[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11080-S11084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
4103, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4103), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.

[[Page S11081]]

  (The conference report is printed in the House Proceedings of the 
Record of September 25, 1998.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time for debate on this conference report is 
limited to 10 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas wants 2 
minutes. Please inform when I have used 3 minutes.
  It is my privilege to present to the Senate this fiscal year 1999 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I am especially pleased to 
present the bill with the full bipartisan support of the conferees on 
the bill and in partnership with my good friend, the distinguished 
Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.
  Unlike the previous 3 years, the bill before the Senate matches the 
budget request levels sought by the President for 1999. Pursuant to the 
bipartisan budget agreement reached last year, we live within the 
budget authority and outlay limits on defense spending.
  It is my judgment, though, that the levels set last year do not 
adequately fund readiness, quality of life, modernization, and the 
needs of our Armed Forces. I will be speaking more on that today.
  The conference report before the Senate places a clear premium on 
meeting the personnel and readiness needs of the military. The bill 
provides the 3.6-percent pay increase for all uniformed personnel. The 
bill also increases funding for urgent operation and maintenance 
requirements for the military services.
  The conferees on the bill also worked to address the top 
modernization priorities established by the service chiefs. The 
conferees did not solve funding challenges presented by the budget caps 
by taking large general reductions to procurement and research 
accounts.
  Tough decisions were made on each program. Very few programs, Mr. 
President, were funded at the full House or Senate level. Where there 
was a difference, we sought to find a compromise between the House and 
Senate spending accounts.
  One very important provision of the bill was offered in the Senate by 
Senator Roberts. That is on the prospect of deploying U.S. troops to 
Kosovo. Following consultations with Secretary Cohen and the Joint 
Chiefs Chairman General Shelton, the conferees modified the provision 
to focus attention on any additional deployment of U.S. troops to 
Yugoslavia--which does include Kosovo--Albania and Macedonia.
  This reporting requirement, related to the introduction of ground 
troop units, does not apply forces introduced in accordance with U.N. 
Security Council 795 or other circumstances determined by the President 
to be an emergency necessitating the immediate deployment of forces.
  In addition, the conferees added language making clear nothing in 
this section shall be deemed to restrict the authority of the President 
under the Constitution to protect the lives of U.S. citizens.
  I again commend Senator Roberts for this initiative and believe the 
modifications included in the bill are consistent with past 
requirements enacted concerning the deployment of U.S. forces in this 
region. It will be very important in connection with any potential 
deployment to Kosovo.
  As I noted earlier, there is not enough money for defense in this 
bill, Mr. President. We recently received a letter from the President 
identifying the need for additional funds for 1999. The Armed Services 
Committee today is hearing testimony on this issue from the service 
chiefs.
  It is my intention to recommend to the Senate that additional funds 
be provided in the emergency supplemental bill for readiness, 
counterterrorism, the war on drugs, and intelligence needs.
  Our committee will work with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint 
Chiefs to ensure we meet the needs they present to Congress.
  Mr. President, let me close by recognizing the excellent work 
undertaken by our colleagues in the House, Chairman Bill Young and 
Representative Jack Murtha.
  The four of us have been handling these defense bills for several 
years now, and it is truly a pleasure to work with them each year on 
this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you.
  I thank the chairman for the outstanding work he has done on this 
bill. I will support the legislation. I think it is a commitment to our 
Nation's defense. The Senator from Alaska always does a good job on all 
the appropriations bills, but particularly this defense appropriations 
bill.
  I am glad for several projects that I think are critical to our 
Nation's defense but are also critical to the State of Arkansas, 
including the MLRS system, manufactured in Camden, AR, Fort Chaffee in 
Ft. Smith, AR, the Pine Bluff Arsenal, and C-130s in Jacksonville.
  I will vote for the bill. I do so with a deep reservation. I am 
puzzled, discouraged and disheartened by the exclusion of an amendment 
that passed unanimously in the Senate by a vote of 99-0 --it passed the 
House of Representatives on separate votes of 415-1 and 366-54--which 
would have condemned China's policy of forced abortions and religious 
persecution and would have denied visas to the perpetrators.
  I am just puzzled, and I am discouraged that an amendment that had 
such bipartisan support, that has no cost and no controversy, would 
have been dropped in conference.
  Yesterday, President Jiang Zemin in China, according to the 
Washington Post today, issued a strident defense of the Tiananmen 
massacre in which hundreds--thousands of students were slain. At the 
very time that the President of China is defending that horrendous 
action, this body cannot lift even a timid voice in condemnation of 
it--even a mild rebuke of those abuses. I am appalled and I find it 
inexplicable that we remain silent and that the conference would have 
determined to drop this amendment that had such support in both bodies.
  So while I vote for this conference report, I do so with a deep 
reservation and with the caveat that this Senator will use his breath, 
so long as he has the opportunity in the Senate, to continue to raise 
the issues of human rights abuses in China and to offer these kinds of 
amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the time of the Senator from Alaska has 
been used.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of this 
conference agreement. Chairman Stevens has once again done an 
extraordinary job in moving this bill forward while protecting the 
interests of the Senate, and supporting our Nation's defense.
  Quite often when we talk about defense we highlight the investment 
items such as tanks and missiles and ships and fighting aircraft. Mr. 
President, while these are all important, and in fact critical to 
ensuring a strong defense, whenever you meet commanders in the field, 
each one will tell you that the most important element of our defense 
is the men and women who are willing to serve us.
  There are 1,396,000 men and women in the Active Forces and another 
877,000 in our National Guard and Reserve. This represents less than 1 
percent of our population. And they are the ones who are willing to 
sacrifice everything to stand in harm's way to defend all the rest of 
us.
  Mr. President, we should be very grateful for their willingness to 
serve and, most important, we should demonstrate our gratitude by 
ensuring that they receive adequate compensation, good housing and 
quality medical care.
  In this bill, we have made some progress on each of these fronts.
  First, the bill provides for a 3.6 percent pay raise, one-half 
percent higher than requested by the administration.
  Second, the conferees have added $505 million to cover real property 
maintenance needs for barracks and housing for our military personnel 
and their families.
  Third, the bill has added $500 million for supporting our bases to 
make sure that there is enough money to adequately operate the bases.
  Finally, we have fully funded the Defense Health Program.
  Mr. President, many of us have a real concern that our military no 
longer believes that we are doing enough to respond to their needs.

[[Page S11082]]

  Last May, our chairman led a delegation to the Persian Gulf. It was 
very clear from the men and women with whom we spoke that there is 
growing dissatisfaction in our military with their working and living 
conditions, and pay.
  We have tried to address these within the funding constraints that we 
face, but we believe more needs to be done.
  We know we do not have all the answers on the best approach to fix 
this problem.
  Therefore, the conferees have directed the Defense Department to 
review all aspects of its compensation package, from recruiting 
incentives to retirement, including all quality of life programs.
  It is the intent of the managers that the Defense Department conduct 
this review in the next 3 months and provide the Congress with its 
recommendations in conjunction with its budget submission for fiscal 
year 2000.
  Mr. President, this is a good package. The bill provides more money 
in title II for operation and maintenance than was requested by the 
President. It does a great deal to help our men and women in uniform, 
not as much as we would like, but more than DOD requested.
  Considering the tough financial climate that we are living in, I must 
commend our chairman for forging this agreement and thank his staff too 
for their great assistance.
  Mr. President, this is a good package, I recommend it to all of my 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, I understand there is some concern regarding section 
8115 in this conference report. It was my understanding that the 
provision regarded the deployment of additional ground troops to 
Yugoslavia, Albania, and Macedonia. We hope that those responsible for 
interpreting this legislation will understand this when they respond to 
this provision.
  Mr. President, before I close, may I add my commendation to the 
extraordinary work of our staff, led by Steve Cortese and Charlie Houy.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join Senator Inouye in commending our 
staff and all those who worked on this bill, and particularly Senator 
Roberts, for his very significant amendment to this bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I strongly support H.R. 4103, the 
Defense appropriations conference report for fiscal year 1999. The 
pending provides $250.5 billion in total budget authority and $168.1 
billion in new outlays for the Department of Defense and related 
activities. When outlays from prior years and other adjustments are 
taken into account, outlays total $245.1 billion.
  There are some major elements to this bill that are important for the 
Senate to review.
  The bill is consistent with the bipartisan balanced budget agreement.
  It funds a 3.6 percent pay raise for military personnel, rather than 
the 3.1 percent requested by the administration.
  It contains quality-of-life enhancements for our Armed Forces, which 
total $455 million more than was requested.
  I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption. I want to 
complement the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on his very 
skillful handling of this important legislation and for his 
statesmanlike approach to some serious and troubling issues in this 
year's defense budget.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee 
table displaying the budget impact of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                H.R. 4103, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1999, SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                                   (Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Defense   Nondefense  Crime  Mandatory    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
    Budget authority........................................    250,282       27     .....      202      250,511
    Outlays.................................................    244,876       27     .....      202      245,105
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority........................................    250,324       27     .....      202      250,553
    Outlays.................................................    244,877       27     .....      202      245,106
1998 level:
    Budget authority........................................    247,340       27     .....      197      247,564
    Outlays.................................................    247,130       31     .....      197      247,358
President's request:
    Budget authority........................................    250,770       27     .....      202      250,999
    Outlays.................................................    246,493       27     .....      202      246,722
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority........................................    250,499       27     .....      202      250,728
    Outlays.................................................    245,408       27     .....      202      245,637
Senate-passed bill:
    Budget authority........................................    250,290       27     .....      202      250,519
    Outlays.................................................    244,938       27     .....      202      245,167
Conference Report Compared To:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget authority....................................        -42  ..........  .....  .........        -42
        Outlays.............................................         -1  ..........  .....  .........         -1
    1998 level:
        Budget authority....................................      2,942  ..........  .....        5        2,947
        Outlays.............................................     -2,254       -4     .....        5       -2,253
    President's request:
        Budget authority....................................       -488  ..........  .....  .........       -488
        Outlays.............................................     -1,617  ..........  .....  .........     -1,617
    House-passed bill:
        Budget authority....................................       -217  ..........  .....  .........       -217
        Outlays.............................................       -532  ..........  .....  .........       -532
    Senate-passed bill:
      Budget authority......................................         -8  ..........  .....  .........         -8
      Outlays...............................................        -62  ..........  .....  .........        -62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I want to commend the managers of the 
bill, the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and the senior 
Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, for their thoughtful work. I 
particularly want to thank the managers for their inclusion of a 
requirement in the conference report for a Department of Defense report 
on the troublesome security situation in the Taiwan Strait. I know that 
both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye share my concern about 
stability in the Taiwan Strait.
  This report, requested on or before February 1, 1999, is very timely. 
The twentieth anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act is in April 1999. 
Does the senior Senator from Alaska agree that one of the principal 
purposes of this study should be to compare the security situation as 
it exists now in 1998 with that which existed in 1979, when Congress 
originally enacted the Taiwan Relations Act, P.L. 96-8?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. My colleague from Alaska is correct. The 
Committee believes that it is important for Congress to be fully and 
currently informed on the military balance in the tense Taiwan Strait, 
as Congress directed in the Taiwan Relations Act. The Committee expects 
the report to detail recent additions to the offensive military 
capabilities of the People's Republic of China, as well as new 
challenges to the deterrent forces of the Republic of China on Taiwan. 
This report should carefully examine the balance as it exists today, as 
it may exist in the future, given expected procurement programs, as 
well as comparing the balance with the situation that existed in 1979, 
when Congress adopted the Taiwan Relations Act.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I would like to thank my friend from 
Alaska. I also wanted to note that it is important that the report 
provide a comprehensive analysis of the security balance in the Taiwan 
Strait. In addition to the traditional force-on-force analysis, I 
understand that it is the conferees intent that the report evaluate the 
capability of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to conduct command and 
control warfare against Taiwan, including the PLA's capability for 
information dominance, air superiority, naval blockage, and amphibious 
invasion. This is an area that has not received enough attention in 
terms of evaluating Taiwan's defensive capabilities.
  It is also my understanding that the conferees intend that this 
report evaluate the degree to which the PLA's modernization programs in 
the areas of submarine development, ballistic and cruise missile 
development, special operation forces, electronic warfare and computer 
virus attack capabilities have altered, or may in the future alter, the 
security and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. I would like to add my expression of 
support in this area to that articulated by the junior Senator from 
Alaska. I was pleased to work with my colleagues in the conference 
committee to shape this important provision. I look forward to 
reviewing this report from the Department of Defense early next year. 
I, too, believe that it is particularly important to focus on the 
qualitative balance now in 1998 as compared to that which existed in 
1979, when Congress enacted the Taiwan Relations Act, with its Section 
3 provisions regarding continued military sales to the Republic of 
China on Taiwan.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the Chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  The Conference Report accompanying H.R. 4013, the Fiscal Year 1999 
Defense Appropriations bill, includes a funding level of $28 million 
specifically for making upgrades to the radars which will support the 
Navy Theater

[[Page S11083]]

Wide missile defense system, through a competitive process. The Senate 
has a long history of supporting this effort by providing funding above 
the amount requested by the Administration. I concur fully with these 
additions.
  The Navy Theater Wide program is an integral part of the overall 
architecture of missile defense which is being developed and built by 
our country today. However, in order to field a Navy Theater Wide 
system that will be available on the schedule that the Navy is 
pursuing, we must increase our efforts in the area of radar 
development. To date, the preponderance of the funds expended for the 
Navy Theater Wide program have gone toward development of the missile 
and the kill vehicle. While these are necessary elements of the Navy 
Theater Wide system, without the upgraded sensors to operate with them, 
the overall system will be less than fully capable. With the addition 
of the $28 million in this bill we are just beginning to make up for 
lost time. I wish we could have provided even more funds. However, I 
encourage the Navy and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to 
commence a vigorous effort to develop a radar system that will meet the 
stringent requirements of the Navy Theater Wide program. I believe the 
same radar system should also be compatible with meeting other fleet 
requirements, such as improving its ability to defeat cruise missiles.
  Do you agree with my assessment of the situation?
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. He makes some very 
important and timely points. I, too, have been very supportive of the 
Navy Theater Wide program and will work closely with him to ensure that 
the entire system, including the radar, is developed on schedule. I 
fully support the conference's decision to provide $28 million for 
Radar Improvements Competition in Fiscal Year 1999 and I encourage the 
Navy to factor the radar development into their overall plan for Navy 
Theater Wide development and fielding.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his remarks. I 
applaud his efforts as Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on this 
issue and for his dedication to our armed forces. I thank the chair and 
yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
again thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their efforts and 
leadership in putting the Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Defense 
Appropriations Conference Report together. I would also like to thank 
my colleagues for their continued support of photonics research and 
their leadership in providing continued funding for one of our most 
critical technologies. The vital nature of this photonics effort has 
been highlighted in recent Critical Technologies Reports to Congress.
  Mr. President, I would like to clarify one point in the Conference 
Report before us, and to confirm the legislative intent of the 
Committee. I would like to ask the senator from Alaska, Senator 
Stevens, and the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, if the $2.5 
million provided for photonics research in the RDT&E/Army section was 
intended to be provided to the Photonics Research Center which was 
funded in the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Appropriations Bill?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, first I would like to thank the Senator 
from Massachusetts and say that I am well aware of the critical role 
photonics is playing in our national security. I concur that the 
funding in question was intended to go to the Photonics Research Center 
that was funded in the FY 1996 DOD Appropriations Bill.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I, too, would like to thank the Senator 
from Massachusetts for his remarks. I have also supported funding for 
photonics research in the past. In the future, most of our weapons 
systems will depend on photonics for their effectiveness. If we are to 
maintain our competitive advantage, we must maintain an advantage in 
photonics research. I would also agree with the Senator from Alaska and 
his explanation of our Committee's legislative intent in providing 
additional funding for the Photonics Research Center.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would again like to thank my colleagues for their 
leadership on this vital technology and for clarifying the 
congressional intent of this funding.


            advanced materials intelligent processing center

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a short 
colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the conference report included $3 
million in the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Navy account 
of your Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Defense Appropriations bill for 
continued funding of the Advanced Materials Intelligent Processing 
Center in Evanston, Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the 
support that the subcommittee provides for this project. I would like 
to confirm that the intent of the conferees was to provide this 
additional $3 million to continue the activities of the Center in 
affiliation with the Naval Air Warfare Center in Lexington Park, 
Maryland, as well as other industrial and governmental partners. This 
continuation funding will allow the Center first to complete a state-
of-the-art resin transfer molding system with all required equipment 
functionality, monitoring, and intelligent supervisory control, and 
then to transfer it to the Center's industrial and governmental 
partners for prove out in a production environment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the senior Senator from Illinois for her 
interest in this matter. I would like to confirm that the intent of our 
committee's action was as she stated.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his 
clarification on this matter, and for his assistance on this project. I 
also thank Senator Inouye of the subcommittee for his support of this 
project. I would also like to say to my colleagues that I am confident 
the work of the Center can help reduce the cost of our defense systems 
through the use of faster, cheaper, and better means of processing 
composite materials for military hardware. These improvements will 
provide substantial dividends to the American people.


                 cost reduction proposal for terfenol-d

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy 
with the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 
Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am delighted to respond to questions from the Senator 
from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, I commend the chairman for all 
his hard work on this very complex and extremely important bill.
  One project that is of continuing interest to me is the cost 
reduction proposal for Terfenol-D, the smart alloy used in Navy 
advanced sonar systems. These essential cost reductions will enable 
significant cost and operational effectiveness enhancements of U.S. 
Navy surface ship, submarine and torpedo undersea warfighting 
capability. Furthermore, this program is essential if the U.S. Navy is 
to have a competitive advantage and not be at a disadvantage compared 
to the Chinese, Japanese and Russians as they invest in TERFENOL-D 
manufacturing technology advancements.
  As the chairman recalls, funding for this important project was 
included in the FY 98 Defense Appropriations bill only to be line item 
vetoed by the President. Due to the importance of the project, funds 
were included again in the FY 99 bill. However, because of the 
confusion caused by the line-item veto and the subsequent opinion by 
the Supreme Court, I would like to clarify with you that the full $3.0 
million appropriated by the Congress in FY 98, line-item vetoed by the 
President and then nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court, continues to be 
available for its stated purpose of cost reduction for Terfenol-D. 
Moreover, it is my understanding that the $2.0 million currently 
provided in FY 99 is in addition to the $3.0 million provided in FY 98 
for a total of $5.0 million over two years for this extremely important 
cost reduction initiative.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator's assessment that the 2 years of consecutive 
funding for this program totals $5.0 million is correct. It was the 
intent of the Conferees to provide this level of funding for the 
successful completion of this important program that will greatly 
enhance the security of the United States and the safety of our men and 
women at sea.

[[Page S11084]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank my distinguished colleague, the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, for this important clarification.


                         ship scrapping project

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address my 
colleague, Chairman Stevens, concerning funding for a ship disposal 
initiative in the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Appropriations Act. At my 
request, funds were provided in the Senate bill for this program and 
I'm pleased to note that the conference report has preserved the Senate 
funding level of $7.5 million. This initiative has been crafted to 
address the Department of Defense Interagency Ship Scrapping Review 
Panel's recommendations for a pilot program.
  It was my understanding that the $7.5 million provided under 
Operation & Maintenance for a ship disposal initiative would be used to 
implement a demonstration project at the Navy's only two fresh water 
reserve basins, where more than 300,000 tons of ships slated for 
scrapping are stored, and that these funds will be distributed evenly 
between the two sites--the Delaware River and the James River--for the 
first year of this demonstration project.
  Earlier this year, I spoke with Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell and 
officials of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation 
regarding their needs as we move ahead on revitalizing the Philadelphia 
Navy Shipyard. A key element of their plan is to demonstrate a ship 
scrapping project that assures responsible environmental health and 
safety management while reducing government costs for managing 
decommissioned ships.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct that the Senate 
included funding for this program at his request. The Committee and 
conferees were silent on the specific purpose of the program. I will 
add, though, that I support the intent of the Senator.


                    Protecting Our Strategic Airlift

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the defense appropriations 
conference report, but I would like to briefly comment on one issue - 
strategic airlift.
  As we have learned in places like Kenya, Tanzania, Iraq, and Bosnia, 
the end of the Cold War has not brought stability to the world. That 
instability continually threatens our national security interests and 
has placed a high demand on our military assets.
  Primary among those assets is strategic airlift. Using our military 
requires getting troops and equipment and weapons to strategic 
locations. I am very concerned that we are taking some short-cuts in 
this bill that directly impact that vital national security capability. 
In particular, I am concerned that the Senate did not fully fund the 
President's request for C-5 avionics modernization. Instead, this 
Conference Report provides only $33.7 million of $47.9 million dollars 
necessary to increase C-5 safety and reliability. While $33.7 million 
is a lot of money, we need to do more.
  The $14.2 million cut delays installation of the Traffic Collision 
Avoidance System (TCAS) by a full-year. Other important modifications 
are also delayed, including the following: Enhanced Ground Proximity 
Warning System, Global Air Traffic Management, Flight Instrument and 
Engine Display System, and Automatic Flight Controls. These are the 
systems that navigate the plane and protect it against various forms of 
collision. As the skies continue to become more crowded, and as we rely 
on C-5s to provide airlift in all types of weather and over all kinds 
of terrain up-to-date avionics are critical.
  The C-5 has served the nation well in all of our military actions 
overseas from the Yom Kippur War to current operations in Bosnia and 
Iraq. In Desert Storm, the C-5 delivered over 38 percent of all 
America's airlift. It is an absolutely essential part of the Air 
Force's airlift capacity. A capacity that is more critical than ever as 
we move to an Expeditionary Aerospace Force.
  I want to point out here that it is not just me who believes the C-5 
is a critical national defense priority. It is one of the Air Force's 
top priorities. Even now, I know that the Air Force is attempting to 
cobble together the needed $14.2 million from other accounts. The Air 
Force should not be put in this position. We should give them the 
money.
  We have known for some time that the C-5 needs some modernization 
work. The Air Force is undertaking a study to determine how best to 
preserve and protect our strategic airlift. That larger study will look 
at many things--re-engining the C-5, buying more C-17s, refitting 
existing commercial airframes, exploring spare parts shortages and 
maintenance delays--but it will not change the need to modernize the 
avionics in the short-term. The Air Force is committed to this 
modernization and deserves our support.
  Quite simply, the airlift of the United States military rests in the 
back of the C-5. In a world where threats appear in every corner of the 
globe, we cannot afford to shortchange the strategic airlift that 
protects our national security.
  When we look at addressing readiness shortfalls in the military in a 
supplemental appropriations bill this year, I hope my colleagues will 
consider the need to restore $14.2 million to the C-5 Avionics 
Modernization accounts. The Air Force should know that we share its 
committment to strategic airlift.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator yield back the balance of his time?
  Mr. INOUYE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.

                          ____________________