[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 106 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8065-S8070]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Under the previous order, the Senate 
will now resume consideration of S. 1894, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Harkin/Simon amendment No. 4492, relating to payments by 
     the Department of Defense of restructuring costs associated 
     with business combinations.
       Levin amendment No. 4893, to strike funding for new 
     production of F-16 aircraft in excess of six, and transfer 
     the funding to increase funding for anti-terrorism support.


                           Amendment No. 4492

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to rollcall votes 
with respect to amendments offered on Wednesday, July 17, with 2 
minutes for explanation equally divided prior to each vote. The first 
amendment is No. 4492, the motion to table. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand we have a minute on each side 
to explain the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, all I can say is:

       Remember the $600 toilet seat and the $500 hammers that had 
     taxpayers up in arms during the mid-1980's. Today's 
     subsidized mergers are going to make them look like bargains.

  That is not my quote. That is a quote of Lawrence Korb, President 
Reagan's Under Secretary of Defense.
  In 1993, DOD changed its policy to allow payments to defense 
contractors for the costs of mergers and acquisitions. The GAO and 
inspector general have both recently issued reports that seriously 
question DOD's purported savings.
  This amendment simply puts a 1-year hold on merger costs while the 
GAO, the IG, and OMB put together a mechanism to make sure that future 
payments actually result in savings. It does not affect Government 
assistance to laid-off workers. It does not prohibit payment of any 
merger costs which DOD is contractually obligated to pay in the fiscal 
year 1997.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment would prevent severance

[[Page S8066]]

pay for employees under a restructuring plan. It would eliminate early 
retirement incentive payments for employees, employee retraining costs, 
relocation expenses for retrained and retained employees, placement 
services for employees, and continued medical-dental-life insurance 
coverage for terminated employees. In the past 3 years, the Department 
of Defense has reimbursed contractors $300 million in restructuring 
costs and will save $1.4 billion, a 450-percent return on the 
investment.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding this will be a 20-minute vote, 
regular vote, and the following votes will be 10 minutes. Is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion to table. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and 
the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--27

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reid
     Simon
     Thompson
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bumpers
     Dodd
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4492) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Does the Senator from Michigan wish to proceed?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4893

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment would transfer money that 
the Air Force did not ask for for two F-16's and transfer it into an 
antiterrorist emergency account which we created yesterday which the 
Department of Defense very much needs and wants.
  The original budget request asked us for four F-16's. Then when we 
asked the Air Force, if they had additional funds, what would they 
spend those funds on? They said, well, if they had about $2 billion 
extra, they would add two more F-16's, for a total of six. In this 
appropriations bill, there are eight, four more F-16's than the Air 
Force requested in their original budget request and two more even than 
they asked for on their wish list.
  So what this amendment would do is transfer that $48 million not 
requested by the Air Force for F-16's and move it into an antiterrorism 
emergency fund.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, after the event of last night, this is a 
very serious matter. I want to start off by assuring the Senate that we 
have money for counterterrorism in the Commerce bill, in the Treasury-
Post Office bill, in the Transportation bill. I want to tell you as 
chairman of this committee, there are significant--very significant--
sums in the classified portions of this bill for counterterrorism. So 
the counterterrorism issue should be set aside.
  The question is, are the two extra F-16's--the F-4 Wild Weasels are 
being retired. The F-16's can take their place in that role. The F-
16's--it is true what the Senator said, they first asked for two. When 
we looked at it, and the authorization bill authorized four, we went 
into it in depth. I personally talked to General Fogleman, Chief of the 
Air Force, about the need. He said they do in fact need this. As a 
matter of fact, General Ralston who is now the Vice Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, has said that we are short 120 airplanes if the F-16's 
are to carry out the two contingency roles.
  I believe we need these extra two F-16's. That is the issue, not 
counterterrorism. I moved to table this amendment. This will be a 
rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FRIST). The question occurs on agreeing to 
the motion to lay on the table the Levin amendment No. 4893. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

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

                                NAYS--41

     Abraham
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bumpers
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4893) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      b-52 modifications amendment

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, yesterday during consideration of the 
defense appropriations bill, the Senate adopted my amendment allocating 
an additional $11,500,000 in Air Force aircraft procurement funds for 
modifications to B-52 bombers. I want to explain the source for these 
funds.
  In reporting out its version of the fiscal year 1997 Defense 
Appropriations Act, the committee added operations and maintenance 
funds to maintain the current force structure for B-52 bomber attrition 
reserve aircraft.
  My amendment allocated funds from within the aircraft procurement 
account to modify these aircraft. These modifications are required to 
maintain the combat effectiveness of these aircraft should they be 
called upon to fly combat missions.
  The funds for the bomber modifications are to be offset by a decrease 
of funds allocated for the F-15 fighter data link modifications in the 
same appropriations account.
  The fighter data link funds are excess to program requirements due to 
a delay in a projected contract award. The fighter data link program 
remains fully funded for fiscal year 1997.

[[Page S8067]]

                    HARRISBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to alert my colleagues to an 
environmental restoration center at the Harrisburg International 
Airport, formerly Olmsted Air Force Base, located in Pennsylvania. My 
colleague, Congressman George Gekas, has shown great leadership on the 
issue of environmental restoration.
  In 1984, this former Air Force base was designated an Environmental 
Protection Agency Superfund site. For the last 13 years, an intense 
effort under the guidance of the EPA, has been undertaken at the local, 
State, and Federal level to determine the nature of the origins, 
locations, and the proper remediation of the waste left by the U.S. Air 
Force. A database established at the site will enable all future site 
users to have an understanding of the remediation efforts undertaken. 
By the time all the current participants have left the site, the only 
remaining reliable reference source will be this database.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his efforts in 
keeping the committee informed of his actions on this matter. I will 
work with my colleagues during conference to examine this matter more 
closely.


                         Sacrifices for Defense

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, on their 
efforts to complete action on the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense 
Appropriations bill. Their management of this complex bill is masterful 
and executed with their customary efficiency. The bill is within the 
602(b) allocations and it is consistent with the amount recommended by 
the budget resolution.
  This bill addresses legitimate defense needs and provides support for 
the men and women in our military. It contains a 3-percent raise in pay 
for military personnel and a 4-percent raise in the basic allowance for 
quarters, both effective January 1, 1997.
  It fully funds the initiative included in the fiscal year 1997 
Defense authorization bill to support the operations of, and enhanced 
modifications for, the SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft. The rationale for 
including this system in the fiscal year 1997 budget is that it is an 
invulnerable proven system, available day or night, in all-weather, 
regardless of cloud cover. It is available for our commanders in the 
theater, on an on-call basis, to provide near-real-time imagery of the 
battlefield or area of interest to those Commanders. As such, it is now 
available as America's premier tactical reconnaissance airborne system. 
Furthermore, it is inexpensive, compared to the costs incurred for the 
development of our unmanned aerial vehicles now being funded. I am a 
strong supporter of developing UAV's as rapidly as prudent development 
schedules allow, but it will still be years before a proven system can 
be fielded. When that occurs, I would support retiring the Blackbird 
aircraft, but it would be foolish to throw away this unique system 
before it is fully replaced. Therefore, I congratulate the managers for 
their support of continuing the SR-71 in service. The funding includes 
$30 million for 1 year of operations, and $9 million in modification 
costs which enhance the real-time downlink from the aircraft directly 
to our commanders on the ground. I hope and certainly expect that our 
commanders in the field, in Korea, in Bosnia, and in other regions of 
interest will call upon the system frequently to provide the unique 
data for them that is now available.
  My concern regarding this bill is not with the many worthy provisions 
contained with it. I do not want a weak military, unable to defend our 
legitimate and vital national security interests. But neither do I want 
a weak nation, sapped of its vitality, worn down and shabby because 
legitimate domestic needs have been neglected in favor of greater 
spending on defense. I do not want to see in America a street person, 
dirty, dressed in rags, but carrying a shiny new pistol. I want to see 
in America a hard-working, educated, prosperous homeowner, with a well-
kept yard where bright-eyed and well-fed children play.

  I know that this bill is within its allocation and consistent with 
the budget resolution guidelines, but I believe that the budget 
resolution guidelines are out of balance with American priorities, 
skewed toward military spending at the expense of education, 
infrastructure, and other domestic necessities. I would rather rebuild 
bridges over mighty rivers than build bridges on unneeded ships. I 
would rather spend funds on domestic airline safety measures than on 
unrequested fighter aircraft. I would rather support more police on our 
city streets stopping bullets than futuristic missile-stopping missiles 
aimed at a flimsy threat.
  This bill is $10.2 billion over the administration's request for 
defense. Some have argued that defense spending has declined in real 
terms over the last 10 years, and that buying weapons now rather than 
later in the decade saves money. But the funding for domestic programs 
has also declined, and continues to decline. If we are to make good on 
our promises to reduce the deficit and to bring spending in line with 
reality, every program, domestic and defense alike, must share in the 
sacrifice. Right now, domestic programs are being cut more deeply in 
order to support defense spending that is above the administration's 
request. For instance, the Department of Agriculture, as part of its 
Water 2000 initiative to provide safe, affordable drinking water to 
every home in the United States by the turn of the century, estimates 
that $9.8 billion is needed to accomplish that goal. This $9.8 billion 
is needed to provide nearly 3 million U.S. households--176,114 of them 
in my own State of West Virginia--with clean drinking water. For less 
than the amount added to the Department of Defense for 1 year, we could 
provide clean, safe, drinking water to 8 million suffering Americans.
  The budget resolution, which passed without my support, deliberately 
chose to sacrifice safe drinking water, education, highways, medical 
research, police, children's programs, and other peaceful domestic 
programs, in order to spend more on weapons and war. I regret the 
choice and the path that we have taken. This defense appropriations 
bill is the result of that decision, and reflects the largess bestowed 
upon the Defense Department at the expense of the Departments of 
Education, Labor, Agriculture, Environment, Health and Human Services, 
Interior, and others. It reflects the decisions taken in the defense 
authorization bill, which I voted against. Therefore, I must 
regretfully vote against this bill.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to S. 1894, the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. This 
bill suffers from the same fundamental defect as S. 1745, the national 
defense authorization bill, a bill I also opposed.
  The appropriations bill adds $10.2 billion to the President's budget 
request. The $10.2 billion is spent partially funding programs not 
requested by the administration for which we will pay billions in the 
outyears. For example, the bill adds $856 million for ballistic missile 
defense research, of which $300 million is added to the national 
missile defense account. The bill also adds $525 million in unrequested 
funds for the DDG-51, $701 million in unrequested funds for the new 
attack submarine, $300 million in unrequested funds for the V-22, $489 
million in unrequested funds for the F/A-18 C/D, $760 million in 
unrequested funds for National Guard and Reserve equipment, $204.5 
million in unrequested funds for the C-130, $107.4 million in 
unrequested funds for the F-16, and $210 million in unrequested funds 
for the JSTARS program.
  I have been a long time supporter of our efforts to ensure our 
national security. However, Mr. President, this is the second time in 
my Senate career that I have felt that I must oppose a Defense 
Appropriations bill. I cannot support adding billions and billions of 
dollars for programs that I am not convinced and the Pentagon does not 
believe we need. It is true that I would support additional funding for 
some of these programs but adding $10.2 billion in unrequested funding 
is simply too much particularly when we are cutting funding for 
critical programs elsewhere in the budget.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, which is responsible for recommending sound, fiscally 
responsible funding legislation to the Senate, I am deeply disturbed 
about the spending levels contained in the fiscal year 1997 Department 
of Defense appropriation bill.

[[Page S8068]]

  This bill provides over $244 billion in budget authority for the 
coming year. This reflects the recently passed national defense 
authorization bill, which authorized nearly $11.3 billion more than the 
administration requested for military spending for 1997. Included in 
this legislation are billions of dollars worth of weapons the Pentagon 
says it does not want and cannot afford to maintain in the future. 
Meanwhile, vital domestic programs are being critically underfunded or 
terminated. Fiscally, this is unwise; morally, it is unconscionable.
  Despite all the debate about balancing the Federal budget, it is 
apparent to me that we are not yet ready to break off our addiction to 
excessive military spending. Of even more concern, is the continued 
failure of this body to define national security in a truly 
comprehensive and meaningful way. As I have stated many times before, 
true national security consists of more than our arsenal of military 
weapons, it also includes the health and welfare of our population.
  Many years ago, the cabinet agency tasked with protecting the 
national security of the United States was renamed from the Department 
of War to the Department of Defense. This is an important distinction. 
The definition of war is a state of open and hostile conflict between 
states or nations. The definitions of defense and security carry with 
them much broader connotations. Defense, or to defend, is to drive 
danger or attack away from. While security means freedom from danger, 
freedom from fear or anxiety, freedom from want or deprivation.
  The mission of the Department of Defense is to protect the citizens 
of the United States against threats to our security. Let us recognize 
that these threats can take many forms, that they are internal as well 
as external. The American people are under attack today. The attacks 
are not as obvious as tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue or nuclear 
submarines sailing up the Potomac River. The enemies aren't as easily 
identifiable as a soldier pointing a gun, rather they are often subtle 
and insidious. But, make no mistake, we do have formidable enemies 
threatening our population. The enemies I speak of are disease and 
disability.

  In one year, more Americans will die from disease than from all the 
military battles fought in the twentieth century. The number of 
Americans killed in battle during World War I, World War II, Korea, 
Vietnam, Panama, the Persian Gulf, and Somalia total 426,175. Certainly 
a horrendous number and a tragic loss of life. In contrast, however, 
approximately 500,000 people will die of cancer this year alone. Lung 
cancer will kill 115,000 Americans, breast cancer 48,000, and prostate 
cancer 41,000. I could go on and on. Heart disease will kill over 
743,000 people, diabetes 53,000, and AIDS 37,000. The list of 
casualties from disease is endless.
  Make no mistake, there are thousands of tiny wars being fought in 
America today. The battleground is the human body. The command centers 
are clinical research laboratories and our weapons are test tubes and 
microscopes. The Generals and Admirals leading the fight are the 
medical researchers, physicians, and nurses all around the country 
searching for new treatments and cures for disease.
  But in this war, the front line troops are civilians as well as 
soldiers. This battle is as ugly and painful as any military conflict. 
Every day men, women, and children are being killed, maimed, and 
ravaged by disease. No mortars are being launched, but limbs are being 
amputated as a result of diabetes. No napalm has been dropped, but skin 
is destroyed and bodies are disfigured by EB. No nerve gas has been 
released, but brains and central nervous systems are disabled by 
Alzheimers and Parkinsons diseases. It is time to declare war on 
disease and disability. This is a battle which is worthy of the full 
commitment and resources of our Federal Government, including the 
Department of Defense. In fact, this is one war which I fully support.
  The Department of Defense also has the responsibility to care for the 
men and women who sacrifice to serve and protect our country. In 
devoting a small portion of its considerable resources to medical 
research and treatment, the Pentagon invests in the health and welfare 
of our troops, as well as our military retirees, veterans, and family 
members.
  Several years ago, Congress appropriated funds for and directed the 
Department of Defense to establish a peer-reviewed breast cancer 
research program. This program has been a tremendous success and is a 
vital component in the effort to find a cure for breast cancer. We have 
continued funding for that program in 1997. In this bill, we have also 
provided $100 million to establish a similar program for prostate 
cancer research.
  Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among 
men. Yet, it has largely been overlooked by the general public and 
research has been grievously underfunded by the Federal Government. In 
1996, over 317,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 
41,400 will die from it. Yet, with early detection, 9 out of 10 men can 
be successfully treated for prostate cancer. Clearly, an investment in 
research to improve detection and treatment of this disease will yield 
a tremendous return.
  Medical research is the key to winning the war against disease and 
disability. I am pleased that the Senate has included some funding for 
this critical effort in this legislation. In my view, however, the 
amount of resources devoted to life-destroying technologies compared to 
life-sustaining endeavors is still critically out of balance. The 
health and well-being of our population is every bit as vital to the 
Nation's security as our arsenal of military weapons. Until this 
imbalance is recognized and corrected, the people of our Nation will 
continue to be vulnerable to these destructive enemies and true 
national security will not be achieved, no matter what our level of 
military might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill, S. 1894, 
will be read for the third time.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate shall 
proceed immediately to the House companion bill, H.R. 3610; that all 
after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1894, as 
amended, if amended, be inserted, and that H.R. 3610 be read for the 
third time.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read for the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly today's vote on 
the defense appropriations bill. I will be voting for this bill, 
because it includes provisions that do support our national defense. 
But I have some serious concerns about the overall level of spending, 
as well as some other issues that I feel should be addressed in 
negotiations during the conference.
  On the positive side, this bill contains $150 million to fund the 
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment, which will strengthen the Nunn-Lugar 
program. As I have said a number of times on this floor, Nunn-Lugar is 
exactly the kind of investment in our security that we should be 
making. It is far cheaper to destroy Russian missiles and bombers now 
than to make new expenditures on a strategic deterrent or a missile 
defense system against them later.
  The strengthened Nunn-Lugar program will also help us prevent the 
spread and use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. A 
terrorist nuclear, chemical, or biological attack is perhaps our worst 
security nightmare today.
  Moreover, this defense bill contains $69 million for operating, 
maintaining, and upgrading the Nation's full fleet of B-52 bombers. The 
defense authorization bill rightly prohibited retirement of B-52's 
before Russia ratifies the START II Treaty. I am hopeful that the House 
will agree to the Senate's very modest investment. It will enable the 
Air Force to abide by the authorization bill's directive to retain this 
combat-proven force of long-range bombers.
  On the other hand, given our bipartisan commitment to a balanced 
budget, the overall funding level in this bill is not sustainable. It 
exceeds the President's budget request by $10 billion. The $6 billion 
downpayment for unrequested ships and aircraft alone in the bill will 
create a funding crunch in

[[Page S8069]]

the years to come. To make expansive procurement decisions as if they 
have no consequences for deficit reduction is not responsible.
  Second, my colleagues will not be surprised to learn that I am 
troubled by the bill's commitment of $808 million for national missile 
defense, $300 million above the administration's request. This 
additional funding is unwanted, unneeded, unfrugal, and unwise.
  So I will reluctantly vote for this bill in order to move the 
appropriations process forward. Yet I will closely examine the 
conference report on the bill. I urge the conferees to make it more 
fiscally responsible than the versions passed by either the Senate or 
the House of Representatives.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 5 
minutes, equally divided, under the control of the two managers.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in a few minutes, the Senate will vote on 
the final passage of this bill. I wanted to use this opportunity to 
advise my colleagues of my complete support of this measure. Yes, this 
bill provides more funding than sought by the administration, but it is 
at a level approved by the Congress in the budget resolution. 
Furthermore, while it is $1.3 billion more than appropriated last year, 
it still falls short in keeping up with inflation.
  Mr. President, it is a very good bill. It funds the priorities of the 
administration. It contains no controversial riders on social policy. 
It redresses shortfalls identified by our military leaders. It provides 
funding to cover overseas contingencies, and it meets the needs of our 
field commanders, who have identified many items that they require to 
improve the quality of the lives of our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. President, it is a bipartisan bill. Yesterday, the Senate agreed 
on approximately 60 amendments and, by my count, nearly half were 
Democratic amendments. This should come as no surprise to my 
colleagues. The Appropriations Committee, particularly this 
subcommittee, has a long tradition of bipartisanship.
  If I may, I would like to take my hat off to our chairman, who has 
done an extraordinary job in preparing the recommendations in the bill 
and managing it on the floor. Mr. President, there is no finer floor 
manager in the Senate than my friend from Alaska, Ted Stevens.
  I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their help in this 
very difficult legislation. A particular note of thanks to the staff 
director, Steve Cortese, for his leadership. On my staff, a special 
thanks to Lt. Col. Tina Homeland, who kept her eye on health programs 
for me this year. Also Emelie East of the subcommittee who provided 
tireless energy in keeping track of all of the amendments and assuring 
their adoption.
  So, Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
measure.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this bill does reflect the partnership 
that the Senator from Hawaii and I have shared for many years. I can 
assure all Senators that this approach is a bipartisan approach and 
will be followed throughout the conference on this bill with the House.
  I will make further statements after the vote, if I may. At this 
time, I yield the remainder of my time and ask for final passage of 
this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--27

     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Byrd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bumpers
       
  The bill (H.R. 3610), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senate for this overwhelming 
bipartisan support of this bill. It is a bill that I think meets the 
needs as best we can of our defense forces and maintains the defense of 
this country. This year we had a record number of requests to our 
subcommittee from Members of the Senate and, I might say, also from 
Members of the House that we had to consider. Were it not for this fine 
working relationship that the Senator from Hawaii and I have, it would 
be impossible to deal with a bill of this magnitude in a 24-hour 
period.
  But we have done that, and there are a number of people who deserve 
to be identified now who have worked hard in the preparation of this 
bill. The Senator from Hawaii has mentioned the people on his side of 
the aisle. This team works together on a bipartisan basis on the staff 
level, too. So I want to note the contributions of the subcommittee 
staff on our side. We have this long record of bipartisan work 
together: Steve Cortese, who is our staff director; Charlie Houy, staff 
director on the other side; Peter Lennon, Jay Kimmitt, Mary Marshall, 
Jim Morhard, John Young, Sid Ashworth, Susan Hogan, Mazie Mattson, 
Justin Weddle, Candice Rogers, and Emelie East.
  This year we were assisted by two individuals who were loaned to our 
committee. As I said, we have just had a tremendous workload this year. 
We have Darrell Roberson from the Air Force and Mike Gillmore from GAO 
who worked with us. During the floor debate yesterday, I was pleased to 
be able to have two of the high school interns from my office who have 
observed our work and were helpful to me yesterday, Brad Brunsdon from 
Fairbanks and Meegan Condon of Petersburg.
  This was my first opportunity to manage a bill in the Chamber since 
the retirement of Senator Dole, and I want to express my thanks to our 
new leader, Trent Lott, for his unwavering efforts to help us get this 
bill passed. I thank the Senate for its patience.
  Additionally, we have received full consideration from many Members. 
We started out yesterday morning, I believe, with about 150 amendments, 
and they have all been handled in one fashion or another in order to 
get to where we are today. I do thank Senator McCain and Ann Sauer of 
his staff, who have worked with us this year to review amendments to 
make certain that we would not meet objections to them in terms of 
their presentation to the Senate here on a unanimous-consent basis. 
Today, I have Megan Curry of Juneau and Beth Pozzi of Anchorage with me 
in the Chamber.
  I am pleased to once again thank the Senate for the support of this 
bill. I do think the American people should know that we have firm 
support here in the Senate now on a bipartisan basis to maintain the 
level of expenditures which we believe are necessary. I hope we can get 
the bill into conference and back as soon as possible, because we want 
time to work with the White House to make sure that the executive 
branch is willing to share with us this burden of maintaining the 
funding of our military throughout the world.
  Mr. President, I now move to reconsider the vote the Senate has just 
taken to pass this bill.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S8070]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate shall 
insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House.
  The Chair appointed Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Mack, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
Hatfield, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, 
Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Harkin conferees on the part of 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, S. 1894 shall be 
returned to the calendar.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Before the two managers of the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill leave the Chamber, I want to say again today, as I 
did yesterday, how much I appreciate the outstanding work that they 
did. We have just seen an unbelievable accomplishment, for this bill to 
have been completed in 24 hours, with tremendous effort yesterday. They 
obviously are two of the very best managers we have in the Senate, and 
on behalf of the Senate I thank them for their good work and hope that 
their example will be followed on other appropriations bills and with 
the bill that we are about to begin consideration of.

                          ____________________