[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 99 (Monday, July 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7401-S7404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S. 1005, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1005) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and
for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
[[Page S7402]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks time?
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska is
recognized.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Appropriations Committee staff be granted floor privileges
during the consideration of this bill, S. 1005, and also for a
legislative fellow on detail to our committee: Steve Cortese, Dona
Pate, Jay Kimmitt, Justin Weddle, Michelle Randolph, Mazie Mattson,
Mary Marshall, Gary Reese, Susan Hogan, John Young, Sid Ashworth, Kelly
Hartline, Charlie Houy, Emelie East, and Mike Morris.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. It includes the request for the minority.
Mr. President, we are now considering the Defense Appropriations Act
for the fiscal year 1998. This is the first of the 1998 appropriations
bills that will come before the Senate. I am pleased that we can
commence this year's work with the focus on national security.
To date, the Appropriations Committee has reported three bills to the
Senate; defense, foreign operations, and energy and water.
Tomorrow, our committee will report three additional bills; we
believe the legislative branch; Treasury, general Government; and
Commerce, State, Justice.
On Thursday, the committee will report the Transportation,
Agriculture, military construction, and HUD-VA and NASA bills. That is
our hope.
In all, if we can do that, the committee will have reported 12 of the
13 bills prior to the August recess. The District of Columbia bill will
await action by the Governmental Affairs Committee on the
administration's plan to change the Federal payment program for the
District of Columbia.
I state at the outset that this schedule is possible because of the
bipartisan approach that Senator Robert Byrd and I have developed as we
have worked together not only now but over the years and the
cooperation between our staffs on all these bills.
I urge the Senate to maintain that bipartisan approach to this
appropriations process. We have sought and the leader has pledged to
assist in obtaining floor time to move these bills to conference this
month.
We will not be able to meet our October 1 deadline to complete action
on these spending bills unless we move them expeditiously here on the
floor and get them to a conference committee prior to the time we leave
in August so that all of our and the staff work related to the
conferences may be completed during that period and our staffs also
have time to take some needed leave then, too.
This bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee to the Senate
by a unanimous vote of 28 to 0. That again reflects the bipartisan
approach that my colleague and friend, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, and I
have tried to maintain with regard to this subcommittee.
This bill is within the 602(b) allocation for the Defense
Subcommittee. It provides $247 billion in spending authority for 1998.
That is an increase of $3.25 billion over the President's request and
$3.1 billion over the 1997 appropriations, but it is consistent with
the allocation under the budget agreement which was reached with the
President.
The 602(b) allocation for the Defense Subcommittee is $1.1 billion
below that provided to the House subcommittee. Consistent with the
budget agreement, our Appropriations Committee allocated a larger share
of the defense 050 function for defense nuclear energy programs. That
is under the energy and water bill chaired by the Senator from New
Mexico [Mr. Domenici]. Those items are funded in the energy and water
development bill that the Senate will consider immediately after this
bill.
At the request of Senator Inouye and myself, the Subcommittee on
Defense Appropriations recommended a balanced bill to the full
committee, and we believe that it addresses key funding needs for
personnel, readiness, and modernization at the Department of Defense.
This bill and our report have been available to all Senators since
Friday morning of last week. I will not describe the bill in detail but
will touch on a few of the key items.
Our bill fully funds the authorized end strength for the military
personnel for 1998, including the 2.8-percent pay raise. We have added
$380 million for real property maintenance, with $100 million set aside
for refurbishing Army barracks.
We have increased funding for the request for environmental
restoration, particularly at formerly used defense sites. And $1.9
billion is provided for overseas contingency operations in Southwest
Asia and Bosnia, and $261 million is added to correct a second
consecutive failure by the Department of Defense to adequately fund
military health care programs. We have adequately funded it to the
extent that we have money to do so.
We have added $437 million to the budget request to meet the minimum
spending needs of the Army National Guard. I want to take just a
moment, Mr. President, to thank all of my colleagues who joined with
Senator Bond, Senator Ford, Senator Inouye, and myself to sponsor
legislation last week to elevate the rank and status of the Chief of
the National Guard.
The adoption of that legislation as an amendment to S. 936, the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998, will help
ensure that the National Guard's needs will be met during the
formulation of the Department's budget and not solely by the
intervention of Congress.
I am going to repeat that. It has taken the intervention of Congress
each year to try to get the Guard the money it needs to perform its
job. I believe this amendment will go a long way toward changing that
status. I ask unanimous consent that the list of cosponsors for the
National Guard amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Cosponsors for the National Guard Legislation
Senators Stevens, Inouye, Bond, Ford, Cochran, Domenici,
McConnell, Burns, Shelby, and Gregg.
Senators Bennett, Campbell, Craig, Faircloth, Hutchinson,
Byrd, Hollings, Leahy, Bumpers, and Lautenberg.
Senators Mikulski, Reid, Murray, Dorgan, Boxer, Wyden,
Torricelli, Smith of Oregon, Sarbanes, and Murkowski.
Senators Landrieu, Johnson, Jeffords, Feinstein, Enzi,
DeWine, D'Amato, Conrad, Bryan, and Breaux.
Senators Bingaman, Akaka, Frist, Roberts, Baucus, Daschle,
Sessions, Roth, and Mack.
Mr. STEVENS. Senator Inouye and I have listened closely to the
priorities identified by the service chiefs in reviewing the
modernization accounts. And $3.8 billion has been provided over the
budget request to address aviation, shipbuilding, munitions, and
support equipment needs in the procurement accounts.
Our bill includes an additional $616 million for research and
development and includes an increase of $474 million for national
missile defense and $175 million for additional breast cancer research.
The bill includes nearly $700 million for counterdrug missions, and
includes funds for the Gulf States initiative, and authority for the
National Guard to spend an additional $50 million for counterdrug
missions during fiscal year 1998.
Consistent with the President's request, the bill provides $300
million for support of the defense missions undertaken by the Coast
Guard.
The bill before the Senate reflects 11 hearings undertaken by this
subcommittee since February, reviewing all aspects of our defense
program. Additionally, many priorities identified in this bill reflect
visits by Members to defense bases here at home and abroad.
This year we have taken three committee delegations overseas to
evaluate how this money should be spent. In January we visited Israel,
Egypt, Jordan, the Gaza, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Italy,
and Bosnia.
In March, we met with senior Russian military leaders in Khabarosvk,
Sakalin, and Vladivostok and held talks with senior officials of the
North Korean Government in Pyongyang. We also visited South Korea prior
to that visit.
Last month, we went to Brussels and met with the Secretary-General of
[[Page S7403]]
NATO and senior United States commanders to better understand the
situation in Bosnia and the potential costs to the United States
taxpayer of NATO expansion.
Through these experiences, many of us have drawn a strong impression
that we are spending too much overseas, Mr. President, with too little
oversight by Congress of commitments made by our regional U.S.
commanders whom we call the CINC's.
Senator Inouye and I have discussed these concerns at length with the
Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen. In response to our efforts, DOD is
taking steps to reduce forces in Southwest Asia and in the vicinity of
Bosnia. Secretary Cohen informed us just prior to the markup of this
bill in the full committee that the Department will reduce overseas
Joint Chiefs of Staff exercises in 1998 and will reduce the size of
joint and unified headquarters overseas.
As a result of these consultations, the committee adopted modest
reductions to the budget for programs in these areas. We are indebted
to Secretary Cohen for his cooperation with us. I will say I think this
bill reflects the relationship he has developed not only with Senator
Inouye and myself but with all members of the Defense Subcommittee.
Beyond these operations, the committee has also pressed for greater
financial oversight of the regional CINC operation. The Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joe Ralston, has led this effort to increase
financial limits and visibility on the deployment decisions that are
made by the CINC's.
Mr. President, it is my judgment that no military officer has the
unilateral right to commit U.S. forces and taxpayer dollars overseas
without the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the President of the
United States, and the concurrence of Congress, and, specifically, to
spend money, it is required there be express appropriations of funds
for that purpose. I am talking about increasing deployment overseas of
U.S. forces and increasing and expending from taxpayer dollars by CINC
operations.
This committee will not hesitate to reduce the funding available to
the Department and severely limit the Department's spending and
flexibility unless further progress is made in this area. I want to
make certain we have no desire to interfere with the President's role
as Commander in Chief, nor do we have difficulty with the role played
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But military officers in command in the field cannot obligate our
Nation to long-term overseas expenditures or deployments--they have
been doing so, Mr. President, and that must come to an end. That is
what is increasing the defense budget. Decisions made in the field
without proper knowledge being transmitted to Congress on the
commitments that are being made abroad, long-term commitments--in one
instance, we were told it was a 20- to 50-year deployment that
construction was being planned on, and not one word had been said to
Congress about a deployment of that length.
Mr. President, there are many other issues in the bill that I could
speak about at this time. It is time for me to yield to my
distinguished comanager of this bill, my good friend, the senior
Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I first thank my distinguished friend
from Alaska for his very generous remarks.
Mr. President, I rise this day to offer my complete support for the
fiscal year 1998 DOD appropriations bill. As noted by the chairman of
this committee, this bill is well within the budget agreement. It is
about $1.2 billion below the amount authorized last week by the Senate
for these programs. I should point out to all of my colleagues that the
chairman and I are hopeful we will not have to reconsider items that
were debated and voted upon last week.
Let me assure my colleagues that we intend to modify this bill to
conform to many of the changes that were approved by the Senate last
week. We look forward to working with Members and their staffs over the
next 24 hours to ensure that their views are heard.
Mr. President, I am pleased to report to my colleagues that this is a
good bill. It is a product of a truly bipartisan process. As the
chairman pointed out, this bill received unanimous support from members
of the Appropriations Committee. For those of us who have had the
privilege and great honor of serving in this body for many years, you
will know that it is almost impossible to get unanimous support from
the members of the Appropriations Committee.
Therefore, I wish to commend Chairman Stevens and his capable staff
in putting this bill together. It is a tough bill, but, Mr. President,
it is a fair bill. It protects both the interests of the Nation and
those of the individual Members of this body.
It is very clear that the top priority of this bill is supporting our
troops, the men and women who are willing to stand in harm's way to
safeguard the Nation. Our chairman, Chairman Stevens, has pointed out
in great detail the items that are found in this measure, and included
in these items we find the procurement of many necessary weapons
systems. Each of these recommendations, I believe, will help improve
the capability of the Defense Department to protect and defend our
Nation, and, most importantly, it will help to deter aggression against
the United States and its interests.
Many of my colleagues have commented, why are we spending all this
money? Mr. President, one may think that we are in the business of
making war. But essentially and fundamentally, we are in the business
of preventing war, and we have learned from experience, bloody
experience, that the most effective way to prevent war is to be
prepared for war, and to be prepared for war, we taxpayers will be
called upon to spend some money. If given a choice of our citizens
dying on the field or spending more money so that this can be
prevented, I am certain all of us would go for the latter.
This bill also provides for programs which may not be directly
defense in nature, but I think it somehow gives a fuller picture of the
Congress of the United States. We have in this measure $175 million for
breast cancer. I am certain most people realize that the women in the
military, like women outside the service, may have to face this tragedy
with breast cancer.
Though we are not directly responsible for the Coast Guard, as the
chairman pointed out, we have $300 million included in this measure to
support the Coast Guard. Mr. President, the Coast Guard is one of the
great institutions and services that we do not hear enough about. They
are out there 24 hours a day, saving lives. They are out there
monitoring the seas in our behalf. But importantly, in times of war and
peace, they carry out military missions. They carried out great
missions in the gulf war, though you very seldom hear about them. We
also have, Mr. President, in this measure, a sum of $48 million to
maintain a program that our National Guard has been carrying on for
troubled young people. It has been one of the most successful programs
we have had in dealing with troubled teenagers.
We also have added nearly $40 million above the budget request for
drug interdiction. We are in the business of using DOD assets for
fighting drugs. We have $1.3 billion to restore the environment. The
Department of Defense is a responsible citizen, a responsible neighbor.
Let it not be forgotten, they, like all of us, are concerned about the
environment.
So, Mr. President, may I once again advise my colleagues that this is
a good bill. It is a tough bill, but it is a fair bill. The Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee faced several challenges in fashioning this
bill, including reducing funding by $1.2 billion below the amounts
authorized. We wanted to spend the whole amount authorized, but the
committee felt at this time in our history that expenditure was not
necessary, and other defense-related needs were a higher priority. As a
result, this is a tight bill. However, it satisfies the highest
priority needs of the Defense Department while living within the
constraints of the subcommittee's present allocation.
So, Mr. President, I urge all the Members of this Senate to support
this measure. Once again, I thank my chairman, the great Senator from
Alaska, for his generous words.
[[Page S7404]]
Amendment No. 837
(Purpose: To provide an additional $60 million for ``Former Soviet
Threat Reduction'' activities for fiscal year 1998)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the
desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 837.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 30, line 5, strike the number ``$2,431,741,000''
and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,411,741,000'';
On page 28, line number 9, strike the number
``$2,865,800,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$2,832,800,000'';
On page 20, line number 12, strike the number
``$322,200,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$382,200,000''.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this will restore $60 million to the
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Program. We call it the Nunn-Lugar
Program. It will fully fund the program. We had reduced $60 million in
accordance with the Senate Armed Services Committee's original
reduction. During debate on the floor last week of the Armed Services
bill, this item was increased. Since it is the only one that was really
a substantial increase, we seek to have this adopted.
We have no jurisdiction over Department of Energy funds, and we have
used different offsets to restore this $60 million, but we seek to have
this amendment adopted because it is a major difference between the
Armed Services bill and this bill represented by our committee.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to say this matter has the
concurrence on the minority.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 837) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to state to the Senate that while
we have been told there are some possible amendments, I have not been
informed of any Senator's intent, for sure, to offer an amendment. I do
want to tell the Senate I intend to move to go to third reading if
there are not amendments brought to us and offered for debate.
We have a very long program for appropriations this week and we hope
to finish three, maybe four, maybe even five of the bills this week. If
this bill is not going to be the subject of amendments today, we should
know that soon. We are obligated to go to debate on the cloture motion
at 6 o'clock, but we could, if the Senators would bring their
amendments over here prior to that time, finish the debate on
significant amendments and vote on them after the consideration of the
cloture motion or as soon as the vote on cloture is over, and enable us
to move to another appropriation tomorrow.
It is our hope that Senators will present their amendments now. It is
hard to get people to listen, but I hope they will listen because I am
going to move to go to third reading if we do not have substantive
amendments presented here before that time comes.
Mr. INOUYE. If I may, Mr. President, I wish to most vigorously
associate myself with the remarks of my chairman. He means what he
says. If my colleagues do not have amendments ready, we are ready to go
to third reading. This is an important measure and therefore it should
not be held up. I hope our colleagues will respond to our chairman's
request that amendments be brought up.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the two of us wish to emphasize to the
Senate that this bill came out of our committee by unanimous vote. It
has been a long time since that happened. But we have personally
reviewed the requests from every Member of the Senate presented to our
committee and we have done our best to allocate the moneys that were
available. Not all of those requests were satisfied, I am sad to state.
But under the circumstances, I do not expect substantial disagreement
with this bill. But if there is any disagreement, we would like to know
it now because we do intend to move forward to other bills, if we can.
The energy and water bill is ready to come before the Senate as soon as
this one is over.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________