
now, which gives you unit cost savings, then why not buy it now? You do 
not score that as an extra add-on. You score that as a savings, or at 
least you take the total and offset the savings you gain from buying in 
quantity. I mean, that is common sense. If you are going to buy one 
car, you are going to pay a different price than if you buy a fleet of 
cars. If you know you are going to end up buying the fleet, and you can 
do the add now and get the unit cost down, it only makes sense to do 
so.
  Mr. President, the analysis that says any modernization now is an 
expense in years to come cannot be taken seriously. More serious 
thought should be given to the Department's continuing reductions 
without any changes in its stated goals or strategy. Ad hoc assertions, 
such as this offering by the Department, should be cause for questions 
about any underlying framework or analysis for our national security 
other than what the present administration is willing to request.
  Mr. President the issue at hand is this: the administration says its 
strategy is sound but does not provide the resources to carry it out--
and when those resources are authorized, it complains of future costs. 
This all happens while defense spending declines and operational tempo 
increases. Mr. President it is time to relook at defense

[[Page S6959]]

strategy from a more thoughtful vantage point, and to take a careful 
look at the relation between policy goals and resources. This so called 
analysis adds nothing useful to the debate.
  Mr. President, I thank you for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for up to 7 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this amendment 
offered by my good friend Senator Exon, and will make my statement 
short. We have had long debates on defense spending, not only on this 
bill, but during the budget resolution debate. During these debates, 
some of my colleagues have argued that the money for defense is 
unnecessary, and they have always found other uses for this money.
  Mr. President, thankfully, this body has not agreed with these 
arguments and has provided the resources necessary to meet our national 
security needs. There are many risks associated with the 
administration's decision to continue to underfund defense. Our 
Nation's top military leaders have assessed those risks and have 
explained their concerns, not only in Armed Services Committee 
hearings, but in hearings in many of the other defense committees. The 
Armed Services Committee has received testimony concerning defense 
spending and here are just a few comments that were offered. Secretary 
of Defense Perry testified:

       . . . the modernization account in fiscal year 1997 will be 
     the lowest it has been in many years, about one third of what 
     it was in fiscal year 1985.

  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, 
testified:

       We preserved our readiness and force structure at the 
     expense of modernization and equipment replacement . . . . So 
     much that our procurement accounts has actually shrunk to 
     just below $40 billion, the lowest level since the Korean 
     War. . . . This procurement hiatus . . . cannot be sustained 
     indefinitely.

  Each of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries expressed similar 
concerns, but I will not take the time to go into each of their 
testimonies to the committee. We have received assurances that next 
year will be better. But then again, that assurance has been rendered 
since 1993 and it still has not happened. Admiral Owens highlighted 
this problem when he said, ``We've got to stop promising ourselves and 
start doing something about this procurement issue . . .''
  The administration proposes to reduce defense again this year by 
$18.6 billion from fiscal year 1996 levels in real terms. Will the 
Defense Department do less next year? Will we ask less of our military 
services--of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines? What will be 
reduced to account for this $18.6 billion reduction? Already press 
report indicate that the administration might be considering extending 
United States forces in Bosnia beyond December 20, the date on which 
United States forces should be withdrawn. Even without this extension, 
costs for this operation have increased for the 1st quarter of fiscal 
year 1997 by $184 million, and we are told these costs will increase 
again. The decreases in defense spending planned by the administration 
are occurring at the same time our military personnel are asked to do 
more and more.
  It bears repeating that providing for the national security is the 
Federal Governments's first obligation to its citizens. I ask my 
colleagues to remember these words by General Fogelman, Chief of Staff 
of the Air Force:

       When I look back to the debacles this country has gotten 
     itself into coming out of a period similar to what we are in 
     [now], in many cases it has been because we have ignored the 
     threats that we could not see . . . We were not sharp enough 
     to pick them up . . . If we do not look to the future I think 
     we are going to find ourselves faced with that kind of 
     situation.

  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and 
ask that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I assume that all time has been used in 
opposition to the Exon, et al., amendment.
  I would like to inquire as to how much time is left on our side on 
the Exon, et al., amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes and 14 seconds the Senator from 
Nebraska controls.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I might 
need.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd, a member of 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Feingold from Wisconsin, and 
Senator Harkin from Iowa be added as cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in the limited time that I have remaining I 
would like to have the opportunity to recap the arguments for the Exon 
amendment.
  I would first like to point out for the full understanding of all 
that this is the only amendment that has any chance or likelihood of 
passage for making any meaningful reduction not previously contemplated 
in the defense budget. I voted against the previous amendment by 
Senator Wellstone that would have reduced and eliminated all of the $13 
billion increase over and above what was requested in the President's 
budget and not requested in the Pentagon's budget.
  I simply say that all should understand that in essence the Exon 
amendment sponsored by many of my colleagues is in net effect reducing 
by only $2.4 billion the spending authorized by the Armed Services 
Committee and the combined action with the budget resolution. That is a 
far cry from the attempt by the Senator from Minnesota that--which this 
Senator had some sympathy for--I voted against, an attempt to show how 
reasonable and how minimal the approach is as being offered by this 
Senator from Nebraska and several of my colleagues.
  To put it another way, it is quite similar in its total approach to a 
measure of 2 years ago commonly called the Exon-Grassley amendment that 
made minor reductions in the defense authorization bill but was scorned 
at that time by some as though we were trying to devastate the national 
security interests of the United States. Let me explain further how 
minimal this proposition is.
  There has been a great deal of talk today about the fact that there 
was a reasonable proposal that would follow to be offered by the 
Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Georgia which would 
reduce the Defense authorization bill from the figure of $13 billion 
increase over and above what the President and the Pentagon had 
requested down to $11.4 billion. That would be about a $1.6 billion 
decrease from what the Armed Services Committee had authorized.

  The facts are, as I suspect the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member would agree, they have no alternative. The Senate has 
already spoken in the budget resolution. The budget resolution reduced 
the $13 billion 1-year increase, over and above what the President and 
the Pentagon want, down to $11.4 billion. That was in the budget 
resolution. Obviously, unless that was reduced from a $13 billion 
increase over and above what the President and the Pentagon want, the 
authorization bill by the Armed Services Committee would be in 
violation of the Budget Act. So the fact that we are about to be 
offered an opportunity to cut the fabulous increase by $1.6 billion is 
a foregone conclusion because we had already acted on that previously 
on the budget resolution.
  Therefore, it is hard to say that that is a real cut. Likewise, the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska and others takes that 
$1.6 billion that we have agreed to now to be reduced and added an 
additional $2.4 billion cut or decrease over and above what the 
President and the Pentagon requested, for a net increase--a net 
increase for 1 year, mind you--of $9 billion over and above what the 
President and the Pentagon requested.
  That is a pretty healthy increase. If there is anyone on this floor 
who wishes to show some modest, reasonable

[[Page S6960]]

step toward balancing the budget of the United States, the thing to do 
today would be to say, OK, we have to give some with regard to the 
defense budget, because the defense budget, obviously, with its vast 
multibillion-dollar increase, while we are reducing the real needs of 
Medicare and Medicaid and education and the environment and other 
programs, flies in the face of reality.
  Another way to put that, Mr. President, would be to say this is a 
chance for people who preach fiscal discipline, who want a balanced 
budget by the year 2002, who want a constitutional amendment to 
guarantee that by the year 2002, with this modest amendment offered by 
the Senator from Nebraska and others to practice what they preach.
  There have been some things said today in this Chamber during this 
debate about Admiral Boorda, our late and dear colleague, who was very 
close to this particular Senator. The statement has been made that 
Admiral Boorda was asked what more money could he use as head of the 
Navy if he had it.
  That is like saying to a military leader, is there anything at all 
that you would like to have if you had a blank check?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator's 8 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. EXON. Have I used up my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I simply say that Admiral Boorda or any other military 
leader, given such an opportunity, would be derelict in his duty, it 
seems to me, if he could not come up with some concept or idea. That is 
the wish list that I talked about earlier.
  The last time I saw Admiral Boorda was shortly before his death when 
he came to my office. I said, ``What can I do for you, admiral?'' He 
said, ``You can't do anything for me, Senator. I just want to thank you 
for the great support that you have given the U.S. Navy all of these 
years.''

  So I do not propose to speak for Admiral Boorda, but I simply say 
that I think Admiral Boorda, when he signed onto the real needs of the 
Navy, meant just what he said. And I suspect that if Admiral Boorda 
were here, he would say that you should take a close look, Senators, at 
adding $9 billion over what myself and other members of the Joint 
Chiefs recommended as incorporated in the President's budget.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks there be printed in the Record a letter dated June 19, 1996, to 
myself, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Kohl, from the Taxpayers for 
Common $ense in support of the Exon amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Taxpayers for Common $ense,

                                                    June 19, 1996.
     Hon. James Exon,
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Senators Exon, Bingaman and Kohl: Taxpayers for Common 
     $ense is pleased to support your amendments to the FY 97 
     defense authorization bill to cut the overall level of 
     defense spending by $4 billion. With Congress working to 
     reduce the deficit, this cut is a fair compromise on the 
     defense budget.
       The Department of Defense (DOD) bill authorizes $13 billion 
     in budget authority above the President's request. It seems 
     questionable to offer such a large increase to the budget of 
     an agency whose accounting systems and practices are so weak. 
     In 1995, the DOD Comptroller gave up trying to find $15 
     billion in ``missing'' DOD funds. Government investigations 
     have revealed that out of 36 Pentagon agencies audited last 
     year, 28 of them used records ``in such terrible condition'' 
     that their financial statements were ``utterly useless.''
       Every agency is being asked to examine its own budget and 
     implement effective spending strategies. In light of the fact 
     that $4.6 billion of the Committee's $13 billion increase was 
     not in the Future Years Defense Plan, a $4 billion cut merely 
     attempts to bring the defense budget in line with all the 
     other agencies.
       Taxpayers for Common $ense supports your efforts in working 
     toward a balanced budget. This amendment is the first step 
     toward fiscal responsibility for the Pentagon. We urge all 
     members of the Senate to support your amendments.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ralph DeGennaro,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Thurmond is recognized.

                          ____________________