Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7688-S7691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 1894, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1894) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call the Senate to order, under the
previous order, pursuant to the provisions of rule 19, paragraph 1(b),
and ask that the proceedings be in accordance thereof for the purposes
of consideration of the appropriations bill.
Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Will the Chair explain the rule? I could not hear. The
Senator's microphone was not on.

[[Page S7689]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rule requires that the debate be germane
to the pending question for next 3 hours.
Mr. REID. Pursuant to the Pastore rule?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am saddened that this bill has been
delayed so far. There are inquiries now coming from Members who are in
the area affected by Hurricane Bertha. So I am quite hopeful that the
Senate will proceed to consider this bill expeditiously.
I think Senator Inouye, who is the cochairman managing this bill,
agrees with me that we could finish this bill today with the
cooperation of the Senate. It is going to be my intention to urge the
Senate to do that.

Amendment No. 4439

(Purpose: A technical amendment to realign funds from Army and Defense
Wide Operations and Maintenance accounts to the Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund)

Mr. STEVENS. I, at this time, Mr. President, send to the desk a
technical amendment to realign funds from the Army and Defense
operation maintenance account, and ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 4439.

Mr. STEVENS. 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:

On page 8, line 1, strike the number ``$17,700,859,000''
and insert in lieu thereof ``$17,696,659,000''.
On page 9, line 11, strike the number ``$9,953,142,000''
and insert in lieu thereof ``$9,887,142,000''.
On page 12, line 22, strike the number ``$1,069,957,000''
and insert in lieu thereof ``1,140,157,000''.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be temporarily laid aside so that we can proceed with our
opening statements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with the passage of Senate bill 1745
yesterday, the National Defense Authorization Act for 1997, we are now
turning to the consideration of the defense appropriations bill for
next year.
As I said, I believe the Senate can quickly dispose of this bill,
which is Senate bill 1894. We have, in nearly every case, followed the
initiatives that have been adopted by the Senate in the authorization
bill.
I know there are some individual objections to portions of the bill,
but as in the case last year when Senator Inouye and I presented an
original bill to the Senate due to the need to complete preparations on
this bill prior to the July 4th recess, we could not be sure that the
House version of the bill would pass in time for the Defense
Subcommittee to take up that bill. This Senate bill passed the
subcommittee and full Appropriations Committee with only one minor
adjustment, and reflects bipartisan work effort and total support by
our Appropriations Committee.
Before turning to some of the details of the bill, I want to once
again this year express my appreciation to my good friend from Hawaii,
Senator Inouye. We have been partners in bringing this bill to the
floor of the Senate for many years. And, as I said, this bill again
reflects our joint judgment.
In total, the bill accommodates the 602(b) allocations provided
pursuant to the joint budget resolution. The amount is $244.74 billion
in new budget authority and $242.98 billion in outlays. Our bill before
the Senate, Mr. President, exactly meets those limits. The bill
provides for about $1 billion more than the level of appropriations for
1996. But I call to the attention of the Senate that this bill includes
all estimated funding for contingency operations such as Bosnia.
Again, that is another footnote to this bill. We have men and women
in the field. We cannot afford to not get this bill passed by the
deadline of September 30. In order to get this bill through conference
and back to the Senate in time that it can be presented to the
President and hopefully have him sign it, and then have time to act
before September 30 in the event that he does not decide to sign it, we
have to get this bill done. We have to get it to conference before the
August recess.
We have worked to accommodate many of the priorities presented in the
Armed Services bill. As I said, there are a few differences, however,
that I should note.
The bill provides $475 million for shortfalls in defense health
programs. Our subcommittee conducted a hearing in May on this subject.
The additions we have made fully cover the failure of the
administration to fully budget for health care for our military
personnel, their families and retirees.
Second, we provide an additional $180 million for the Bosnia
operation through December 20 of this year. As I said, that is the
estimate that reflects the DOD's current best estimate for the charges
which will be incurred through the Presidential deadline for withdrawal
of those troops.
Third, we provide $150 million for the Army's peer review breast
cancer research program and $100 million for a new peer review prostate
cancer research program. In both instances, we have substantial
involvement of military personnel in those two dread diseases, and we
propose to commit some of the Defense Department's money to proceed
with research to try to deal with those scourges.
We have proposed to continue the Department's support for the defense
missions of the Coast Guard and propose to transfer $300 million of the
funds involved, or at least the services that would be funded by that
money, to the Coast Guard. This is the same level as is the case under
this current year, 1996. The transfer was $300 million.
We have included an additional $119 million in the counterdrug
program. This was specifically requested by Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the
new administration coordinator of the counterdrug program.
We have considered closely as well the statement of administration
policy concerning the House bill. The House bill was reviewed by the
administration. They have given us their comments, and this bill
reflects a genuine effort on the part of our committee to address the
concerns raised by the President's senior advisers concerning
provisions of the House bill. We worked in preparing this bill to
assess the real funding problems of the military and have sought to
allocate the increase afforded by the congressional budget resolution
to the most urgent personnel and operational requirements.
We next worked to fund the priorities identified by each of the
service chiefs. We took their counsel seriously, and this bill reflects
their input. The statement of administration policy on this bill which
we received last night is really from the OMB, and it notes that some
of the items in the bill are not included in the President's defense
plan, and that is correct. Congress rejected for 1996 and again in 1997
the reductions to defense spending proposed by the administration. The
resolution adopted by Congress earlier this year provides $30 billion
more than President Clinton's budget for the fiscal years 1997, 1998,
1999, and 2000.
In testimony before our subcommittee, each of the service chiefs
highlighted the shortfalls in their budget and provided the committee
with their priorities at our request. While not every item in this bill
is included in the Clinton 5-year plan, virtually every major increase
specifically funds priorities identified by one of the service chiefs.
Again, I want to point out that was our request. It was not a
volunteered statement by the service chiefs, but we asked them to
identify their priorities, and we have funded, to the best of our
ability, the priorities identified by each of the service chiefs.
There are two specific increases not in the President's 5-year plan
that I want to highlight. First, we provided an additional $759 million
to continue the modernization of the National Guard and Reserve. This
annual bipartisan effort to meet the needs of the Reserve components
should be in this budget. It is right to do so. We need these funds to
assure that we have an active Guard and Reserve component. We rely very
heavily, more than at any

[[Page S7690]]

time in the past, on our Guard and Reserves.
Second, I joined Senator Dole, Senator Thurmond, Senator Lott, and
many others in recommending a significant increase in spending for
national missile defense. Now, the proposed increase in this bill
reflects a balanced effort to accelerate these systems to counter the
theater and national threats, threats that our military and our Nation
face today. For my State of Alaska, and I believe Hawaii also,
deploying a capable defense missile system is a pressing and immediate
priority. A recent national intelligence estimate exempted Alaska and
Hawaii from its consideration of a national missile defense requirement
and specifically stated that their estimate concerning the threat to
the United States could not be applied to Alaska and Hawaii. We are
within the threat from existing systems now.

Senator Inouye and I have looked for opportunities to save the
taxpayers money in this bill, and let me point out that we have
included new multiyear procurement authority for several systems,
including the DTG-51 destroyer program. The Navy estimates that we will
save nearly $1 billion over the next 4 years on that destroyer alone.
We fully funded the C-17 multiyear contract which was authorized
earlier this year.
Those and many more details of the bill are explained in our report
which has been available to every Member of the Senate since June 21.
These were our objectives, and I hope the bill will enjoy support of a
large bipartisan majority.
Again, I urge the Senate to proceed expeditiously on this bill. Let
us finish it today. We have a series of amendments we are prepared to
accept, and I think we can move along very quickly if we have the
cooperation of the Senate to do so.
Let me turn now, Mr. President, to my good friend. I might state for
the information of the Senate that Senator Graham of Florida wished to
make a statement to introduce a bill. We wanted to lay down our bill as
indicated under the agreement, but it is my intention to yield such
time, following the comments of the Senator from Hawaii, to Senator
Graham so he might make a statement, introduce a bill, on the condition
we recover the floor as soon he has completed his statement.
Let me, if I may, yield the floor to the Senator from Hawaii.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Chair.
I begin by commending our subcommittee chairman, the senior Senator
from the State of Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for putting together what I
consider to be a very good bill, a bill that all of us should and could
support.
As the chairman indicated, last month the Senate adopted the
conference report on the budget resolution, and that measure directed
the Appropriations Committee to increase defense budget authority by
$11.2 billion. The subcommittee's share of that increase is $10.1
billion. Chairman Stevens, acting in conjunction with the subcommittee,
was tasked to determine how this increase should be allocated. I
believe, as my colleagues review the bill, they will see that the
subcommittee, under the leadership of Senator Stevens, used this
increase very judiciously.
The bill provides many improvements to the administration's budget
requests. For example, the bill increases funding for operation and
maintenance by $500 million to protect readiness. We speak of
readiness, Mr. President. This is necessary if we are to implement
readiness. It includes such items as $280 million for barracks
renovation and repair; $150 million for ship depot maintenance and to
fund 95 percent of the Navy's identified requirements; $148 million for
identified contingency costs, as the chairman clearly pointed out, in
the case of Bosnia; and $119 million for the President's counterdrug
initiative; $50 million to clean up the environment, protect endangered
species.
We also add $590 million, Mr. President, to fully fund health care
costs identified by the Surgeon General and DOD Health Affairs
Secretary. This will allow our men and women in uniform access to
health care that they deserve.
Third, as the chairman pointed out, we recommend $150 million for
breast cancer research, $100 million for prostate cancer research, and
$15 million for AIDS research. I think all of us can be very proud of
what the Army Institute of Research has done in the area of AIDS.
The bill also provides $300 million for the defense missions of the
Coast Guard.
Fifth, the chairman has added $40 million to examine alternative
technologies to dispose of chemical weapons. Mr. President, this bill
has fully provided for the pay and allowances of our military
personnel, including a 3-percent pay raise and a 4-percent increase in
quarters allowances.

One can gain an appreciation from these few examples that the
committee has responded to the needs of our men and women in uniform.
The bill also provides $44.1 billion for procurement of equipment,
which is an increase of $6 billion above the request of the President.
This increase will provide for many of the high-priority needs
identified by our commanders in the field. But the total is still $1.7
billion below the level recommended by the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
As the committee reported the bill, this bill adds $525 million to
initiate a 4-year multiyear contract for the Navy's Aegis destroyer
program. According to the Navy, this recommendation will save our
taxpayers $1 billion.
This bill also adds $163 million to improve the Navy's EA-6B
electronic jamming aircraft, and this will allow the Air Force to
retire the EF-111, saving hundreds of millions of dollars.
Funding of $759 million is included for equipment for our National
Guard and Reserve forces to the level authorized by the Armed Services
Committee. Our Guard and Reserve commanders will decide what specific
equipment to purchase.
The funding added by the committee for modernization responds to the
concerns expressed by many of our military leaders that action is
needed to ensure our forces are equipped with the world's best
equipment. This bill also provides the level approved by the Senate for
ballistic missile defense, $3.4 billion. While some of my colleagues
may oppose this, I note that the Senate voted for this level last
month.
The administration identified several issues in the House bill that
it opposes. The committee has responded to nearly all of its concerns,
rejecting restrictive legislative provisions and funding administrative
priorities.
Chairman Stevens has done a masterful job in keeping this bill clean.
It safeguards our national defense and the priorities of the Senate,
and rejects controversial riders. As I indicated in my opening, this is
a very good bill and I am strongly in favor of his recommendations. I
sincerely believe it should have the bipartisan support of the Senate.
In closing, may I note the following. I am certain there are many in
this Chamber who will criticize the fact that we have appropriated
funds over and above the amount requested by the administration. For
that matter, I should note if it were not for this subcommittee, the C-
17 program would be dead. Today it is hailed by all as being the big
working ship, the ship that is necessary, the plane that will carry the
cargo for us. If it were not for Chairman Stevens and this
subcommittee, the V-22 Osprey would be a dead bird. It is now
considered the highest priority by the Marines.
The great hero of Desert Storm was the F-117, the Stealth fighter,
the fighter that was able to knock out all the radar stations that made
it possible for our bombers to come in. If it were not for this
subcommittee, the F-117 would not have been operating in Desert Storm.
I would say we can take full credit for insisting upon modernizing
the National Guard airlift with the C-130-H after the Air Force
canceled that. Here is another historic footnote. If it were not for
the action of this subcommittee, in all likelihood the central command
would have been wiped out in 1990, just before Desert Storm. And we
would have retired General Schwarzkopf just before Desert Storm.

I think we can take credit for saving the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences.
This subcommittee was instrumental in upgrading the Patriot missile
program, a program that we were ready to wipe out. It was not perfect,
but the

[[Page S7691]]

Patriot saved many American lives during Desert Storm.
So I just wanted to note a few of these items to indicate that, yes,
we have taken the initiative to recommend items over and above that
requested by the administration because, in our judgment, we felt these
steps had to be taken. With that, once again I congratulate my chairman
for having done a tremendous job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following persons assisting the defense subcommittee be afford the
privilege of access to Senate floor during consideration of this bill,
S. 1894: Susan Hogan, Darryl Roberson, Candice Rogers, Mike Gilmore.
There will be another list I will submit. If I can get consent for all
of those, too?
Mr. INOUYE. May I add Tina Holmlund to that, too.
Mr. STEVENS. There are others coming, from specific Members. I would
like permission to add those.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I wish to add to the
unanimous-consent request a congressional fellow in my office, Bob
Perret, who will be here during consideration of the Defense
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. If I can inquire of the Senator from Florida how much
time he would like to have to make the statement he wishes to make?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I request 15 minutes as in morning
business, for purposes of introduction of the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent it be in order for the Senator
from Florida to proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes, with the
provision be allowed to recover the floor when he is completed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Graham and Mr. Reid pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1943 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been asked to perform a couple of
tasks for the leader.

____________________