[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.

                          ____________________