[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7039-S7050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2057) to authorize appropriations for the fiscal
year 1999 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Inhofe amendment No. 2981, to modify the restrictions on
the general authority of the Department of Defense regarding
the closure and realignment of military installations, and to
express the sense of the Congress on further rounds of such
closures and realignments.
Harkin/Wellstone amendment No. 2982, to authorize a
transfer of funds from the Department of Defense to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for health care.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. THURMOND. I congratulate Senator Wellstone for being willing to
come down this early to offer an amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from South Carolina.
Mr. President, I wonder whether I could ask my colleagues for 5
minutes to speak as in morning business to quickly introduce a bill
before going to my 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S.
2215 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
[[Page S7040]]
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Deanna
Caldwell, a fellow in our office, be allowed to be on the floor this
morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2902
(Purpose: To provide, with an offset, $270,000,000 for the Child
Development Program of the Department of Defense)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 2902,
which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself,
and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 2902.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 200, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
SEC. 1005. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Additional Funding.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated by this Act for the Child Development Program of
the Department of Defense is hereby increased by
$270,000,000.
(b) Offset.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the total amount authorized to be appropriated by
this Act (other than the amount authorized to be appropriated
for the Child Development Program) is reduced by
$270,000,000.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall allocate the amount of
the reduction made by paragraph (1) equitably across each
budget activity, budget activity group, budget subactivity
group, program, project, or activity for which funds are
authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
(c) Use of Funds.--(1) The amount made available by
subsection (a) shall be available for obligation and
expenditure as follows:
(A) $41,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 1999.
(B) $46,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2000.
(C) $53,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2001.
(D) $61,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2002.
(E) $70,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2003.
(2) Amounts available under this section shall be available
for any programs under the Child Development Program,
including programs for school-age care.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I introduce this amendment on behalf of
myself and Senator Boxer. This amendment focuses on a real need in our
Armed Forces. Really, we are talking about the children. We are talking
about the need to have comprehensive child care for our families who
serve in our Armed Forces who, after all, are involved in very
important service for our Nation.
Back in the 1980s this body began looking at the state of child care.
Thanks to the leadership of Senator Kennedy, funding was appropriated
to build child-care centers that provided new services to families of
military personnel. Subsequently, the Department of Defense's child-
care programs have been able to provide quality--by the way, this is a
model for the Nation--quality service to thousands of children of
military personnel. But, by 1995, we find out that there is really a
tremendous need, and while there are some 299,000 children served,
there are 155,000 children of families that are requesting child-care
services. This amendment is an effort to bridge this gap.
For the parents of these 144,000 children--really, close to 155,000
children--requesting this, this is a huge issue. It is difficult to do
well when you are worried about whether or not your children have good
care, and this amendment speaks to this problem. If you don't have
peace of mind while you are serving our country, if you don't believe
your child is receiving good care, what we are trying to do is provide
the necessary family support services.
There are a variety of different components that we are talking
about. We are talking about, of course, early childhood development.
That is to say, when both parents are working and you are trying to
figure out what you are going to do with your child--and, look, for our
military personnel, but also for all of our families--when both of you
have to work, you know full well that the most important thing is to
make sure that your child is receiving good child care. But for too
many citizens in our country, and for too many military families, they
are not able to fill that need. This amendment takes us a long way
toward filling that need.
In addition, there is the issue of afterschool care for younger
children who are going home, but going home alone, again, when both
parents have to work, trying to fill that very important need for
military personnel; or there are occasions when there is a place to
drop a child off from time to time when a parent or parents need to do
so. Now, it is not free. What we have is a sliding fee scale basis of
child care right now within the military, which is the way I think it
should be done. Actually, the average fee is about $65 per child per
week. It ranges from $35 to $88.
The funding for the child development program of the Department of
Defense is about $295 million. About 52 percent of the children have
been served. What we are now trying to do is move toward serving the
children for the vast majority of these families by, over a year
period, increasing the appropriations by $270 million.
The offset is as follows: We simply say, take one-tenth of 1 percent,
one-tenth of 1 penny of every dollar, which now goes to the Pentagon
budget, and just do an across-the-board cut. We have had studies that
talk about administrative expenses that go way beyond this in terms of
administrative waste. If you were just to make a cut in the waste and
be more efficient, one-tenth of 1 percent--and I make this appeal to my
colleagues--you could then appropriate this $270 million over a 5-year
period. We would start with $41 million next fiscal year and,
ultimately, we would build up, by the year 2003, to $270 million.
What we are trying to do is to make sure that we meet a real need of
our military personnel and their families. What we are trying to do is
provide the service for as close to all of the children of military
personnel as possible. What we are trying to do is build on the
Department of Defense's child care program, which is a huge success. I
have had an opportunity to talk with the people that run that program.
I am very proud of what they do, but it seems to me that one of the
best things we could do within the DOD budget is just simply say for a
very small--one-tenth of 1 percent--cut across the board, you can take
it out of waste easily and we could then have $270 million over a 5-
year period, which would help--again, let me be crystal clear about
this--somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 children. Just think of
how many military families we could help through this amendment. I hope
that there will be support for this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I share the Senator's concerns regarding the need to provide adequate
resources to such worthy projects. Therefore, the bill we have before
us fully authorizes the President's budget request for the Department
of Defense Child Development Program. The committee has also
recommended an additional $23.0 million in this bill to construct five
new child care centers.
Unfortunately, the Defense budget has declined so dramatically over
the past several years that we cannot afford to reduce other programs
below their current levels without significantly jeopardizing near and
long-term military readiness. Furthermore, I believe that this
amendment has some technical problems.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I need 5 minutes.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me say that, as usual, our
friend from Minnesota is fighting for a cause that is an important one.
I think he is one of the leaders in this body of trying to make sure we
have enough money for child care, child development, and it is
important that leadership exist in this area. I commend him on that.
The defense budget this year shows a greater than 10-percent increase
in this
[[Page S7041]]
area. So I think the Defense Department is right when they give us the
facts and tell us that they have a program for significant improvement
in child care, in part, by the way, because of the efforts of people in
this body many years ago. They have a projected significant increase
over these years, in part, may I say, because of our former colleague,
Bill Cohen. Secretary Cohen was a leader in the effort to provide child
care in this Senate. He is totally dedicated to it in the military.
The DOD effort, the planned effort to significantly increase the
amount of child care, is requiring them to go off base frequently in
order to do that, to get facilities off the site of the facility
itself, and to go into the neighboring communities to get child care.
But they are on that course of action. They are doing that, and they
should. But they have put in this budget this year approximately a 10-
percent increase in funding for child care. It is part of a significant
increase that has been projected over a number of years for child care,
and it is in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, who, when he was in
the Senate, showed a tremendous commitment in this area and has
continued that commitment as Secretary of Defense.
So the increases that are significant have been planned. They are
proceeding in a planned way. The Defense Department feels that it is
proceeding as quickly and as administratively feasible and efficiently,
and I would, therefore, oppose the Senator's amendment.
I do so with some reluctance because of the subject matter. But
despite that reluctance, I feel that the Defense Department is
proceeding on pace, in a planned way, and most importantly, proceeding
in a way that involves a significant increase in expansion in child
care, despite the fact that the number of people in the armed services
is being reduced, and it is all under the leadership of a Secretary of
Defense who has shown a commitment to child care over the years.
So for those reasons I will oppose the Senator's amendment. But,
again, I express my feeling that, as he so often does, he is addressing
an issue that is an important issue for the Nation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate both my colleagues'
remarks.
I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from a CRS study be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Excerpt from CRS Report for Congress, Sept. 14, 1995]
Military Child Care Provisions: Background and Legislation
(By David F. Burrelli, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs
and National Defense Division with Kristin Archick)
In the 1995 survey, potential need for all the services is
estimated to be 299,278 child care spaces. Given that there
are currently 155,311 spaces, DoD is meeting about 52 percent
of the total potential need.
TABLE 6. NEED FOR CHILD CARE SPACES BY SERVICE, 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Need Percent met
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................. 69,366 109,814 63
Navy............................. 28,074 80,488 35
Air Force........................ 45,785 85,927 53
Marines.......................... 9,086 23,049 39
DoD.............................. 155,311 299,278 52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DoD's Office of Family Policy, Support and Services.
Currently, there is a waiting list of approximately 93,400
children for military child care spaces.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Maze, Rick, Child Care Centers Get a Huge House Boost,
Army Times, July 3, 1995: 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Department of Defense had its own
internal study in 1995. I agree with my colleague from Michigan in his
praise of our Secretary of Defense and his commitment.
I don't think the Secretary of Defense would disapprove of this body
taking yet another step forward in this area.
We had an internal study in 1995 where the DOD essentially said,
``Look, we can only satisfy 52 percent of the need for child care of
families in the armed services.'' I am looking at almost 50 percent of
the families not able to get the care for their children that they
need. As far as how we do this, we are very clear that this gets phased
in over a period of time.
As I said to my colleagues, we start next fiscal year with the $41
million, and then we gradually increase it, so that by the year 2003 it
is $70 million. Overall it is $270 million, one-tenth of 1 percent of
the overall budget. There have been plenty of studies that say we spend
way more than that in administrative ways.
I cannot believe that the Secretary of Defense, or certainly anybody
who is involved with the Department of Defense child care program,
would not say, ``Senators, if you are willing to take one-tenth of 1
percent across the board, and you will earmark that for expanding child
care services so that we can meet the needs of 155,000 children and
their families, we are for it.''
I again appeal to my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Who yields time? If no one yields
time, it will be divided equally.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 55 seconds.
Mr. WELLSTONE. If my colleagues have essentially yielded their time,
or may now reserve some of their time, let me try to summarize it.
Let me try to make this appeal again. We have a 1995 study which
says, ``Look, almost 50 percent of the families are hurting here. They
need the child care services.'' I have a Congressional Research Service
study that says the same thing. We phase it in over a 5-year period. It
is a total of $270 million, one-tenth of 1 percent of the overall
Pentagon budget.
Isn't part of our readiness making sure that these families of our
military personnel can feel secure that their children are getting good
child care? Can't we do this in our budget for our military families?
The medical evidence is overwhelming about the importance of early
childhood development. It is overwhelming about the development of the
brain. It is overwhelming that we ought to do better. This amendment
enables us to do this. I guess I am disappointed in the opposition,
although, of course, everybody has a right to take whatever view they
want to.
I make yet one final appeal to my colleagues to please support this
amendment. It is eminently reasonable, eminently balanced, and it
really does a world of good for military families.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished
Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we spoke with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Carolyn Becraft. She is in charge of their family
program. They oppose this amendment.
When the Senator says he can't believe that the Defense Department
would not support this, or the people in charge of families and child
care would not support this amendment, we asked them what their
position was. Their position is that the child care program is funded
in a way to expand the availability of child care in a planned way.
I want to emphasize that. We have a significant expansion in child
care in the Defense Department underway. It is because of the
initiative of many people within the Defense Department and outside,
including Members of this body. It is under the supervision of a
Secretary of Defense who is totally committed to child care. He showed
that when he was in this body, and he has continued to show that as
Secretary of Defense. The Defense Department has this significant
expansion, which is ongoing in a planned way, and that is why they do
not support this additional increase.
That comes from the Assistant Secretary of Defense who is responsible
for dealing with the needs of families in the Defense Department.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 2 seconds.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me be clear to my colleagues. I
believe in the basic discussion I have had that a lot of the men and
women in personnel who are involved, I say to my colleagues, who are
actually involved down in the trenches delivering child care programs
within the Department of Defense child care program, will tell you,
``Senator, $270 million over 5 years
[[Page S7042]]
would do us a world of good, because we have almost 50 percent of the
families we can't serve.''
My colleague can get a statement from the director saying, ``Look, we
are not in favor of this.'' I mean that can be the position that the
Department takes. That is the position that maybe someone who
administers the program takes. But with all due respect, I have here a
Congressional Research Service report. I will quote. This backs up the
internal 1995 DOD report.
In the 1995 survey, potential need for all the services is
estimated to be 299,278 child care spaces. Given that there
are currently 155,311 spaces, DOD is meeting about 52 percent
of the total potential need.
My colleagues come here to the floor and they say there is already a
plan to meet this need. But there isn't a plan to meet this need. We
are talking about a gap of 48 percent.
I will say it one more time. Just ask the families. Just talk to the
families. Ask that 48 percent what it feels like to not have adequate
child care, what it feels like when you both have to work and you don't
know whether your child is in really good child care, what it feels
like when you are both working and your child comes home alone from
school.
We could do a world of good. The evidence is clear. There is a huge
gaping need here.
With all due respect, whatever official positions we get from DOD on
this, the fact of the matter is, I think, the evidence is irrefutable.
We have a 48 percent gap, and for 1 penny of 1 dollar, one-tenth of 1
percent across the board, look at the studies on administrative waste.
We could put $270 million into child care for our military families and
meet a huge need. That is the issue.
I hope there will be strong support for this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, just 1 additional minute.
The source of these additional funds is across-the-board reduction in
every budget activity in the Defense Department. It is not aimed at
some category called ``waste.'' I think if there were such a category,
everybody in this body would identify it. And I have spent a good part
of my life seeking to identify it, have identified a lot of it, and we
have been able to get rid of a lot of it.
This amendment would take money from every budget activity, in a very
small amount, which the Senator has identified. But those budget
activities for weapons systems are just as important as they are.
Research and development is part of that. Those budget activities
include DOD schools, family support centers, commissaries. Families
need those things too.
So when the Senator makes an unallocated cut across each budget
activity, many of those budget activities are as critical to those very
same families as we are trying to help with our child care program.
Mr. President, again, I oppose this amendment. I hope it is defeated.
But I want to end on a positive note and again say how much we
appreciate the strength with which the Senator from Minnesota supports
the kind of causes which are so important to the people of this Nation
and to the people in the military.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Cardell
Johnson, an intern in my office, be allowed floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just say to my colleagues, this
is one-tenth of 1 percent, and we have studies on administrative waste
within the Department of Defense. That is my point. It is hard to
believe that we could not take one penny out of $1 of the overall
budget and put it into child care to make sure that these families are
able to receive the support that they deserve. With almost a 50-percent
gap, according to CRS, a waiting list of 93,000 families for child
care, this is a great opportunity to help a lot of military families in
probably the most important way we can. All of us who have been parents
and grandparents know that. So I hope my colleagues will support this
amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the request
for the yeas and nays?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Wellstone
amendment No. 2902. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. Roth), are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is
absent because of a death in the family.
I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is
absent because of illness.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn),
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 74, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]
YEAS--18
Boxer
Bumpers
Durbin
Feingold
Ford
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--74
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--8
Akaka
Baucus
Glenn
Helms
Hutchinson
Rockefeller
Roth
Specter
The amendment (No. 2902) was rejected.
Mr. COATS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alan
Easterling, a legislative fellow in my office, be allowed privileges of
the floor during this action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Amendment No. 2981
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question
reoccurs on the Inhofe amendment No. 2981, of which there will be 10
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could I ask, who will be controlling the
time on the proponents' side of the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls the time
for the proponents.
The Senator from Indiana opposes the amendment and controls the time.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding, for clarification,
that we have 10 minutes equally divided, and I would like to be
recognized to close debate on my amendment.
[[Page S7043]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. The Senator from Indiana is going to speak in opposition
to my amendment; if you recognize the Senator from Indiana first, so I
can close debate.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, very briefly, in the time we have, I don't
enjoy opposing matters offered by my friend from Oklahoma, but I have a
fundamental disagreement with him on this particular issue.
We do four basic things in defense: We pay for people and their
quality of life; we research, develop, and purchase modern weapons and
give them the very best capabilities; we support the readiness of our
forces; and we pay for infrastructure--the bases and all the
infrastructure for support.
We know four things: We know that our military people are underpaid
and that their quality of life is suffering; we know they live in
inadequate housing; we know we have a $10 to $15-billion-a-year
shortfall in research, development, and modernization; we know that we
have strains in growing, cracks and fissures in our readiness; and we
know that we have too much infrastructure. The Department of Defense
says we cut personnel and everything else by 40 percent, infrastructure
by 20 percent.
What this amendment does is send a message. It sends a message that
we will subordinate the interests of caring for our people, of
supporting new modernization of weapons, of making sure of our
readiness, in order that we keep the infrastructure that we have, in
order that we protect civilian jobs and bases that the Department of
Defense does not want and does not need.
It is exactly the wrong message to send to our service people, to
send to our national defense. It jeopardizes our national security. We
want to take reasonable steps to put in place a process to remove
excess infrastructure so we can address these three other critical
needs.
I yield to my friend from Arizona.
Mr. BYRD. Before the Senator speaks, would the Senator yield briefly?
Mr. COATS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Supreme Court of the United States has
just struck down the line-item veto by a vote of 6-3. I ask unanimous
consent that I and Senator Moynihan and Senator Levin may have some
time--say, not to exceed 30 minutes--following the three votes that are
scheduled.
Mr. McCAIN. I object, unless Senator Coats and I are given equal
time.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would love to give both of those Senators
double the time. I make the consent that they have equal time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time just
yielded to the Senator from West Virginia not be deducted from the time
of the Senator from Arizona. I yielded because I was under the false
impression that the Senator was going to speak in favor of our position
on this amendment.
I am reluctant to fail to yield to the Senator from West Virginia,
but had I known he was asking for time for this purpose, I would have
been sorely tempted not to yield. I probably would have, but I would
have been sorely tempted not to.
I appreciate the Senator's interest in that subject, however. I know
we have and will continue to have debates on that.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
I have a few words to say today about yesterday's colloquy between
the Senator and myself in which I clearly misunderstood the Senator. I
think we passed each other, but most of the fact that we passed each
other was my fault, and I want to state that more clearly later today.
Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for saying that.
Mr. President, if I could ask, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes.
Mr. COATS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me just make a couple comments on this
amendment.
One, there seems to be some debate as to whether base closing
actually saves money or not--one of the more bizarre and interesting
and illogical arguments I have heard in my time in the Senate. If
closing bases didn't save money, after World War II we should have kept
the thousands of bases that we had across America open. Look, closing
bases saves money; it just depends on when. The sooner we get about
that business, the sooner we will be able to have the money that would
take care of force modernization, retention of qualified men and women,
and so many other urgent requirements for national defense.
Let me quickly add one of the practical effects of this amendment. It
would prohibit any installation from being closed for 4 years following
a realignment, where, as a result of the realignment, civilian
employment dropped below 225--not military presence, civilian
employment. My friends, there is nothing more revealing about the
amendment than that the focus is on civilian employment. That could
mean no installation could be closed--it could remain open, could be
forced to remain open, with no military presence at all, no military
people, but just 225 civilians, and the base being left open. It is
incredible.
Let me finally say, the Secretary of Defense has recommended a
Presidential veto of this bill if this amendment goes through, and I
strongly support that. This is a very dangerous thing for national
security.
I thank the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, very briefly, every single Member of this Chamber
understands that eventually we will have to have the intestinal
fortitude to reduce infrastructure if we are going to support force
structure. This amendment moves us in precisely the opposite direction.
If we don't have the fortitude to make those choices, let's at least
let our commanders have the flexibility so they can make the choices
for us in the interim.
Mr. President, virtually every Member of this body knows that another
one or two rounds of base closures will not only save money, but will
save billions. But many in the Congress have concluded unequivocally
that preserving jobs and infrastructure in their states and districts
is more important than military readiness and modernization. Some are
in fact determined to punish the Administration for its actions related
to privatization-in-place at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases. But
who is being punished? We punish the nation's taxpayers when we fail to
make the best use of the resources with which they entrust us. We
punish today's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines whose readiness
depends on adequate funding for equipment, training and operations. We
punish tomorrow's force as we continue to mortgage research,
development, and modernization of equipment necessary to keep America
strong into the 21st century.
The amendment before us takes our parochialism and so-called
punishment of the Administration even further. The amendment seeks to
make it even more difficult for DoD to shift personnel among bases, to
allocate resources as efficiently as possible, to align our
infrastructure in the best manner for supporting the warfighter.
Rather, this amendment represents a flagrant attempt to frustrate the
legitimate efforts of our service leaders to reduce and realign their
personnel and facilities to meet changing security requirements and
save money.
The standards for allowable realignment and adjustment of people and
facilities are already significantly limiting for the services. Greater
limits on service authority to adjust its infrastructure, reassign
individuals and units, move forces and capabilities to where they are
needed when they are needed--does nothing but harm national security. I
urge my colleagues to reverse this insidious trend of raw parochialism,
of protecting jobs and land and buildings at the expense of our
nation's security.
With that, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as a cosponsor
of the amendment before us. This amendment would further reduce the
Secretary of Defense's ability to close and realign
[[Page S7044]]
bases without the consent of Congress. The amendment also expresses the
sense of the Senate that Congress should not authorize additional
rounds of base closure until we have ceased operations at bases already
marked for closure.
I have listened carefully to the arguments of those opposed to this
amendment. In the immortal words of that great pop philosopher Yogi
Berra, it feels like deja vu all over again. If memory serves me
correctly, on this very bill last year, many of these same Senators
used many of the same arguments we are hearing today. After listening
to last year's debate, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected their
arguments. Little has changed in the intervening period. I believe the
Senate should follow the same course this year.
Since 1988, Congress has authorized four rounds of base closure. As a
result of these authorizations, operations will be ended at 97 major
military installations in this country--nearly 20 percent of all U.S.
bases. In addition, activities will be curtailed at hundreds of other
military bases around the country. These closures and consolidations
will take until 2001 to complete. As they did last year, opponents of
this amendment argue that we have not done enough. They argue that we
need to close more bases. They assert that previous rounds of base
closure have produced billions in savings and that future rounds will
do the same. And they again rely upon incomplete and questionable data
from the Pentagon to back them up.
Last year, I joined with Senator Lott, the distinguished Majority
Leader, and Senator Dorgan in pointing to base closure studies by the
General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office that
raised significant doubts about the Pentagon's data. After listening to
our arguments, the Senate, by a vote of 66 to 33, adopted language
offered by the Republican leader and myself requiring the Defense
Department to submit a comprehensive report on base closure and to have
GAO and CBO review this report.
The Pentagon recently issued its four-volume report on base
realignment and closure. Unfortunately, this report appears to be as
short on new information as it is long in word count. Despite the fact
that the report runs nearly 2000 pages, it fails to provide some of the
basic information required under the legislation adopted by Congress
last year. Moreover, since the Department chose to release its report
just a short time ago, GAO and CBO have been unable to complete their
review prior to the Senate's consideration of this amendment.
Nonetheless, these organizations have already provided us with a
considerable amount of information about the Pentagon's data on excess
capacity and base closure savings. First, let me briefly address the
Defense Department's assertion that significant excess capacity
remains. As the Cold War was winding down in the late-1980s, the
Defense Department properly decided to reexamine our military strategy
and force requirements. The Pentagon conducted a rigorous analysis
called the Bottom-Up Review. This review spelled out the numbers and
types of military forces this Nation would need to meet the security
challenges of the 1990s and beyond. In order to minimize disruptions,
this review set precise future targets on such force components as
military personnel for each service, combat ships, and fighting
aircraft.
Unfortunately, the Defense Department has never seen fit to produce a
similar master plan on military bases. Despite the fact that the
Pentagon has stated since the late 1980s the approximate number and
types of forces it will need well into the next decade, it has never
chosen to specify the number and types of bases necessary to house this
force. Instead, DoD continues to make the case for base closures using
questionable calculations of excess capacity. We made this point last
year, and it remains valid today. According to a May 1, 1998 letter
from GAO, ``precise measures of excess capacity are often lacking, and
we have noted that DoD needs a strategic plan to guide the downsizing
of its infrastructure.''
As for savings from base closures, both GAO and CBO have issued
reports that call into question the reliability of the Pentagon data
offered up by the proponents of this amendment. According to GAO's most
definitive base closure report, ``the exact amount of actual savings
realized from [base closings] is uncertain.'' GAO goes on to say that
the Defense Department's cost and savings estimates were, ``not of
budget quality and rigor.'' CBO stated, ``[it] is unable to confirm or
assess DoD's estimates of cost and savings because the Department is
unable to report actual spending and savings for [base closure]
actions.'' In other words, both GAO and CBO have raised significant
questions about the accuracy of the Pentagon's accounting system for
base closures.
Mr. President, this is an extremely important issue. The outcome of
this debate will have important consequences for both our national
security and the scores of communities across this country that host
military facilities. I remain concerned about the impact that
additional base closures could have on our national defense. Once the
Pentagon closes a major military installation, that facility is gone
forever. The Defense Department cannot simply reopen the doors to a
military base it has closed should a new military threat arise.
This debate will also have a major impact on our communities.
Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home state is an excellent example. This
facility and the people who run it have served this Nation well for 50
years. Given the far-reaching ramifications of closing additional
bases, it is critical that Congress make informed decisions when
deciding on the future of key facilities like Ellsworth and many others
across this country. Despite the best efforts of myself and the
Majority Leader in last year's Defense Authorization bill to gain the
necessary knowledge, numerous important questions remain unanswered.
In addition to firming up the cost data, the Pentagon must provide
the Congress with rigorous analysis that spells out the number and
types of bases it will need for the base force. Once the Pentagon has
done its homework, it will be appropriate for Congress to consider
taking action. I look forward to working constructively with the
Department of Defense in the months and years ahead on the relationship
between our national security and our base structure. Once the Pentagon
has its own house in order, I am prepared to revisit this issue.
Unfortunately, that time has not yet come. Therefore, I ask my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. COATS. I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask what the remainder of my time is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-two seconds left for the opponents and 5
minutes for the proponent.
Mr. INHOFE. First of all, there is not a person in this Chamber who
has a stronger record for supporting defense than I do--not one Senator
on the Democrat side or the Republican side has a stronger record in
support of defense.
No. 2, those individuals who are speaking against it, I wish we had a
chance last night, we had a little bit longer for debate. This has
nothing to do with base closures, because I approve of the BRAC
process. Last night, I went into detail as to why I think that is the
right process to use.
No. 3, the Senator from Arizona talked about ``measuring" with
civilian employees. That is current law. We are not changing that. That
is already in the law. That law, by the way, was put on the books by
the current Secretary of Defense when he was then in the U.S. Senate.
So, I only say that we have covered all these bases. It is something
that is significant. Yes, we do have excess infrastructure, but when we
heard Secretary Peters and General Ryan say they didn't care what
Congress said, they are going to go ahead and close the bases without
going to Congress, I decided we had to do something to stop that. That
is all this does--it makes them come to us instead of doing it without
our consent or knowledge or without the BRAC process.
I yield the remaining time to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma closed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not correct. The Senator from Indiana
[[Page S7045]]
still has 42 seconds, and the Senator from Oklahoma has 3 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding that I made the request that I be
recognized to close debate on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was not the understanding of the Chair.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma be
allowed to close debate--for how many minutes?
Mr. INHOFE. One minute.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask that he be yielded 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. Was that request for additional time for the Senator, or
within the 5 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. My understanding was within the 5 minutes.
Mr. COATS. We have no problem with the Senator closing debate. I
don't think 42 seconds is going to swing things one way or another,
unless I come up with something really clever.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota,
and if there is a minute remaining, I will take the minute after the
other side has concluded their remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I shall not use all the time allotted to
me. I just want to make a couple points.
There isn't any question, I say to my friend from Arizona, Senator
McCain, that the base-closing rounds have saved money. I don't think
there is a quarrel in this Chamber about that. Base closings save
money. They do cost some money in the short term--there is no
question--but they save money.
I have voted for four rounds of base closures, and it is likely that
I will vote for additional base closures, because we need some
restructuring. But the real question is this: Will we have the
information we need to make the right decision as we cast that vote?
As my colleagues will recall, both the Congressional Budget Office
and the General Accounting Office are skeptical about the Defense
Department's savings estimates. Let me share what the Congressional
Budget Office said about this a while ago:
The Congress could consider authorizing an additional round
of base closures if the Department of Defense believes that
there is a surplus of military capacity after all rounds of
BRAC have been carried out.
Then the Congressional Budget Office says:
That consideration, however, should follow an interval
during which DOD and independent analysts examine the actual
impact of the measures that have been taken thus far.
About a couple dozen of the bases that have been ordered to close are
not yet closed. We ought to finish the job we have done in the previous
rounds before we begin a new one.
I have another question about this issue, and I think all of us
should bear this question in mind. What does the Defense Department
mean by requesting two additional base-closing rounds at the same time
that folks at DOD are talking about building and developing new
superbases? Where? How big? At what cost? Let's answer some of those
questions before we proceed.
Finally, let me respond to the remarks of the Senator from Arizona
about civilian employees. The civilian employee standard has been in
law for some 20 years. This amendment modifies it or adjusts it some.
But as a standard for the Department's authority in this area, the
number of civilian employees is not new.
So I am happy to join the Senator from Oklahoma in authoring this
amendment.
Again, I think some base closings will save money. I think we will do
that at some point, but this is not the time. We have nearly 30 that
were ordered closed that are not yet closed. Let's finish that job.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 10 seconds to Senator Warner.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we spoke on this late last night, around
9:30, 10 o'clock. The Senator from Virginia expressed his opposition to
the amendment. I referred to the letter from the Secretary of Defense.
I will read one sentence:
This proposal would seriously undermine my capacity to
manage the Department of Defense.
Bill Cohen is a man we all know, a man we unanimously supported. I
think it is a testament to him that we defeat this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Secretary Bill Cohen be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the Department
of Defense's strong opposition to an amendment to the fiscal
year 1999 Defense Authorization Bill that has been proposed
by Senators Inhofe and Dorgan. If enacted, this amendment
would further restrict the Department's already limited
ability to adjust the size and composition of its base
structure. The Department will have views on other provisions
in the Authorization Bill as well, but I want to draw your
attention to this particular amendment before the Senate
completes consideration of your bill.
The Department can undertake closure and realignments only
after first complying with the requirements of 10 USC 2687.
As a practical matter, section 2687 greatly restricts the
Department from taking any action to reduce base capacity at
installations with more than 300 civilians authorized. The
amendment being proposed would extend the application of
section 2687 to an even greater number of installations.
This proposal would seriously undermine my capacity to
manage the Department of Defense. Even after eight years of
serious attention to the problem, we still have more
infrastructure than we need to support our forces. Operating
and maintaining a base structure that is larger than
necessary has broad, adverse consequences for our military
forces. It diverts resources that are critical to maintaining
readiness and funding a robust modernization program. It
spreads a limited amount of operation and maintenance funding
too thinly across DoD's facilities, degrading the quality of
life and operational support on which readiness depends. It
prevents us from adapting our infrastructure to keep pace
with the operational and technical innovations that are at
the cornerstone of our strategy for the 21st century. In
short, this amendment would be a step backward that would
harm our long-term security by protecting unnecessary
infrastructure.
I urge you to oppose the Inhofe/Dorgan amendment during
floor consideration of the Authorization Bill. Its passage
would put the entire bill at risk. Congress has given me the
responsibility to organize and manage the Department's
operations efficiently. I need to preserve my existing
authority to fulfill that responsibility.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield our remaining time to the Senator
from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. How much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment, if adopted, will dig us
into a deeper hole. We are not authorizing a new BRAC round in this
bill. That is not before us. This amendment will make it more difficult
for the Secretary of Defense to realign bases that he currently can
without a BRAC round.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One and a half minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I agree with the very letter of what the
Senator from Michigan said. He is right. It does make it more difficult
for the Secretary of Defense to close the realigned bases without
coming to Congress or without going through the BRAC process.
I have to say, respectfully, to my colleague from Virginia that the
letter he read from was referring to a previous version--a much
stronger bill. We have moderated this language quite a bit. I also say
that is the same individual that put this into law 20 years ago
himself.
Third, this doesn't stop the 2001 BRAC process. It does not stop. We
can still do it. It just says we don't need to decide in this bill
whether or not we are going to have a 2001, and it could just as well
be done next year.
Lastly, the comment that was made that this would draw a veto, this
is used every year. I have very serious doubts that the President of
the United States, on the defense authorization bill, is going to veto
it on the basis of an amendment that is supported by both the majority
leader, Trent Lott, and the minority leader, Tom Daschle.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Is there a request for a
rollcall vote?
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
[[Page S7046]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Oklahoma.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is
absent because of death in the family.
I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is
absent because of illness.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn),
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yes 48, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Abraham
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lott
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Nickles
Roberts
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Thomas
Torricelli
NAYS--45
Ashcroft
Biden
Bingaman
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
DeWine
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
Moynihan
Murkowski
Reed
Reid
Robb
Santorum
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Akaka
Baucus
Glenn
Hutchinson
Rockefeller
Roth
Specter
The amendment (No. 2981) was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2982
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume the Harkin
amendment, No. 2982, with 10 minutes of debate.
First, we will have the Senate come to order. We will not proceed
with debate and the vote until we can get Senators to take their
conversations to the Cloakroom.
Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary procedure?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes, and
the Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment I offered last night--Mr.
President, there still is not order in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There continues to be a fairly high level of
discussion. Will Senators to the left of the rostrum please take their
conversations to the Cloakroom.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President for getting order in the Chamber.
This amendment I offered basically transfers $329 million from the
Department of Defense to the Veterans Affairs' medical account. The
veterans' needs are very clear. We have a declining population, they
say, of veterans, so why do they need that much money? That may be true
for World War II vets. But now we have the Vietnam vets coming on
board. Plus, our vets are living longer and are sicker than the general
population. Plus, we have the problems with medical inflation.
Yesterday, during the debate, mention was made that the veterans
account got more than a 12-percent increase from last year. I checked
that out. That was based on a Washington Post article regarding the VA-
HUD appropriations. But when I looked at the total budget account for
Veterans Affairs, from 1997 to 1998, there was less than a 1-percent
increase in Veterans Affairs. That is for the total veterans budget.
There was even less than that in the medical account budget for our
veterans.
What my amendment seeks to do is to put some money into the veterans'
benefits in the medical account. This chart shows that out of our
discretionary dollar, we spend about 50\1/2\ cents of each dollar for
military, but for veterans' benefits, about 3\1/2\ cents.
My amendment will take the alarmingly large amount of one-eighth of 1
penny--one-eighth of 1 penny--of the entire Defense Department budget
to put where it is needed to help care for our sick and elderly
veterans. That $329 million will simply keep the current level of
services. It will not expand it.
Lastly, this amendment will authorize the Secretary to transfer the
money. It doesn't mandate. Two years ago, the comptroller general of
the Department of Defense said they could not account for over $13
billion in DOD spending. They couldn't even find it. Then we had recent
testimony this year from the IG's office regarding accounting
principles. This will authorize the Secretary to transfer the money.
Where will the Secretary get the money? You never know. Maybe they will
get better accounting principles, maybe they will find some of these
billions of dollars for which they haven't been able to account.
Right now the Secretary cannot take that money and put it into
veterans. This amendment will allow him to do so. It doesn't mandate
it, but it allows it.
Lastly, I note with some interest an article that appeared in this
morning's Washington Post. It points out that the House yesterday voted
to buy $431 million worth of airplanes that the Pentagon didn't even
request. They didn't even request the C-130s. What the Pentagon did
want is a squadron of F-18s, our carrier-based aircraft, because the F-
14s are getting old. Over 32 have crashed since 1991. Yet, we are going
to buy $431 million worth of C-130s.
If anyone is saying that DOD doesn't have the $329 million to take
care of our veterans, I say nonsense. Of course, we do. I will make the
point once again that taking care of veterans' medical needs is part
and parcel of our ongoing military budget, and it ought to be viewed in
that manner.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, the
Chair will run the clock.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. I oppose this amendment offered by Senator Harkin, and
I will make my statement short. We have had the debate on defense
spending, and I do not need to repeat those arguments. The level of
defense spending was set with the Administration in the budget
agreement. This agreement was widely supported by this body and should
not be disregarded. Some of my colleagues have argued that the money
for defense is unnecessary and they have always found other uses for
this money. Thankfully, Mr. President, this body has not agreed with
these arguments and has provided the resources necessary to meet our
national security needs.
Mr. President, the budget agreement does not fully fund defense. The
budget agreement represents what funds are available. The fact is, Mr.
President, our Armed Forces have been reduced. Since the end of the
cold war, the active military end strength has been reduced from 2.2
million men and women to a little over 1.4 million. Annual defense
spending continues to decline from the build up of $400 billion to
about the $260 billion, in equivalent, inflation adjusted dollars.
Mr. President, I am not opposed to increasing the funding for
veterans' health care, but not at the cost of our national security. We
have been warned of funding problems in defense. We must not further
reduce defense spending, but instead, reverse the downward trend we
have experienced over the last decade in defense spending. I sincerely
hope we will heed the
[[Page S7047]]
hard lessons we have already learned, and not have to learn the same
painful lesson over and over?
Mr. President, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to oppose this
amendment and not further aggravate a serious underfunding of our
defense.
I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 48 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is supported by veterans'
groups, including the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Blind Veterans
Association, and the Vietnam Veterans of America.
The veterans have fulfilled the duty they had to serve our country.
Now it is up to us to fulfill our duties, our obligation, and our
solemn promise: Provide for our veterans.
Regardless of how you cut this issue, the health care of our veterans
is a matter of our national security. What does it say to young people
today entering the service who may serve in the Persian Gulf, or who
knows where, to defend our national interest if they see how we treat
the veterans of our past wars?
This amendment will simply keep the current level of services in the
medical account section of our veterans budget. We should do no less
than that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired. The Senator from South
Carolina has 2 minutes 40 seconds remaining.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2982. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is
absent due to a death in the family.
I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is
absent because of illness.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn),
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]
YEAS--38
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reid
Sarbanes
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--55
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reed
Robb
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
NOT VOTING--7
Akaka
Baucus
Glenn
Hutchinson
Rockefeller
Roth
Specter
The amendment (No. 2982) was rejected.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Notwithstanding the pending business, I ask unanimous
consent that I be permitted to enter into a colloquy with some members
of the Armed Services Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
the aegis/nmd study
Mr. KYL. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished
manager of the Defense Authorization bill and several other members of
the Armed Services Committee who share my concerns about the Pentagon's
failure to date to respond to a requirement established first by the
Committee in its action on last year's DoD bill, and then by the
conferees on that legislation.
The first of these requirements was for the Defense Department to
provide a study of the contribution that the Navy's Upper Tier--or
Theater Wide--anti-missile defense program, based on the AEGIS fleet
air defense system, could make to protecting the United States against
long-range ballistic missiles. The due date for this report was
February 15, 1998.
The conferees added to this requirement by directing the Department
to report by that same date on ``the feasibility of accelerating the
currently planned Navy Upper Tier deployment date of fiscal year 2008''
including an estimate of ``the cost and technical feasibility to
options for a more robust Navy Upper Tier flight test program, the
earliest technically feasible deployment date and costs associated with
such a deployment date.''
Mr. President, many of us believe that the AEGIS Option may be the
most expeditious, capable and cost-effective way to begin providing
ballistic missile defense--not only for our forces and allies overseas
but for the American people, as well. This is the case because the
Nation has already spent nearly $50 billion building and deploying
virtually the entire infrastructure we need to field the first stage of
a world-wide anti-missile system.
Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield?
I want to commend the Senator from Arizona for his leadership in
identifying and encouraging this important program.
I too have, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, looked at
the issue of our vulnerability to missile attack and concluded--as has
my friend from Arizona--that it is one of the most serious shortcomings
we have in our entire military posture.
I too have concluded that there is nothing we could do that would be
faster or more effective than the AEGIS Option in terms of defending
our people against the sorts of threats we now read about practically
every day--from the thirteen ICBMs China has pointed at our cities, to
the possibility of an accidental Russian missile launch, to the Indian,
Pakistani, Iranian and North Korean missile programs, to Saddam
Hussein's VX never gas-laden missiles and so on.
Does the Senator know why the Pentagon has not provided the
information we requested last year? Our bill specifically said
February.
Mr. KYL. It is my understanding that this study has been complete for
some time--well over a month. In fact, in early May, the President's
key NSC staffer in the defense and arms control field, told a public
meeting that it was ``in the mail.'' The staffer seemed to be saying
that his office as well as the Defense Department had finished
reviewing it and would be providing it promptly. Lt. Gen. Lyles did
brief me on the study, and he has kept a dialogue open with my staff,
but our preference is to receive the report.
Mr. INHOFE. Has the Senator any indication about the cause of the
further delay?
Mr. KYL. I am advised that the study has been objectively perfomed.
As a result, it confirms what the Senator from Oklahoma and I and
others have been saying for some time: The Navy's AEGIS system can
contribute significantly to protecting the United States against
missile attack--and do so relatively quickly and inexpensively.
Weeks and months have now gone by, the DoD authorization bill is
nearly at
[[Page S7048]]
the end of the legislative process and the delay has kept Members in
the dark about an important opportunity we have for adding promptly and
cost-effectively to our Nation's defense.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As the Senator from Arizona knows, I took
the lead as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Strategic
Subcommittee in drafting these reporting requirements. I think that, if
what the Senator has been told is accurate, the Administration's
conduct would not only be unresponsive to the mandate of Congress, but
irresponsible with respect to our national defense.
It would be completely unacceptable if Congress were to be denied
information it has sought, not because the information is unavailable,
but because its conclusions are inconvenient to an Administration that
is determined to do everything it can to prevent the deployment of
missile defenses.
As Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee it is my
responsibility to ensure that missile defense programmatic decisions
are based upon solid information and facts. The report we are currently
discussing is key to my subcommittee's future decisions on program
direction and funding for missile defense. This report is one part of
the process of examining our NMD program objectively, comparing the
merits of each and deciding where future resources should be applied.
Mr. WARNER. I want to identify myself with the statements of my
distinguished friends and colleagues from Arizona, Oklahoma, and New
Hampshire on this matter. I have been privileged to have a long
association with the Navy, an association that continues to this day in
my capacity as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Seapower
Subcommittee.
Over many years, I have watched the AEGIS system develop and mature
as a formidable fleet air defense capability. I am persuaded that even
greater returns can be realized from the wise investment our Nation has
made in this system by adapting it not only to provide defenses against
relatively short-range ballistic missiles but against the long-range
ones that threaten our own people, as well.
I believe we need to receive the contents of the requested study of
the AEGIS Option forthwith. I will be happy to work with the Chairman
of the Committee, with the Chairmen of our Strategic Subcommittee and
our Readiness Subcommittee and with others like the Senator from
Arizona to ensure that we find out at once where this document is and,
to the maximum extent possible, that we share its conclusions with the
American people.
Mr. THURMOND. Let me say, Mr. President, that I would find it
unconscionable if the Department of Defense were to be deliberately
withholding a study that we sought in connection with our legislative
responsibilities. We need to get to the bottom of this matter and I
intend to do so.
Mr. INHOFE. I would say to the Chairman that I hope he would agree to
consider taking some stern measures in the conference committee if this
study--which is now over four months overdue--continues to be kept from
the Congress. One option that could be in order would be to ``fence''
the funds for the Office of the Secretary of Defense until such time as
the AEGIS study is provided to us in both a classified and unclassified
form.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I for one would be prepared to support
such a measure, should that prove necessary.
Mr. THURMOND. I can assure my colleagues that we will get this study
one way or the other and I appreciate their excellent work on this
issue.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the
Senator from Virginia for their strong leadership on this matter.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from
Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise to alert my colleagues to a problem
that I am trying to find a solution to. In the big scheme of things, I
guess you might say this is not an overwhelming problem. But given that
we are talking about the leadership of the Navy in the future, I think
it is of enough significance that attention ought to be focused on it.
In addition, I believe it is indicative of a problem within our
military that I am seeing over and over again throughout the various
branches of the armed services. I wanted to bring it to the attention
of my colleagues today.
We currently give Navy ROTC scholarships to the best and brightest
students in America. Students from all over the country compete for
these scholarships. I know many of my colleagues are probably not
familiar with how the system works, but I want to try to explain it
because you have to understand it to understand the problem that I am
raising today.
How the process works is, individual students apply to the Navy for
an ROTC scholarship. They are evaluated on a nationwide basis. The Navy
picks people who have technical skills in an academic capacity, people
who the Navy believes will make outstanding naval officers. I think it
is fair to say that Navy ROTC scholarships are among the most competed
for scholarships in America. They carry great prestige. They also carry
a commitment to pay tuition fees and expenses at the college or
university that scholarship recipients attend. So they are important
monetarily. They are important because they represent a highly prized
scholarship, and they are important because they end up funding the
future leaders of America's Navy.
We are in the midst of a Pentagon effort to change policy with regard
to Navy ROTC scholarships. The new policy is basically a movement
toward limiting the number of individuals who can get a Navy ROTC
scholarship and still go to the college or university of their choice.
There are 69 colleges and universities in 68 programs in America that
participate in the Navy ROTC program.
How it works is, young men and women win the scholarship. They then
must accept the scholarship. Then they submit the names of the five
colleges or universities that they choose in order. And then the Navy,
based on whether or not other students previously accepted it, decided
to attend those universities, tells them where they can apply.
This has produced a new policy, which is that several of our programs
find themselves with two or three times as many students who have won
the NROTC scholarship who want to attend that university. But what is
happening is, they are now being told under this policy in the Navy
that they won the scholarship, they won it based on merit, they have
chosen to attend a college or university that participates in the
program, but because 25 other people chose that college or university
before they did, that the Navy has made a value judgment that we don't
need more than 25 people to attend VMI on an NROTC scholarship, or to
attend Texas A&M under an NROTC scholarship.
This problem is further compounded by the fact that there is no logic
to the distribution of these programs. For example, my guess is that in
Texas we probably have 200 kids a year who win NROTC scholarships. We
have four NROTC scholarship programs. And if these caps of 25 each are
enforced, it would mean that half of the kids in our State who win
NROTC scholarships would have to go to another State, to another
school, in order to be able to receive the scholarship that they
choose.
Compare this to very small States where they might actually have 2 or
3 recipients but at their college or university they have 25 slots
where people can choose that school.
This produces a terrible inequity. It creates an especially difficult
problem for schools that are high on the list of people who win these
scholarships.
In fact, in an internal memo, the Navy has said that one of the
reasons they want to set these caps is that they have estimated that if
they allowed people who win the scholarships to choose the school they
would attend, 250 people would attend MIT and 250 recipients would
attend Texas A&M University.
My question is, What is the problem? My question is, Why has the Navy
decided that they are going to try to limit the ability of people who
win NROTC scholarships to choose the college or university they attend
that participates in the program?
We, under this new rule, at Texas A&M will probably have three times
as many kids from our State who want to
[[Page S7049]]
attend Texas A&M who have won an NROTC scholarship. And the Navy is
going to tell them that, because 25 people chose Texas A&M before they
did, they can't attend Texas A&M. Or, all over the country there are
going to be tobacco kids who win an NROTC scholarship who want to go to
MIT, or who want to go to Notre Dame, another very popular program in
the NROTC program, and they are going to be told that they can't attend
those schools because the Navy has decided to set a quota to require
them to go to schools that they don't want to attend.
Why are the quotas being imposed? This is the most incredible part of
this quota policy. It shows you what you get into when the Navy tires
of recruiting warriors, when the Navy tires of recruiting people who
crush tires, when the Navy tires of recruiting people who keep Ivan
back from the gate, and when we are socially engineering in the
military services of this country.
What is the logic of this? One supposed logic of it is racial
diversity.
Here is the interesting paradox that I want my colleagues to
understand. I just pick out Texas A&M because I am from Texas A&M. At
Texas A&M, we train and commission with NROTC 60 percent more Hispanic
graduates who go into the Navy than the NROTC program does on average.
But yet we are being discriminated against in students who want to come
to Texas A&M in the name of racial diversity? How does that make any
sense?
The second reason for limiting the ability of students to choose to
attend a school is because of tuition costs. Of those schools that are
now above the cap: MIT, $24,265 a year; University of Colorado, $11,502
a year; University of Southern California, $21,832 a year; University
of Notre Dame, $21,027 a year; Texas A&M University, $2,594 a year.
So we have a policy in the Navy that discriminates against students
who want to go to Texas A&M when we have 60 percent more Hispanics
commissioned in the Navy out of Texas A&M than the average NROTC
scholarship. And, yet, the argument for these quotas is racial
diversity. The second argument is high tuition costs. Yet, of all
schools in the country that are over this new quota in terms of
students wanting to enroll at them, Texas A&M has a tuition which, on
overage, is one-tenth the level of other schools that are overenrolled.
So I alert my colleagues to the fact that we have a major problem
with the NROTC program. Now, what I believe we need to do is the
following. I believe that we need to change the policy. We say we have
a nationwide competition, we pick the best and the brightest, and then
we say to the best and the brightest that they have the right to
choose.
I believe we ought to have a policy with regard to NROTC scholarships
that if a young man or woman wins a NROTC scholarship based on national
competition and they want to go to VMI, they should have the right to
go to VMI. And if they are admitted, they ought to be able to enroll at
VMI. The fact that 25 other students have chosen VMI should make no
difference. I do not think it is right to make students who win
national scholarships go to colleges that are not their first, or even
their second, choice.
Finally, another amazing thing in this Navy memo, they are talking
about how they are concerned about people applying for scholarships. In
the 1992-1993 academic year, we had 7,667 students in America, high
school seniors, apply for NROTC scholarships. Today, we have only 5,037
applying. Why is that? Why have we had a dramatic drop in the number of
young students--young men and young women--who have applied for NROTC
scholarships?
The reason is the Navy is not letting them go to the school of their
choice. When you win one of the most prestigious scholarships in the
country and you don't even end up getting your second choice as a
school to go to, obviously that dampens the willingness of people to
apply. I do not think quotas ought to be used in choosing where
children go to school in America. This is a national program. They use
national tests. They have national standards. When someone wins an
NROTC scholarship, the fact that we say to people in my State that half
of the kids in Texas who win an NROTC scholarship have to go outside
Texas in order to get the scholarship, and when three times as many
want to go to Texas A&M than we allow to go to Texas A&M because we
have a quota that says A&M can only allow 25 to enroll, even though 75
may choose Texas A&M as their first choice, that is fundamentally
wrong.
The interesting paradox is that the argument for the quota--racial
diversity and holding down costs--clearly does not apply to Texas A&M,
because we commission 60 percent more Hispanics than the NROTC program
in general does, and our tuition costs are one-tenth the level of other
schools that are over the limit in terms of the ability of people to
attend those schools.
Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAMM. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. COATS. I have discussed this with the Senator from Texas, and I
think he has many valid points. I would like to offer my services as a
member of the committee in working with him on this question. I think
that this does need to be addressed. I think the Senator's points are
legitimate. I am hopeful that we can sit down with the Department of
the Navy and discuss how we can better address this. I understand their
concerns, but I think the Senator's concerns need consideration.
Surely, we can find a way--it is beneficial to the Navy, I believe, to
find a way to address both the Senator's problems, along with theirs.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying I had not
mentioned to the Senator, and I want to make it clear that so far as I
know he was unaware prior to making that statement that one of the
universities in America that is over this quota is Purdue University.
Right now, they are six slots over the quota, which means that if this
quota ends up being rigidly enforced, there will be 24 young men and
women who wanted to go to Purdue who will not be able to attend because
the Navy says they want them to go somewhere else.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield on that, the
Senator had my attention on the issue before, but if he had any doubts
about it, that has been resolved. He certainly has my attention now and
we will work together to resolve, fix this problem.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I see Senator Byrd in the Chamber, and I
want to stop. I do congratulate Senator Byrd on the Supreme Court
ruling on the line-item veto. Senator Byrd had taken the position all
along that the Court would strike down the line-item veto. I think what
it says to those of us who are concerned about the line-item veto and
concerned about spending is that we need to amend the Constitution,
that we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I think
it is our obligation now to go back and try to get that amendment to
the Constitution passed.
But I congratulate Senator Byrd. He is the greatest scholar in the
Senate. He is guardian of this institution, more than any other person
who has served here during my adult lifetime. His position was
vindicated in the Court today, and I want to get out of the way and let
Senator Byrd talk about it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senators from
West Virginia, New York, and Michigan are recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would Senators allow me to do a UC on
behalf of the majority leader and Senator Thurmond?
But I first associate myself with the remarks about Senate Byrd being
the greatest scholar. Clearly, I am not a runner-up, but the Senator
from Texas is, and for him to make that humble statement has taken a
lot of courage.
Mr. GRAMM. I thought it was pretty clear myself.
Mr. WARNER. I also wish to thank the Senator from Texas for sounding
general quarters on this ROTC thing, Naval ROTC. We have to look into
that.
Now, Mr. President, I understand--
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold one second?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield
without losing the right to the floor on my own part, Mr. Moynihan's
and Mr. Levin's, until the colloquy and the action that is about to be
taken has been taken.
[[Page S7050]]
Privilege of the Floor
Meanwhile, I ask unanimous consent that during the remarks of Mr.
Moynihan, Mr. Levin, and my own remarks, former counsel for the U.S.
Senate, Mr. Michael Davidson, be allowed the privilege of the floor of
the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask
unanimous consent that immediately following the 1 hour special order,
the following Senators be recognized in order to offer the following
amendments:
Senator Dodd, regarding Reserve retirement, 10 minutes for debate,
equally divided, and no second-degree amendments in order; Senator
Murray, relating to burial, for up to 10 minutes, equally divided, no
second-degree amendments in order; Senators Murray and Snowe, regarding
Department of Defense overseas abortions, 1 hour, equally divided, with
no second-degrees in order prior to the vote; Senator Reid, relating to
striking Senator Kempthorne's language, 2 hours, equally divided, with
no second-degrees in order; Senator Harkin, regarding gulf war illness,
30 minutes, equally divided, with no second-degrees in order prior to
the vote.
I finally ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered in relation to
any of the above-mentioned amendments be delayed, to occur in a stacked
sequence at a time determined by the majority leader after consultation
with the Democrat leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I beg the
Senator's pardon; I was distracted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia reserves the
right to object.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think this has been cleared on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia
is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.
____________________