[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.

                          ____________________