[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6960-S6968]
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 the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. May I inquire of the Chair as to the anticipated 
procedures? I understand we are stacking votes until sometime to be 
determined later by the two leaders. I assume that the next order of 
business under the unanimous-consent agreement would be the amendment 
to be offered by the distinguished chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member with 20 minutes equally divided. Is that now the pending 
business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4346

 (Purpose: To reduce the total funding authorized in the bill for the 
   national defense function to the level provided in the Concurrent 
             Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1997)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Nunn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for himself 
     and Mr. Nunn, proposes an amendment numbered 4346.

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

       After section 3, add the following:

     SEC. 4. GENERAL LIMITATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total 
     amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for 
     the national defense function under the provisions of this 
     Act is $265,583,000,000.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment recognizes that the 
Defense authorization bill is currently $1.7 billion over the amounts 
provided for in the concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 1997, 
and reduces the spending authorizations in this bill to comply with the 
budget resolution.
  Mr. President, the committee finished its markup of the Defense 
authorization bill prior to the budget resolution being resolved and 
even before the Senate version was passed. This amendment reduces the 
spending amounts authorized in this bill to be in compliance with the 
fiscal year 1997 budget resolution.

[[Page S6961]]

  It is a simple amendment. Senator Nunn and I ask for our colleagues' 
support. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond. We are offering 
this amendment to reduce the overall funding level in this bill to 
comply with the budget resolution.
  Although the authorization bill is not technically required to 
conform to the budget resolution, our committee has always tried to 
conform its recommendations to the budget resolution, to the maximum 
extent possible, in order to keep our work relevant to the overall 
process and to give firmer guidance to the appropriations bill.
  This amendment lowers the national defense total funding authorized 
in this bill by $1.8 billion, to a level providing for the national 
defense function contained in the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution of 
$265.583 billion.
  This amendment is in the form of an overall reduction. It does not 
attempt to amend the bill in the dozens of places that would be 
necessary to make all the detailed reductions, nor does it spell out 
the even more numerous changes to all the line items in the report 
language but which are not part of the bill. In my view, that kind of 
procedure is not necessary or productive at this time.
  This amendment ensures, however, that the total authorized for 
defense in this bill matches the budget resolution. The committee will 
make the appropriate detailed adjustments during our conference 
negotiations.
  Mr. President, I will just take a brief period here to explain how we 
got to this point. The answer is simple. When we marked up our bill, 
there was no 1997 budget resolution number to mark to--no House number, 
no Senate number, no conference number. Our colleagues in the House 
were in the same situation. Their bill was reported and brought to the 
floor even earlier than this bill was. The House did not lower their 
version of this authorization bill on the floor to comply with the 
budget resolution. Their bill passed the House on May 15, before the 
budget resolution had gone to conference or even passed the Senate. The 
House bill exceeds the final defense spending level in the budget 
resolution by $1.1 billion in budget authority and eight-tenths of a 
billion in outlays. This armed services bill was ordered reported on 
May 2, while the Senate version of the 1997 budget resolution was not 
ordered reported until May 9.

  Because this bill was marked up before there was a Senate budget 
resolution or a House budget resolution defense number for 1997, we 
used the target for fiscal 1997 from last year's fiscal budget 
resolution, which was $267.3 billion in budget authority. It was the 
only funding target available for us to use. Furthermore, although the 
House version, like the Senate version, was reported after our Senate 
Armed Services Committee markup was completed, the defense number in 
the House version of this year's budget resolution was $267.2 billion 
in budget authority and was also consistent with the guidance from last 
year. In other words, we had two different numbers from the House and 
Senate that had to be reconciled in conference.
  Even after we did get the top line funding targets from the Budget 
Committees, we still had no definitive guidance about what our number 
would be. Since one of those two targets was basically what we had 
marked to, there was at least a chance we were already at the right 
number. So it did not make sense to try to change it before the budget 
resolution conference was concluded. So it was not until the budget 
resolution conference completed it on June 7, and adopted it on June 
13, that we knew what the defense number would be. The budget 
resolution conferees adopted the Senate's defense number. According to 
the Congressional Budget Office, the national defense authorization 
level in our bill was equivalent to $267.4 billion in budget authority 
and compared to the budget resolution's budget authority level for 
national defense of $265.6 billion. That means our bill is over the 
budget resolution conference by $1.779 billion in budget authority, 
although it is right on target in terms of outlays, or actual cash. 
Because our bill was sequentially referred to the Intelligence 
Committee, which reported it out on June 11, for all practical 
purposes, we had no way to redo the bill before it came to the floor.
  Mr. President, I have explained why it is impractical, if not 
impossible, to redo our bill to comply with the budget resolution 
before considering this bill on the Senate floor. However, this 
amendment will bring the bill into compliance with the budget 
resolution number.
  This amendment would reduce the amount in the bill by $1.8 billion. 
The bill would be $11.2 billion above the President's budget request, 
but, again, will be lower than last year's bill and last year's defense 
total in real terms. So the defense budget is still coming down, in 
real terms, and this amendment will not change that.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Thurmond-Nunn amendment, 
and I also urge the Senate to vote against the Exon amendment, which 
cuts more substantially than does the Thurmond-Nunn amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest we yield back the time, and we 
will do so on our side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield back all the time we may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4347

  (Purpose: To restore funding for certain educational and employment 
assistance programs to levels requested by the President in authorizing 
 the Secretary of Defense to transfer defense funds that are excess to 
the funding levels provided in the future-years defense program and to 
 other funding objectives of the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief 
   of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the 
                    Commandant of the Marine Corps)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to, in a moment, send an 
amendment to the desk in behalf of myself, Senator Bumpers, Senator 
Boxer, Senator Feingold, Senator Harkin, and Senator Wyden. We may have 
other cosponsors to add.
  I send an amendment to the desk
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Bumpers, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. 
     Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 4347.

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

       At the end of subtitle A of title X add the following:

     SEC. ____. TRANSFERS FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Education Programs.--Of the total amount authorized to 
     be appropriated for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 
     1997 pursuant to the authorizations of appropriations 
     contained in this Act, the Secretary of Defense is authorized 
     to transfer to the Secretary of Education--
       (1) $577,000,000, to carry out subpart 1 of part A of title 
     IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a), 
     relating to Federal Pell Grants;
       (2) $158,000,000, to carry out part E of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087aa et seq.), 
     relating to Federal Perkins Loans; and
       (3) $71,000,000, to carry out part D of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.), 
     relating to Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans.
       (b) Employment Assistance Programs.--Of the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense 
     for fiscal year 1997 pursuant to the authorizations of 
     appropriations contained in this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense is authorized to transfer to the Secretary of Labor--
       (1) $193,000,000, to provide employment and training 
     assistance to dislocated workers under title III of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.);
       (2) $246,000,000, to carry out summer youth employment and 
     training programs under part B of title II of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1630 et seq.);
       (3) $25,000,000, to carry out School-to-Work Opportunities 
     programs under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 
     (20 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.); and

[[Page S6962]]

       (4) $40,000,000, to carry out activities, including 
     activities provided through one-stop centers, under the 
     Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.).

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment takes a small part of the over $13 
billion more authorized for the Pentagon than the Pentagon requested, 
and out of this figure--initially it was $13 billion and now after 
adoption of the Nunn-Thurmond amendment it will be about $11 billion--
this amendment transfers by way of authorization $1.3 billion. In other 
words, out of the original $13 billion--that is over what the Pentagon 
says it needs for our defense, now pared down a little bit--this 
amendment would take $1.3 billion and transfer that to a number of 
different key education and job retraining programs.
  I am going to spend most of my time talking about higher education, 
because when I think about what regular people talk about I can tell 
you right now that in Minnesota, families are talking about the cost of 
higher education and how it can be more affordable for their children 
or their grandchildren, or for themselves.
  This amendment restores funding to the level authorized by the 
President for the following programs: Pell grants, $577 million--
Perkins loans, $158 million; direct student loans, $71 million. So the 
higher education total is about $806 million.
  In addition, there are some other programs that we want to at least 
get back to the level of authorization in the President's proposal. 
Dislocated workers, $193 million; summer youth jobs, $246 million; 
School-to-Work, $25 million; and One-Stop Job Training Centers, $40 
million.
  I do not think it is too much to ask, given the priorities of regular 
people, of families across the country, that we transfer $193 million 
out of an overstuffed military budget, for dislocated workers; that is 
to say, men and women who are out of work because of plant closings, 
out of work because of restructuring and downsizing. This is the story 
of America. People can work hard all their lives and all of a sudden 
find themselves out of work.
  I am saying, what are we doing as I look at what the House has now 
proposed, cutting funding for dislocated workers? What kind of a 
distorted priority is that?
  Summer youth jobs: This is a program that has had strong bipartisan 
support for a good many years. We cannot restore $246 million for the 
whole Nation for summer youth jobs?
  Again, I want Senators who are going to vote on this amendment to 
understand how modest this proposal is. I am talking about taking just 
$246 million and restoring the authorization level that the President 
requested to where it was, $246 million more than had been cut from 
summer youth jobs.
  Senators, if we are concerned about young people, if we are concerned 
about the violence in our communities, then we have to have positive 
alternatives for young people.
  When I talk to people who are working in their communities and are 
down in the trenches dealing with problems of violence, problems of 
recidivism, and problems of young people, they put a strong emphasis on 
summer job programs.
  School-to-Work: A sum total of $25 million. This puts students in, if 
you will, real life situations. It connects the schooling to a work 
experience. It is enormously successful.
  We had testimony in the Labor and Human Resources Committee from 
labor, from business, from people in metropolitan communities, from 
people in rural communities, all saying that the School-to-Work Program 
is a huge success. What are we doing cutting opportunity programs for 
children in America?
  Finally, One-Stop Job Training Centers, $40 million we want to 
restore--$40 million for a program, again, that has been enormously 
successful in Minnesota, with my State among those, by the way, taking 
the lead, eliminating a lot of the duplication, eliminating a lot of 
the bureaucracy and providing a job training program that makes sense 
for our citizens who are anxious to be retrained and to find 
employment.
  I thought that was what it was all about--employment opportunities 
for Americans, employment opportunities for Minnesotans, employment 
opportunities for men and women in our country.

  Mr. President, that is a total of $504 million for key job training 
efforts. I am talking about programs that work, that have a proven 
track record. I am talking about the fact that we do not or ought not 
to cut into assistance for dislocated workers. We ought not to cut 
summer youth job programs. We ought not to cut the School-to-Work 
Program, and we ought not to cut job training programs. These are 
distorted priorities.
  We do not know what the Senate appropriators are going to do yet in 
these areas. But we look at the House, and we already see where they 
are heading. They just do not get it. Well, this amendment is an effort 
to prompt the U.S. Senate to now speak on this question, and hopefully 
to temper the passions of extremists in the House who would slash these 
programs.
  Mr. President, let me talk about higher education and provide some 
context first.
  In terms of education funding, just looking from 1992 to 1997, which 
is a critical period of time that we ought to look at, the time the 
President came in until now, what you had was from 1994 to fiscal year 
1995 small increases for funding for education across the board, higher 
education being the main piece for the Federal Government.
  But starting in fiscal year 1995 with the rescissions bill, and then 
with this year's appropriations bill and the fiscal year 1996 and 
fiscal year 1997 budget resolutions, each year since the new majority 
came in we have seen a percentage cut in the Federal commitment to 
education. For example, in the Federal commitment to title I, a program 
that gives kids that come from difficult backgrounds an opportunity; 
cuts in vocational education; cuts in School-to-Work; cuts in Head 
Start; cuts in Pell grants; cuts in low-interest loan programs; cuts in 
direct student loan programs.
  Mr. President, these are distorted priorities, and this amendment is 
but a small step to restore about $1.3 billion--$1.3 billion--from what 
was an original overrun of $13 billion, likely soon to be about $11.5 
billion. Just take one-tenth--10 percent--of this additional 
expenditure of money that the Pentagon did not ask for, take 10 percent 
of it and invest it in education, take 10 percent of it and invest it 
in programs that benefit dislocated workers, invest it in job training, 
invest it in summer youth programs. I do not know how the Senate can 
vote no. This is such a clear priority to me.
  Mr. President, these education cuts deny opportunity to young people 
and, as a matter of fact, not so young people, since many of our 
college students, community college students are 40, 45 when they go 
back to school. I thought that we were all about expanding 
opportunities. Well, this is an effort to at least restore some 
semblance of funding to higher education.
  Newsweek, April 29, 1996, had a jarring front page:

       $1,000 a week
       The Scary Cost of College

  Private college, not every week of the year, but tuition, room and 
board and other expenses, $1,000 a week. Senators, if you do not think 
this is not a middle-class issue, if you do not think the cost of 
higher education does not cut across a broad spectrum of the 
population, and if you do not think a vast majority of people in cafes 
all across Minnesota and all across this country do not believe it 
appropriate to take just $1.3 billion out of a bloated military budget 
to cover the cost of higher education--Pell grants, low interest 
Perkins loan program, or the direct loan program--then I just think 
you're making a huge mistake.
  Look at this next chart. ``The Price of Public Universities.'' We 
talked about private universities. ``Average total expenses estimated 
for a 4-year public education.'' Just looking at the costs from 1980 to 
1996, costs went from $6,000 to $9,000, in constant 1996 dollars--
$6,000 average cost for a 4-year public education, higher education, 
now up to $9,000, the price of public universities.
  Senators, this is why so many of the students that I meet in 
Minnesota take 5 or 6 or 7 years to graduate, because they are working 
two and three minimum wage jobs to cover the costs, and the financial 
aid package they get by way of Pell grants and the Perkins loan program 
does not cover it.

[[Page S6963]]

  I have said it before and I will say it again. I meet students over 
and over and over again that take 6 years to graduate because they are 
having to work 35 and 40 hours a week because we are not doing our job 
here. We have not responded.
  We have not responded to the basic concern of families in Michigan, 
in Minnesota and across the country because what they are saying to us 
is, if there is a role for the public sector and a role for Government, 
it certainly is in making sure higher education is affordable.
  Next chart.
  This is ``Growth in Per Capita Personal Income v. Tuition and Fees.'' 
Community colleges, as you look at this from 1978-79 to 1994-95, this 
period of time, for community colleges tuition fees have gone up 239 
percent, per capita personal income 159 percent; technical colleges 
have gone up 416 percent, per capita personal income 159 percent; State 
universities have gone up 200 percent. The University of Minnesota has 
gone up 178 percent.
  So the point is that what we have is a situation where for the vast 
majority of families in Minnesota and in the country this is a huge 
economic squeeze. It is imperative that we provide some assistance. And 
this amendment says that if you are going to look at what our 
priorities ought to be, we should take at least $1.3 billion out of the 
Pentagon budget, with an authorization soon to be about $11 or $11.5 
billion more than requested, we can take 10 percent of that and 
transfer that funding to at least provide more assistance in the form 
of Pell grants, low interest loans, summer job programs, and so on.
  Mr. President, just look at the Federal Pell grant awards from 1973-
74 to 1994-95. In 1975-76, the actual maximum award of a Pell grant was 
$3,649, in real dollar terms. It is now down to $2,268.
  So what happens with most students is that as they look at their 
financial aid packages, they get very little by way of grants, and 
middle-class families feel this more than anybody. If you are low 
income, you at least are going to be able to obtain some grant 
assistance. If you are wealthy and high income, you can pay for it, 
your family can pay for it. But for the bottom 80 percent of the 
population or certainly those people who are in the huge middle, they 
are fast becoming unable to afford higher education.
  What this amendment says, one more time, is that out of the total 
Pentagon budget, now authorized at over $13 billion more than the 
Pentagon even says it needs, we should be able to transfer $1.3 billion 
to at least get the Pell grants, to get the Perkins low interest loans, 
to get the direct student loans, to get school-to-work, to get summer 
youth jobs, to get key job training programs up to the authorization 
level the President requested. That is what this amendment is all 
about.
  Mr. President, I designed this amendment as a very moderate approach, 
and I am hoping to get widespread support for it. I do think this 
amendment represents a little bit of a test case as to what our 
priorities are all about, because it does seem to me that the vast 
majority of people in the country have spoken. They have spoken in 
polls, they speak to us when we have town meetings back in our States, 
they come up and talk to us when we are in cafes. All the time, people 
are coming up and they are saying, ``If you want to do one thing, 
Senator, that would really help my family, please try to make higher 
education more affordable.''
  This amendment does exactly that. It is only a small step. It only 
transfers $1.3 billion out of a total defense budget of $267 billion. I 
would argue that affordable higher education is in our national 
security interests. Students having opportunities is in our national 
security interests. Investment in education is in our national security 
interests. Providing a little more funding for the Pell Grant Program 
is in our national security interests.
  Out of a $267 billion budget authorization for the Pentagon, with all 
the reports that we have had about the waste and the inefficiencies and 
the moneys that can be saved, we cannot transfer $1.3 billion for 
education? That is what this amendment is all about. That is what this 
amendment is all about.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Other Senators may 
be down here to speak. I reserve the remainder of my time to follow up 
on what my colleagues might say on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Wellstone 
amendment, which would reduce defense spending to below the budget 
resolution.
  Let me be clear, Mr. President. The amendment that has been offered 
is really a nullification of the Budget Committees' recommended 
increase to the President's budget request. I believe that the Budget 
Committee has acted wisely and prudently in recommending an increase to 
the President's inadequate request for defense.
  In order to buy the same level of national security in 1997 as we did 
in 1996, the defense budget would have to be $273 billion. The 
President's request is $18.6 billion below this. The Budget resolution 
proposes to increase the budget for defense by $11.2 billion; 
therefore, we are still $7.4 billion lower than the fiscal year 1996 
level of funding in real terms. Does the Senator from Minnesota believe 
that our Armed Forces will be asked to do less in fiscal year 1997 than 
they did in fiscal year 1996?
  The question we should be asking, therefore, is not whether we should 
be reducing the defense budget even further. Rather the question should 
be: What additional risks are we taking by not increasing the defense 
budget to the $273 billion necessary to maintain the fiscal year 1996 
level of military capability? Our Nation's top military leaders answer 
that question.
  General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says he is 
``very concerned that our procurement accounts are not where they ought 
to be.''
  General Reimer, Army Chief of Staff, says that ``further deferral of 
modernization will incur significant risk to future readiness.''
  Admiral Boorda, former Chief of Naval Operations, said: ``If we do 
not modernize, we ultimately place future readiness at risk.''
  General Fogleman, Air Force Chief of Staff, says that ``Unless we 
recapitalize, we are not going to be ready to meet the threats of the 
future.''
  And General Krulak, Marine Corps Commandant, says that: ``The Marine 
Corps * * * cannot absorb further reductions without sacrificing 
critical core capabilities.''
  Even Secretary of Defense Perry admits that without an immediate 
increase in modernization--of which procurement is the major part--``we 
will start to have a real problem.'' Mr. President, when our top 
civilian and military leaders use terms such as ``very concerned,'' 
``significant risk,'' ``critical'' and ``real problem'' in open 
testimony, one can only imagine what their private assessments would 
be.
  Our defense needs are underfunded, from both a historical and 
operational point of view. We are at the lowest level of defense 
spending since 1950. Procurement has been reduced by 70 percent since 
1985, and by more than 40 percent under the Clinton administration. 
Programs to support our service men and women's quality of life are 
inadequate. Our ability to protect our soldiers from ballistic missile 
attacks suffers from lack of funding and commitment. Our military 
research and development is anemic. If anything, we should be 
considering amendments which provide floors--not ceilings--on defense 
funding.
  I realize that our great Nation has numerous domestic and 
international obligations. But none--I repeat, none--of these 
obligations rises to the level of our responsibility to provide for the 
common defense. Protection of our Nation's citizens is the Federal 
Government's first order of business. Without meeting this paramount 
obligation, the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness can easily become empty promises.
  Defense spending is now at its lowest level in the second half of 
this century. This half century has been the era of American superpower 
status. Our superpower status is not something we can maintain cheaply. 
We won the cold war through our steadfastness and robust military 
capabilities. Yet, we are asked by the administration and supporters of 
this amendment to continue undermining our military capabilities.
  I hope the Members of the Senate will agree with me that we cannot 
afford for our Nation to be less vigilant,

[[Page S6964]]

less capable, and less ready. I strongly urge the Senate to vote 
against the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will not make long remarks. I endorse the 
remarks made by my colleague and chairman of the committee, Senator 
Thurmond.
  I would also say, in all deference to my good friend, Senator 
Wellstone, this is a debate that we have had already this year. That 
was on the budget resolution. This is shifting money from the defense 
account to the education account. I am a strong supporter of education. 
I have been a strong supporter of education since I have been in the 
Senate. I think some of the recommendations from the majority side, 
both the House and Senate, have been much too severe on education. I 
applaud President Clinton's strong stand on behalf of education.
  But that debate is over for this year. We have already decided the 
budget resolution. This would revisit the budget resolution and would 
reverse the basic allocations made after a large and long debate on the 
budget resolution, so I urge defeat of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, just a quick response to 
the Senator from South Carolina, whom I consider to be a good friend. I 
say this out of friendship. This amendment would not necessarily mean 
that we would be below the budget resolution because the amendment that 
he and Senator Nunn have introduced has not been agreed to yet.
  So it is not quite the case yet. But, more important, Mr. President, 
out of $267 billion, we cannot find $1.3 billion when you have the 
Pentagon's own spending watchdog saying last year they concluded they 
did not even know how they spent $13 billion, did not even know what 
happened to the money, and you are saying to me that we cannot find 
$1.3 billion to restore some funding for Pell grants, to restore some 
funding for Perkins low-interest loans, to restore funding so higher 
education is more affordable, to restore some funding for dislocated 
workers, for the School-to-Work Program, for the summer jobs program?
  I think it is just a distorted priority. I am tempted to ask my 
colleagues from every State, Democrats and Republicans alike, don't you 
find students that are just having an impossible time affording their 
college education?
  Don't you have parents coming up to you and saying, ``Can't you do 
something to make sure higher education is more affordable?''
  Don't you find that in your States, there are all sorts of students 
who are not receiving the grants and the loans that they need?
  Don't you find that educational opportunities are being narrowed for 
your citizens?
  Don't you believe that this goes against the national interest for 
our country?
  Don't you think that the citizens back in your States, whether they 
are Democrats or Republicans, believe it is a reasonable proposition 
that we can take $1.3 billion out of a $267 billion authorization and 
transfer that so we can do a little bit better by way of supporting 
education; that we can take $1.3 billion--that is about 10 percent of 
the additional $11 billion that is over what the Pentagon even asked 
for, and less than 1 percent of the overall defense budget--and put it 
into education? I mean, I think that regular people believe that this 
amendment is eminently reasonable. I think the vast majority of 
citizens in this country believe that to be the case.
  Look, we heard all this discussion about a strong defense, and I 
admire my colleagues. I do not think there is anybody in the Senate who 
does not defer to Senator Nunn when it comes to his expertise, his 
commitment to our national security. His retirement from the Senate is 
a huge loss for the country. But I also know that we continue to have 
some of these problems of add-on projects, accelerating expenditures of 
money for weapons systems, some of which could be obsolete.
  By spending far more than the Pentagon requested, we are prejudging 
the major study that we all voted for yesterday, to really look at our 
force structure and to really look at modernization and a host of other 
issues. There is pork in this bill. There are special projects for 
Senators back in their States. There is waste and inefficiency in this 
bill, and out of $267 billion, we ought to be able to find $1.3 billion 
to support education and support dislocated workers and support job 
training and support summer youth jobs. I think I speak for the vast 
majority of the people in the country.
  Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time. I also ask 
unanimous consent to add Senator Pell as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are other colleagues who 
mentioned to me that they wanted to speak on the amendment. They have 
been trying to get down, so I am reluctant to give up all of the time. 
I wonder if Senators on the other side want to speak, or should we go 
into a quorum call?
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I announce to the Senate that if any 
Members want to speak on this amendment, now is the time. We do not 
want to stay here days and days when we can finish this bill in a 
reasonable time. I hope they will come to the floor. Those who are 
watching on television, if their staffs are watching on television, get 
the Senators here to present their amendments so we can proceed and 
make progress on this bill.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask it to be 
charged equally to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I now yield to the able Senator from New 
Mexico 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand full well Senator 
Wellstone's sentiment with reference to other programs of the Federal 
Government besides defense. I even understand how he specifically would 
like more money spent in other areas. But I would like the Senate to 
know that this Wellstone amendment is just a clever effort to avoid a 
point of order.
  But before I make that case, let me say the Senate has spoken, not 
once, not twice, but, if I count correctly, one, two, three, four, 
five--has voted five times during this particular year to deny further 
restraints on defense spending.
  When the budget resolution came before the Senate, there was an 
effort to reduce it by $8 billion. It lost. We had an opportunity for 
the U.S. Senate to speak its piece on this issue and make up its mind 
what it wanted to do on behalf of the defense of our country. We had 
another vote. Senator Bumpers, on that same resolution, attempted to 
remove the firewall. That lost. In fact, it lost by a rather 
significant margin.
  The firewall speaks most to this issue because what we have decided 
in the U.S. Congress--and the U.S. Senate has led that--we do not want 
to put the defense of our country into competition with all of the 
social welfare programs of our Nation, however good they may be; that 
we do not want the appropriators, as much as we respect them and give 
them the jurisdiction over spending the money, we do not want them to 
put additional needs of some social welfare program up against defense 
and say, ``Let's cut defense this year and use it on these other 
programs.'' That is why we put up a firewall.
  The firewall is simple yet profound. Do not put the defense of our 
Nation under that kind of pressure on individual votes here in the U.S. 
Congress. If, in fact, you want to reduce defense, do it on a straight 
vote to reduce defense and then put the savings on the deficit so you 
are not tempted to try to reduce defense, perhaps beyond what it ought 
to be reduced, in favor of paying for some social welfare program that

[[Page S6965]]

maybe even everybody in the Senate might support. That is two times we 
voted.
  Then we voted final passage of the budget resolution. It passed with 
a defense number in it that is just slightly different from the total 
authorization in this bill. Now, that is three times that the Senate 
would have spoken under the proposition that when you vote you mean 
what you say.

  Then we went to conference and we came back. In conference, the House 
agreed to the defense number of the Senate. The Senate voted again and 
said that is what we want to do this year. In that was this firewall, 
saying, ``Don't put the social welfare structure of our Nation in 
competition with the defense money needed for our national defense and 
the men and women who are supporting us in all the various ways that we 
have to help them in that effort in a defense authorization bill.''
  Then, Senator Wellstone comes and wants to take $13 billion out of 
defense, and that is turned down by the U.S. Senate. Later today, we 
will vote on an Exon amendment which would reduce the defense spending 
by $4 billion. My suspicion is that will get turned down.
  Now, what we have is an amendment that says the Secretary of 
Defense--can you imagine, the Secretary of Defense--is going to be 
given the authority to transfer $1.3 billion of defense money to the 
Secretaries of Education and Labor. Now, how can we have something that 
is more in defiance of what we have already voted to support, which is 
this firewall between the domestic programs and the defense programs, 
than this circuitous way of getting around those firewalls?
  If this were a Department of Defense appropriations bill, Mr. 
President, this amendment would clearly be in violation of the 
firewalls and would be subject to a point of order and require 60 
votes. We did that in the budget this year, last year, and the year 
before, and on previous occasions because we meant business about not 
taking money out of defense every time we thought a program in the 
nondefense area needed more money.
  Now, this is just an attempt to rewrite what we have already decided. 
Everybody should understand that for what it is. Unfortunately, fellow 
Senators, because this is an authorization bill and because of some 
clever drafting, this amendment is not subject to a point of order, but 
it does great harm and violence to the firewall concept which I have 
described now on four different occasions in the few minutes I have 
been before the Senate and why it is important and why we have stood 
for it on a number of occasions with up-or-down votes on the side of, 
``Don't compete between domestic and defense,'' on the floor of the 
Senate.
  It should be known for what it is: A clear attempt to violate the 
firewall. This amendment would also, in my opinion, make very bad law. 
Do we want to authorize education and labor programs in a Department of 
Defense bill? Do we want to make the Secretary of Defense responsible 
for authorizing or not of Pell grants? In my opinion, not only does 
this not make sense; it has the potential as a precedent for doing 
great harm to our ability to defend our Nation. This amendment is an 
artful attempt to violate the firewalls that Congress has already 
adopted. I repeat, in addition, it makes very little sense to adopt a 
budget resolution, adopt firewalls, come to the Senate floor debating a 
defense authorization bill that is still subject to appropriations, and 
have an amendment that says the Secretary has the discretion to 
transfer money from defense to education or to the Labor Department of 
the U.S. Government.
  I do not know the pleasure of the managers, whether they will table 
or let this amendment be voted up or down. I believe we ought to let it 
have an up-or-down vote because I think we ought to speak very loudly 
and very clearly that we do not change our mind on something as 
important as defense and establish new precedence, in new ways, to have 
other programs compete with it just on a basis of who gets down here 
with what kind of clever amendment speaking to some kind of emotional 
need in an emotional way about something that is needed in our country.

  I will not deny if we had all the money in the world, we might spend 
money on some of the things that my friend, Senator Wellstone, is 
talking about and perhaps spend more than we will on this budget 
resolution and appropriations, but I believe to do it this way defies 
common sense and it just should not be done and the Senate should send 
a very loud signal that this is what it is doing. It is not just trying 
to fund education and labor, it is trying to, in a round about way, 
destroy a concept that has been in place, supported by a majority of 
the Senate, for a very valid reason. Do not place the social welfare 
programs, heads-up, in competition for the defense spending of this 
Government once you have established the priorities by vote of the U.S. 
Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator from Minnesota
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the compliments of my 
colleague from New Mexico about how cleverly designed this amendment 
and how creative this amendment is. I say to my colleague that since we 
are authorizing initially $13 billion and soon over $11 billion more 
than the Secretary of Defense requested, it seems to me only 
appropriate that the Secretary of Defense might be given the 
opportunity to, in fact, say, ``Yes, we did not ask for it, and we do 
not need it, and as the Secretary of Defense, I know what is critical 
to the defense of this country.'' It is not what my colleague called 
social welfare programs, but an investment in education.
  This amendment gives the Secretary of Defense the opportunity to say 
that for military readiness, for our country doing well economically, 
for children having opportunities, for higher education being 
affordable, this makes eminently good sense, to take $1.3 billion out 
of $267 billion and put it into Pell grants, put it into low-interest 
loans, put it into summer youth programs.
  Mr. President, again, we have the comptroller writing a report saying 
last year in the Pentagon budget they did not even know where $13 
billion went. They did not know where it went.
  Other Senators, including Senators on the Armed Services Committee, 
talk about all the add-ons. We know about some of these special 
projects. We know about some of the pork. We know about some of the 
accelerated spending for some of these weapons programs, some of which 
may very well be obsolete. Nobody is sacrificing the national defense 
of our country.

  Ask any citizen in any cafe anywhere in the United States of America 
whether they think taking $1.3 billion out of $267 billion is some kind 
of a major transgression or is a step backward for our country. Ask the 
people in your different States, as they see their student enrollment 
grow in K through 12 and our commitment go down as we cut funds for 
kids in schools, while the enrollment grows in New Mexico, or Idaho, or 
Georgia, or Vermont, or Minnesota, whether they think it is 
unreasonable.
  I do not think the amendment is just clever. I think the amendment 
goes to the very heart of what our priorities are. I do not think the 
people in our States find unreasonable the proposition that we take 
$1.3 billion out of $267 billion and put it into these priority 
programs, take $1.3 billion out of the $13 billion that the Pentagon 
did not even ask for, and put it into Pell grants, low-interest student 
loan programs, summer jobs programs, dislocated worker programs, job 
training programs, school-to-work programs.
  I think a vote against this amendment is a vote against our national 
security. I think a vote against this amendment is a vote against our 
national defense because, surely, there is pork in this $267 billion, 
surely, there is some inefficiency, surely, there is a little bit by 
way of add-on projects so that we can, in fact, transfer $1.3 billion 
to what we say are our priorities. We all love to have photo 
opportunities next to young people. We all like to talk about their 
futures. We all like to tell them that they are the future. But when it 
comes to reaching into our pockets and making the investment, all of a 
sudden we are saying $1.3 billion is too much. I do not think that is 
credible.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to commend the able Senator

[[Page S6966]]

from New Mexico for his timely and excellent remarks on this subject.
  Mr. President, I now yield to the able Senator from Idaho such time 
as he may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. President, let us make it very clear, this is the 12th straight 
year that we have seen reductions in the defense authorization bill, 
the spending for defense.
  I appreciate my friend who is offering this amendment, and I am not 
going to stand here and in any way speak against the intent which may 
be to somehow augment education. But I will stand here steadfastly and 
say you must not take a dime out of this defense authorization bill. We 
do not have a dime that can go to anything else. We have gone too far 
too fast in the reductions of our defense.
  When we held a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Mr. President, we had members of the administration testifying, 
including General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
and the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Bill Perry, who are both tremendous 
men. I asked General Shalikashvili about the issue of procurement, 
``Have we added too much money on procurement and what has our history 
been of that? General Shalikashvili,'' I asked, ``let me ask you this 
with regard to the procurement issue, which is a very key issue. As I 
talk to military personnel in the field, they consider this a 
lifesaving situation. This current fiscal year, the Congress added $7 
billion to that account and some people regarded that as pork.'' I went 
on to say: ``But, as I recall, that went for things such as trucks, 
helicopters, ships for the Navy and Marines, tactical aircraft for the 
Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. Was this equipment needed, or was it 
congressional pork?''
  General Shalikashvili responded:

       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 in 
     all, cases in the long run will result in a savings because 
     we were able to get them sooner and probably at a more 
     advantageous price.

  I asked the Secretary of Defense:

       Dr. Perry, it has been stated that we will find procurement 
     funding increases dependent upon BRAC savings, which is the 
     Base Realignment Commission savings, acquisition reform 
     savings, and optimistic assumptions about low inflation. The 
     administration found $47 billion in the so-called defense 
     savings by assuming inflation will be no higher than 2.3 
     percent over the next 7 years. Over the last 30 years, Mr. 
     Secretary, can you point to any 7-year period where inflation 
     remained this low?

  The response of Secretary Perry: ``No.''
  Yet, that is what we are basing this on--these assumptions. I 
mentioned the Base Realignment Commission. We have already seen them 
lower the estimate on the savings of the Base Realignment Commission, 
because the savings just are not there. As we begin to see the 
environmental costs of cleanup, it is beginning to erode what they 
thought were going to be the savings. Now, that was General 
Shalikashvili and the Secretary of Defense.
  I will tell you, Mr. President, if we had before us any of the rank 
and file in our military, the men and women, and asked them if we have 
provided congressional pork to those who are on the frontline, they 
would tell you in a resounding voice: Absolutely not.
  I can show you, Mr. President, letters I have received from the men 
and women on the frontline--for example, marines on just scratch pads 
that had been scribbled on in the field, but yet sent to us that say, 
``Thank you for providing us, finally, the field jackets that are new, 
because we have been using the World War II field jackets in adverse 
conditions.'' Thanks for the new Kevlar or the Gortex we have been able 
to wear.
  Mr. President, in this Nation's Capital, you see the monuments to 
democracy, and they are impressive. They are impressive to any visitor 
to this great Nation, no matter what country they may be from. As you 
stand on the top steps of the Lincoln Memorial and you look straight 
ahead to the Washington Monument, which reflects our tribute to 
democracy and of what this Nation is founded upon and what is the envy 
of the rest of the world, you cannot look at that Washington Monument 
without seeing the Vietnam Memorial, where etched in those stones are 
the names of 58,200 Americans who gave their lives for this country in 
the name of democracy. You cannot stand at the top of those steps and 
not see to the right the Korean War Memorial and the names etched of 
those brave Americans who gave their lives. Many of them, Mr. 
President, are young kids that wanted to have a future, that wanted to 
have an education, but all of that was denied because they put their 
lives on the line for this country. Directly behind the Lincoln 
Memorial is row upon row of the white crosses of Arlington Cemetery, 
which is a graphic demonstration, Mr. President, that when you look at 
the monuments to democracy, they were paid for by American lives, 
because it is not a safe world.
  Have I simply referenced history and that is all behind us?
  Well, the tragedy is, Mr. President, we learned that more American 
men and women of the service were killed in Saudi Arabia last night. 
Why are they there? Why are they even in Saudi Arabia? Well, because 
they are denying Saddam Hussein the airways because that is a 
terrorist--Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait, and America responded 
with its great might and it brought liberty again to that oppressed 
nation. Saddam Hussein--that is not a good guy.
  Why is it that Red China is doing everything they conceivably can to 
develop a nuclear arsenal with the delivery capability? Is that for 
philanthropic reasons?
  Is the cold war over and now we all can roll up our efforts on 
defense? If you do, it will be the end of America.
  Why is it that North Korea is doing everything they can to develop a 
nuclear arsenal? Why is it that Russia, with all of the difficulties 
that they are currently experiencing, is still turning out state-of-
the-art nuclear submarines?
  Mr. President, it is a troubled world out there. And the only way 
that we make sure that our young men and women of this country have a 
future is to make sure that we defend this country by making sure that 
we have the adequate funds for the defense of this country. And that is 
how we assure them that they can go forward with the education of this 
Nation and have a bright future, and extend democracy throughout this 
great land and be that beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
  But if we start drawing down again on the defense of this country we 
do not have a future because there are people out there that would love 
to topple this tremendous democracy. We must never ever let it happen. 
We must never ever draw our defenses so low that we are vulnerable.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my 
colleague.
  I want to point out that this authorization was initially $13 billion 
in extra military spending. Spending that was not requested by the 
President. That was not requested by the Secretary of Defense. And as 
long as we are talking about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
it was not requested by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  There is not one Senator here that is talking about not having a 
strong defense. The question is, what are we doing spending money that 
is not requested by the Defense Department, by the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, by the President, people who do not want it, and 
at the same time we are not allocating money for kids who need it?
  In the State of Idaho, I do not remember the exact figures, the 
enrollment went up this past year in K-12 by about 3,000 and the State 
is going to be faced with a cut of about $9.3 million.
  It is not unreasonable to talk about this small transfer of funding.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to commend the able Senator 
from Idaho for his excellent remarks on this amendment. The Senator 
from Idaho is a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee. I just 
want to thank him, too, for the contribution that he makes on that 
committee and to our national defense.
  Mr. President, I do not know of anyone else who wishes to speak on 
this

[[Page S6967]]

amendment. If not, I would suggest that we yield the time that is left 
for both sides.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will yield time if the Senator from 
South Carolina has yielded all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending 
amendment is set aside. And the Senate resumes amendment No. 4345.
  There are 2 minutes equally divided.
  The majority manager is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho started to say 
something.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Would it be in 
order for me to ask for 60 seconds to respond to what the Senator from 
Minnesota said?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is in order.
  Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank all Members on the floor for allowing me that 
courtesy.
  Again, I appreciate the vigor with which my friend from Minnesota is 
advocating his position in response to which I said I will tell you 
that there are members of the Armed Services Committee who disagree 
with what the budgets are requiring.
  I also note that I think those men and women in uniform that are 
wearing the stars as general officers are good soldiers. The Commander 
in Chief submitted the budget, and they have to support that budget. 
But I will tell you they are hopeful that we will go ahead and provide 
the funding necessary; not the funds that were requested because they 
are too low.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask unanimous consent for 30 
seconds to respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleagues.
  Again, I do not think we are talking about any decline in the quality 
of life for the men and women who serve our country, or our national 
defense budget. We are talking about eliminating wasteful Congressional 
add-on projects here. We have pork projects here. Senators, we have 
inefficiencies. And we want to cut $1.3 billion, or transfer $1.3 
billion, out of $267 billion. That is all we are talking about. Nobody 
is talking about sacrifice for the men and women that sacrifice for our 
country. That much is clear.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I understand the time is yielded on both 
sides on this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4345

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The pending amendment now is 
amendment No. 4345 with 1 minute to each side.
  Mr. THURMOND. Senator Exon is here now.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank you. I thank my friend from South 
Carolina.
  We have debated this very thoroughly. Basically what the Exon 
amendment does is a very modest decrease in the amount authorized in 
the defense authorization bill. Basically what we are talking about 
here, Mr. President, is simply that the defense committee came up with 
$13 billion over and above the President and the Pentagon which is 
being cut by the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina 
and the Senator from Georgia, down to $11.4. They had to do that anyway 
because that was the amount included in the budget resolution.
  The Exon amendment still allows $9 billion over and above what the 
Pentagon and the President wants. It is a $2.4 billion decrease only 
beyond what the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the 
committee recognize and realize is needed. I hope that we will be 
fiscally responsible and recognize that, with the cuts that we are 
making across the board, we have to nick just a little bit the defense 
bill as well.
  I hope the Exon, et al., amendment will receive solid support of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Exon amendment would cut $4 billion. 
That is no little amount of money. That is a lot of money--a $4 billion 
cut out of our defense. The military chiefs say we need to modernize. 
We especially need to do more procurement, more ships, more planes, 
modern weapons, and tanks.
  How can we do it if you are going to go and cut defense now below 
what is recommended? We cannot afford this.
  I would ask that this amendment be voted against, and at this time I 
will now yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, how much time would I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 seconds.
  Mr. NUNN. Eighteen seconds. I must say there is nothing the Senator 
from Nebraska ever does that could be described as modest. Everything 
he does is important. This is an important amendment that should be 
defeated because it makes a substantial reduction in the modernization 
accounts which are desperately needed in defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the Exon amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 4345) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two 
additional votes in the vote sequence be reduced to 10 minutes in 
length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4346

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 4346. 
Each side has 1 minute.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from South Carolina is 
going to want to speak on this. I will speak very briefly.
  This amendment would reduce the pending bill to the total in the 
budget resolution. It would bring it in full compliance with the budget 
resolution. It is a reduction of $1.7 billion.
  I urge our colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Thurmond-Nunn amendment would cut 
$1.7 billion. We are asking for the same amount here to be cut as the 
Budget Committee has found. Senator Domenici recommended this amount in 
his committee, $1.7 billion, and we advocate cutting $1.7 billion out 
of this bill. That is our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 4346. The yeas and nays have

[[Page S6968]]

been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4346) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4347

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 4347. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, is there any debate time on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided, 1 minute 
per side.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I do not see the chairman on the floor. I 
suggest that Senator Domenici, the Senator from New Mexico, handle the 
opposition to this amendment. And I agree with every word he is likely 
to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have now voted eight different times 
to keep the defense number intact. On the last occasion we made it 
comply with the budget resolution, so we all agreed with that.
  What Senator Wellstone chooses to do is to take our votes where we 
have said we did not want to take money out of the defense, and he 
suggests that we should get rid of the firewalls, which we voted to 
keep in place by giving the Secretary of Defense the authority to 
appropriate $1.3 billion for education, and other welfare programs.
  The reason we have had firewalls is because we do not want to put the 
defense of our Nation into competition with other social welfare and 
education programs that very well could need money. In this case, it is 
a roundabout way of destroying the firewalls, and it ought to be denied 
because we voted twice to maintain them. This is a roundabout way to 
deny and defeat what we have already voted for. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to table.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is out of order. The Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first of all, this gives the Secretary of Defense the 
opportunity to do this. It is not a violation of any firewall. There is 
no budget point of order. This is $1.3 billion. The reason it does not 
is because this is out of $267 billion. This is out of $13 billion, now 
$11 billion more than the Pentagon wanted.
  It is simple. Do you spend the money on some of the add-on projects, 
some of what is not needed, or do you spend the money on higher 
education, Pell grants, student loans? It is a simple choice. It is 
hardly what I would call welfare in a pejorative sense. It is all about 
whether or not we are going to restore some of this funding up to the 
President's request level for higher education and opportunities for 
young people.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

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

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4347) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, what is the regular order, the pending 
business?
_______________________________________________________________________
                              N O T I C E
Incomplete record of Senate proceedings. Except for concluding business 
                             which follows,
 today's Senate proceedings will be continued in the next issue of the 
                                Record.


                          ____________________