[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10125-S10129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997--CONFERENCE
REPORT
The Senate resumed the consideration of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this Defense authorization bill has been
done from the very outset in a very bipartisan spirit. Senator Nunn, I
am sure, will speak on that side to that effect. We have worked
together, Republicans and Democrats, to bring into the Senate a bill
that we feel is fair and just. The House has already passed this
particular bill. The President has said he will sign this particular
bill. I urge all Senators to vote for this bill and show support for
our Armed Forces, the men and women who are sacrificing by serving our
country and risking their lives to protect the liberty and freedom of
this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I share the sentiments of the Senator from
South Carolina. This is a good bill for the men and women who serve in
our military. This bill is an increase over the President's budget, but
it is a decrease in real terms from last year's budget. So the decline
in defense spending continues downward, but it is an incremental step
upward from the President's budget.
The President said he will sign this. Virtually every provision in
the House bill that the administration objected to has been either
taken out of this conference report or has been handled in a way
satisfactory to the administration. That would include the arms control
provisions relating to the ABM Treaty and missile defense. It would
also include those members of the military service who have HIV who,
under the House bill, would have been automatically expelled from the
service. That provision has been dropped.
So I urge those on this side of the aisle to vote for this bill as a
strong step forward for our Nation's security.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I oppose the conference report for many of the reasons I opposed the
Senate bill. Unfortunately, the conference report is in many respects
worse than the Senate bill.
The conference report includes $11.2 billion in unrequested funds,
including almost $1 billion in additional funding for ballistic missile
defense, hundreds of millions of dollars for unrequested military
construction projects, and billions of dollars for weapons programs the
Pentagon does not think it needs.
Another troubling aspect of the conference report involves land
conveyances. I have been very concerned by the yearly practice in which
Members of Congress include special land conveyances in the Defense
authorization bill enabling the transfer of Federal property outside of
the requirements of the Federal Property Act of 1949. Having been
unable to curb outright the practice of making these sweetheart land
deals, I have worked to ensure that the properties are screened by the
General Services Administration to make sure that there is no other
Federal interest in the properties. The conferees found the idea of
protecting the Federal taxpayers' assets so distasteful that they
refused to require a Federal screening for the land conveyances
contained in the House bill. This decision is unacceptable in my view
and I did not sign the conference report in large part due to this
decision.
In addition, the conferees adopted a provision from the Senate bill
which affords special retirement rights to a select group of employees
affected by base closure. There has been no demonstrated need for this
authority that will cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars in
the out years and it is unfair to the hundreds of thousands of other
Federal employees who have been affected by ongoing efforts to downsize
the Government.
I would also mention my concern with a provision in the conference
report that terminates the defense business operations funds [DBOF] in
the year 1999. The purported reason for this provision as I understood
from its proponents is to instill more discipline in the Defense
Department's financial management. I have been concerned about the
state of the Government's financial management for years. I have worked
to enact legislation creating the inspectors general and the chief
financial officers. I have held numerous and long detailed hearings on
the condition of DBOF. I agree that the Pentagon has an obligation to
the American taxpayer to focus more attention on getting its financial
house in order. But, I do not agree that terminating DBOF will
accomplish anything other than to create chaos where we should be
seeking progress.
In addition, I have concerns about section 1033 of the conference
report which significantly expands an existing program within the
Department of Defense regarding the transfer of excess
[[Page S10126]]
personal property. The Senate bill was silent on this issue. The House
bill however expanded an existing DOD program which enables State and
local agencies involved in drug enforcement activities to have a
preference to obtain excess DOD personal property. The House bill
expanded this program to enable all law enforcement activities to have
this preference. Beyond that the conference added counterterrorism as
an additional preferential category.
Now I bow to no one in my willingness to take action to enforce our
drug laws and to fight terrorism. And it may be entirely appropriate
for excess small arms and ammunition to be made available to law
enforcement agencies for these purposes. However, I have serious
concerns regarding the conference's approach. In particular, I have
questions about the effect this provision will have on other entities
entitled to receive excess property as a public benefit. I'm speaking
not about small arms parts, but about computers, furniture, vehicles,
and other equipment. Under current law potential beneficiaries to this
equipment include, State agencies, hospitals, schools, the homeless,
and other worthy causes. I do not believe that this concern was
adequately considered in the conference. I intend to work with other
Senators and Congressmen who share my concerns to clarify how the
Secretary of Defense intends to implement this provision, and to take
corrective legislative action if necessary.
The conferees also dropped a provision from the Senate bill that
would allow women who are serving in the military or who are
servicemembers' dependents from obtaining abortions in overseas
military medical facilities. We have debated this issue repeatedly and
I am very sorry the conferees again chose not to afford women who are
stationed overseas the same basic rights available to women living in
the United States.
Finally, I mention a number of House provisions that were dropped in
conference: the so-called multilateralization and successor state
provisions affecting the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the provision
to repeal the don't-ask, don't-tell policy and the provisions relating
to servicemembers diagnosed with HIV. I am genuinely pleased that these
provisions were dropped from the conference report. However, I do not
believe the mere elimination of completely unacceptable provisions from
the conference report is a sufficient reason to support the conference
report.
humanitarian demining
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question regarding
section 1304 of the pending fiscal year 1997 National Defense
Authorization Act. This provision would amend title 10, section 401
entitled ``Humanitarian and civic assistance provided in conjunction
with military operations.''
The point that I would like clarified is whether the annual $5
million cap in new subsection (c)(3) would be a U.S. Governmentwide
cap, or whether it is a cap on only DOD humanitarian assistance
appropriations.
Mr. THURMOND. I can assure Senator Leahy that the cap imposed by
section 1304 applies only to funds made available to the Department of
Defense for humanitarian and civic assistance. It was not intended as a
U.S. Governmentwide cap. It does not apply to funds that are made
available to other Federal agencies such as the Department of State or
the Agency for International Development.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator for his explanation.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my extreme
disappointment in the outcome of the House and Senate conference on the
Department of Defense authorization legislation. The Senate's version
of this legislation contained an amendment offered by myself and
Senator Snowe to allow women servicemembers stationed abroad to obtain
privately funded abortions at military facilities. It was very
unfortunate that this provision was dropped from the final version of
this legislation during negotiations between the Senate and the House.
Mr. President, my amendment simply restored a policy which responds
to the unique needs of women serving overseas in our armed services.
This policy, which was in place between 1973 and 1988 and between 1993
and 1996, allowed women to use private resources for medical abortion
services at military hospitals. This policy is necessary to ensure the
health and safety of women servicemembers because overseas health care
facilities often do not provide comparable and safe care. Women serving
our country in the Armed Forces deserve the same quality of care as
women in the United States and to put them at risk is dangerous,
unnecessary, and plain wrong.
Further, as I have said before, requiring a woman to travel to the
United States to perform this procedure only delays a very time-
sensitive procedure and increases the cost--both for the individual and
the taxpayer--when a woman is stationed abroad.
We have had many debates in the 104th Congress about a woman's right
to choose. My amendment simply guaranteed that women who serve in our
Armed Forces have the same rights as women in the United States. It is
a right women service personnel have held for most of the last 23
years.
Dropping my amendment is yet another in a long series of actions
taken by this Congress to eliminate a woman's right to choose. From the
first days of the 104th Congress to the closing hours of this second
session, women have seen the new majority seek to undermine their
rights at every opportunity. It saddens me to see the will of the
Senate and the health care options of women serving in the Armed Forces
traded away to the voices of extremism.
This Congress must know that the women and men of this country are
awake and aware of these actions. We will be back. I assure you.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
agreement on the fiscal year 1997 National Defense Authorization Act. I
urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, which represents a
reasonable and balanced compromise between the House and Senate on a
number of very difficult issues.
Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to highlight just a few
of the very positive aspects of this bill.
This bill provides $265.6 billion for defense activities for the
coming fiscal year, implementing the decision of the Republican
Congress to add $11.2 billion to the President's defense budget
request. We fought hard for the last 2 years to add a total of $18
billion to the inadequate defense budgets of this administration,
because we recognized the need to ensure both current and future
readiness of our military services.
In the Readiness Subcommittee, we provided $1 billion more than the
budget request for operations and maintenance of the Armed Forces, and
$270 million more than requested for ammunition procurement. These
increases will ensure sufficient funding for day-to-day operations and
training for the coming fiscal year.
The bulk of the added funding was allocated to military modernization
programs. The bill authorizes an additional $6 billion for procurement
of modern weapons systems, including tactical aircraft, sealift and
airlift assets, improved communications systems, surveillance and
reconnaissance, and other important warfighting equipment. The bill
also adds $2.6 billion for research and development to maintain the
technological edge of our military forces on the battlefields of the
future, including a significant increase in both theater and national
missile defense programs.
The bill also includes a number of legislative provisions which, I
believe, will serve the best interests of the taxpayer and the
Department of Defense.
First, the bill includes a new discretionary waiver of domestic
source restrictions for our allies with whom we have reciprocal defense
procurement agreements. This provision, which was included in the
Senate bill, will provide the needed flexibility for the Secretary of
Defense to purchase the best equipment at the lowest price for our
military services. It will also help to promote continued free trade
among our allies, rather than threatening reciprocal trade in defense
items by restricting the United States to buying only American-made
products. In my view, this is one of the most important provisions in
this bill because of its potential to save money and preserve
our longstanding positive defense trade balances with our allies.
The bill also authorizes $14 million in a newly established account
under the
[[Page S10127]]
control of the Secretary of Defense for antiterrorism activities and
programs. This provision was added to make funds available for urgent,
emergency requirements necessary to deter or defend against terrorism
directed at our military personnel. The bombing of the U.S. military
housing complex in Dhahran demonstrated the need for such an account.
Last year, the Congress approved the enactment of several provisions
related to accounting for missing service personnel which the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our warfighting CINC's opposed,
arguing that they would interfere with their ability to conduct their
missions in the event of war. This bill repeals several of those
provisions without harming or limiting in any way the ability of the
Department of Defense to continue its intensive program to locate and
recover the remains of all those missing in action in wartime.
I am particularly pleased that the conferees agreed to drop from the
bill both the Senate and House provisions regarding discharge of
military personnel who test positive for the HIV virus. This allows the
Department of Defense to continue its current policy of non-
discrimination and fair treatment of all military personnel with
conditions which prevent them from deploying with their units.
The bill authorizes compensation for Vietnamese commandoes who
participated in United States wartime operations in Vietnam and were
captured by North Vietnam. Payment of these amounts is a matter of
fairness and is long overdue.
The conferees also approved a Senate provision, cosponsored by
myself, Senators Lieberman, Coats, and Robb, which directs the
Department of Defense to conduct a new assessment of U.S. national
security strategy and military force structure requirements. This
provision provides specific guidance to the Department for its
Quadrennial Defense Review. The provision also establishes a
nonpartisan panel of national security experts to review the
Department's work and to provide an independent assessment of
alternative force structures and strategies. In light of the continuing
changes in the post-cold-war world, I believe it is necessary to
conduct such a comprehensive reassessment of our national security
posture.
The bill also requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
provide an assessment of the readiness requirements of each of the
services, using a tiered readiness concept that I discussed in a March
1996 white paper. This report is important to the development of this
concept, which could result in savings in operation and maintenance
funding which could be reallocated to the modernization accounts where
a significant shortfall remains.
The bill also includes language requiring fair pricing of United
States military equipment to be transferred to Bosnia under existing
drawdown authority. Since the equip and train program for the Bosnian
Muslims is an essential part of the exit strategy for United States
troops serving in the peace implementation force [IFOR] in Bosnia, it
is essential that the program be implemented properly and promptly if
we are to meet the end-of-1996 withdrawal deadline for IFOR.
Finally, the bill includes a provision requiring organizers of
civilian sporting events to reimburse the Department of Defense for the
cost of providing security and other support services, only if the
event makes a profit. This provision is designed to ensure that defense
dollars are available for defense purposes, but it will have no effect
on the availability of our military services to provide needed security
assistance at these events.
Again, I thank Chairman Thurmond and his staff for achieving such an
excellent conference agreement on these important issues.
At the same time, Mr. President, I regret that the conferees deleted
the Senate's provisions related to competitive allocation of workload
among public and private maintenance depots. The Senate tried to take a
positive step toward fair and open competition for depot maintenance
work. I am sorry that the conferees were unable to agree to include
these provisions, because it could have saved the taxpayers money and
allowed the Pentagon to shed excess capacity at its government-owned
depots.
The most controversial aspect of the depot issue is the 60-40 rule
which requires that at least 60 percent of all funds expended on depot
maintenance be spent in public depots, owned and operated by the
Department of Defense. I believe that this 60-40 rule is arbitrary and
prevents the Department of Defense from taking actions that could
potentially result in a savings of billions of dollars. I would like to
point to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office entitled
``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options.'' This report
contains a section dealing with the depot issue and the potential
savings that could be realized by relying upon the private sector to
perform much of the work that the current 60-40 rule requires to be
performed by the public depots. According to this report, cumulative
savings after 6 years might amount to roughly $400 million, rising to
over $3 billion after 10 years if the total workload assigned to public
depots on a sole source basis is reduced to 30 percent. CBO estimates
that, in the long run, DOD might save on the order of $1 billion
annually if it used public depots only for those tasks that could not
be handled competitively in the private sector. Estimated savings of
shifting from public to private production range from 20 to 40 percent.
Mr. President, although readiness has been used as the justification
for maintaining the arbitrary 60-40 rule, I believe that it is a
justification without foundation. DOD already relies on the private
sector to repair many specialized components on its most up-to-date
systems. Furthermore, since we rely upon the private sector industrial
capability to supply our military forces with this equipment, it seems
unreasonable to distrust this same private sector capability to
maintain the equipment.
That is the only major legislative provision which was resolved in a
way that I cannot approve. In fact, let me say that I was very pleased
with the resolution of a number of legislative provisions adopted in
the last few days of the Senate's consideration of this bill. The
conferees chose to remove legislative earmarks for all of these
projects and considered each on a case-by-case basis. Of the most
egregious legislative earmarks attached to the bill, none were included
in this final conference agreement as legislative earmarks. For that
wise decision, I thank the conferees.
However, Mr. President, I note with serious disappointment that many
of the special interest and pork-barrel items, to which I objected in
the additional views I filed with the Committee, are included in this
conference agreement.
These programs are: $850 million in unrequested, low-priority
military construction projects--$150 million more than the Senate-
passed bill; $780 million for unrequested Guard and Reserve equipment,
including $189.6 million for four C-130J aircraft; $470.7 million for
nine additional C-130J aircraft, only one of which was requested by the
Air Force; $15 million for continued aurora borealis research and
construction of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program
[HAARP], for which there is no current military requirement or
validated use; $13 million for an unnecessary, duplicative, and
cumbersome bureaucracy for oceanographic research, which the Navy does
not need or want; and $701 million for advance procurement of a second
new attack submarine, and language repeating the earmarking of these
new submarines divided evenly between Newport News Shipbuilding and
Electric Boat Shipyard.
Mr. President, these pork-barrel projects add up to approximately
$2.8 billion. I am astonished that, once again, after fighting hard to
sustain a much-needed increase in the defense budget, the conferees
chose to spend these funds on pork.
Last year, we wasted $4 billion, or more than half of the total
defense budget increase, on pork-barrel projects. I suppose this year's
bill shows progress of a sort--we are only wasting $2.8 billion.
But, Mr. President, I will say again that the American people will
not stand for this type of wasteful spending of their tax dollars. If,
we, in Congress refuse to halt the pork-barreling, it will be more and
more difficult to explain to the American people why we
[[Page S10128]]
need to maintain adequate defense spending. I would prefer that the
$2.8 billion wasted on pork-barrel projects had not been included in
the bill. I hope that, next year, with the very real threat of a line-
item veto of some of these items, the Congress will stop wasting
defense dollars on these kind of special interest items.
Mr. President, let me conclude by saying, again, that I believe this
is, overall, a very good conference agreement on the Defense
authorization bill. Chairman Thurmond, Senator Nunn, and the staff on
both sides of the Senate Armed Services Committee should be commended
for their excellent work. I urge my colleagues to support this
conference agreement.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will vote for the fiscal year 1997
National Defense Authorization Act. I signed the conference report on
this bill insofar as it pertains to bill language. I did not, however,
sign the conference report's report language because I do not agree
with the report language on the missile defense provisions, all of
which were dropped from the bill. Several of my Democratic colleagues
on the Senate Armed Services Committee took a similar position on the
conference report's ballistic missile defense report language.
I will vote for the national defense authorization bill because,
unlike last year, the vast majority of provisions in the bill are the
result of bipartisan drafting and have full bipartisan support. I
commend Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn for their efforts to improve
the process of the Senate Armed Services Committee during this
legislative session. I would also like to commend Senator Smith for
fostering a cooperative working relationship on the Acquisition and
Technology Subcommittee.
Mr. President, let me briefly talk about the report language on arms
control and ballistic missile defense. In order to get this bill signed
by the President, the majority agreed very late in the conference to
drop all of the provisions regarding multilateraliza- tion of the ABM
treaty and theater missile defense demarcation, which the President's
advisers had objected to. If these provisions had not been dropped, I
would not be supporting this bill, nor would the President be prepared
to sign this bill. However, having given up the bill language, the
majority attempted in this report language to revive what they had
given up. As a matter of law I would urge the President to treat this
report language as totally nonbinding and certainly not representing
the views of this conferee, and perhaps not even representing the views
of the majority of conferees. This report language was first presented
to the minority in the middle of the last night of conference, and we
had no opportunity to discuss it at member level. I felt compelled to
make my very strong views known, that this language is unacceptable to
me and as I just said should be treated by the administration as not in
any way having the force of law.
The provisions dropped by the conferees raised serious legal and
constitutional issues and would have infringed upon the President's
prerogative to make foreign policy. What could not be achieved in bill
language cannot be revived through report language. That is the
strongly held view of at least this Senator.
Mr. President, that having been said, there is much that is good in
this bill. While I do not believe that all of the additional funding
included in this bill is warranted, there are many provisions that I
worked to have included and that will strengthen our national security.
These provisions include the extension of flexible section 845
authority to carry out advanced research projects to the services; the
clarification of the section 2371, other transactions authority, to
spur broader use by the services; a fair compromise with the
administration with regard to dual-use technology programs; the
reduction in the total amount allocated for the renovation of the
Pentagon by $100,000,000; very strong support for the Department of
Energy's stockpile stewardship program; very strong support for the
Nunn-Lugar program and the Department of Energy's nonproliferation
efforts. I also strongly supported the additional funds for the
tactical high-energy laser program with Israel, and cosponsored an
amendment with Senator Kyl to restrict remote sensing over Israel. I
supported a pay raise and an increase in the basic allowance for
quarters for our troops, which I believe is well deserved. The bill
also includes a provision supported by the Environmental Protection
Agency that could speed the process for opening the waste isolation
pilot plant while retaining EPA's clear authority on health and safety
matters.
I have previously stated that we are entering a period of military-
technical transformation. I believe that by maintaining a strong lead
in advanced technologies, and using these technologies as a force
multiplier, we can meet our national security requirements with a
smaller force structure and at reduced costs. I believe many of us on
the Senate Armed Services Committee will be looking hard at the
implications of these changes for our military during the coming years.
I would like to address one issue that has raised some questions from
my constituents in New Mexico. The House National Security Committee
inserted a provision, sponsored by Congressman Thornberry, which allows
certain Department of Energy sites, including the Pantex plant in
Congressman Thornberry's district, to report directly to the
headquarters office in Washington, DC, rather than through the
Albuquerque Operations Office. The provision adds no value to the
performance or reporting authorities for the Department of Energy.
Indeed, if carried out, it would likely lead to balkanization within
the weapons program. I am working with Senator Domenici to block this
provision in the energy and water appropriations bill. If this attempt
fails, I will pursue this issue in the next Congress to have the
provision repealed.
Despite my concerns regarding the excessive funds which have been
allocated for missile defense, I will vote for the National Defense
Authorization Act. The effort to prepare this legislation was
significantly improved since last year, resulting in a bill which
contains many provisions which I can wholeheartedly support. Despite
some differences on emphasis or funding amounts, I believe we have
struck a reasonable balance. I would again like to commend Senator
Thurmond and Senator Nunn on their leadership on this defense
authorization bill. I would also like to acknowledge that we are losing
several valued members of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the
end of this legislative year. Senator Nunn, Senator Exon, and Senator
Cohen will all be retiring and moving on to new challenges. Senator
Nunn, of course, is the ranking member and former chairman, and has
dedicated countless hours over the past 24 years to the Armed Services
Committee work. His expertise and strong leadership are widely
recognized and will certainly be missed.
Senator Exon has been our leader on strategic issues for the past 10
years. His contributions both there and in tying our committee's work
to the Budget Committee will be sorely missed.
Senator Cohen has been one of the most productive members of the
committee, a leader on issues ranging from acquisition reform to arms
control matters and one of the members of the majority who has most
frequently reached out to the minority to formulate truly bipartisan
policies.
We have all benefited from their participation and membership on the
Senate Armed Services Committee. They will be sorely missed by this
Senator. I would also like to thank the many Senate Armed Services
Committee staff members who work so diligently on this complex and
lengthy legislation and support us so well. I want to particularly
thank Bill Hoene, who, this year, took on supporting the Acquisition
and Technology Subcommittee, as well as supporting the Strategic
Forces, and John Etherton, who has supported the Acquisition and
Technology Subcommittee for many years. They were an effective team.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the
conference report to accompany the Defense authorization bill, H.R.
3230. 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. Pryor] is
necessarily absent.
[[Page S10129]]
The result was announced, yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]
YEAS--73
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kyl
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--26
Boxer
Bradley
Brown
Bumpers
Byrd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Glenn
Harkin
Hatfield
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Pryor
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. 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.
____________________