[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 135 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11211-S11235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1999--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the conference
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Conference report to accompany H.R. 3616 to authorize
appropriations for 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 conference report.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S11212]]
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today the Senate considers the
conference report to accompany the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I want to thank all the members
of the conference committee for their hard work and cooperation. To
give the Members of the Senate some insight into the complexity and
magnitude of the work involved in the conference process, we had to
reconcile nearly 1,000 funding differences and craft compromises for
over 570 legislative issues in disagreement between the House and
Senate bills. The conferees succeeded in settling the many difficult
issues in this complex process only by putting the national interest
above all others. I particularly want to thank Senator Levin, the
ranking member of our committee, for his continued leadership and
support.
I also want to acknowledge the contributions of Senator Coats,
Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Glenn. This is their last defense
authorization bill. On behalf of the committee and the Senate, I wish
to thank them again for their dedication to the national security of
our country and their support for the young men and women who serve in
our armed services. We will miss their valuable counsel next year.
Mr. President, I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the
staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee in bringing our conference
process to closure. We on the committee are very proud of our staff.
They are a model of bipartisan competence and everyone in this body is
indebted to them for their dedication to excellence. I ask unanimous
consent that a list of the members of the staff be printed in the
Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I also wish to recognize the members and
staff of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. We have worked
more closely together this year than ever before. I want to express on
behalf of the Armed Services Committee our appreciation to Chairman
Stevens and to the members and staff of the Defense Subcommittee for
their cooperation and support.
Working together, we have produced a bill which keeps the Department
of Defense on a steady course and is consistent with the balanced
budget agreement. It is a sound bipartisan approach to some very
difficult policy issues. This is reflected in the fact that for the
first time in memory, all of the conferees in both committees have
signed the conference report. This bill sends a strong signal to our
men and women in uniform and their families that we are fully committed
to supporting them as they perform their dangerous missions around the
world.
The conference report addresses three challenges to maintaining a
strong national defense in the 21st century: the training and readiness
of our military forces, the modernization of weapon systems and other
defense equipment, and the preservation of quality of life programs for
our military personnel and their families. The conference report, for
example, authorizes funding of increases to a number of readiness
accounts totaling nearly $1 billion above the administration request.
We have also authorized the construction of six new ships, increased
the procurement of new tactical aircraft, and provided an increase of
approximately $90 million for advanced space systems and technologies
as well as an increase of about $132 million for strategic force
upgrades.
In the conference, we have authorized a 3.6-percent pay raise and a
comprehensive series of accession and retention bonuses and special pay
to reduce the financial sacrifices involved with military service. In
order to enhance the quality of life for our service personnel and
their families, we have authorized increases totaling $666 million
above the request for military construction and family housing.
The conferees have also crafted a number of management initiatives to
ensure that limited budgets are managed more efficiently and that the
burdens of service for our men and women in uniform are kept to a
reasonable level. The bill includes provisions to ensure that
commercial sole-source spare parts are procured in a cost-effective
manner. The conference report authorizes a series of initiatives to
test new health care benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees.
The bill also requires the Department of Defense to address the Year
2000 information technology issues in a more comprehensive fashion.
Mr. President, this conference report is a sound and balanced
approach to meeting our national security needs with constrained
resources. It is my hope that the Senate will vote to adopt the report
overwhelmingly.
This is the 40th defense authorization conference report on which I
have worked since joining the Armed Services Committee in 1959. It is
the fourth and last as chairman of the committee as I have announced my
intention to step down as chairman at the end of this year while
retaining my seat on the committee. I regard my work on the committee
to ensure a strong national defense as among the most important
accompishments of my public service. My tenure as chairman over the
last 4 years has been the culmination of that service. Words cannot
express the pride and appreciation I feel for the honor my colleagues
have bestowed by designating this authorization bill as the Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
Looking back over the national security issues that have challenged
the United States over the past 40 years and turning forward to the
21st century, I am very concerned about maintaining our ability to meet
foreign policy ambitions with declining defense resources. If we do not
change course soon, present and projected defense investment levels
will expose the people of the United States to unacceptable levels of
risk. We will have abdicated our fundamental responsibility to provide
for a strong common defense.
We are in the midst of a period of unprecedented commitment of U.S.
military forces in peacetime. The United States is using military
forces to respond to a growing spectrum of international aggression,
ethnic unrest, and domestic conflict. The operational tempo of each of
our services is at an all time high as we respond in a sustained manner
to crises in Africa, the Persian Gulf, and the Balkans. As we struggle
with supporting these operational deployments, the backlog of
modernization and real property upgrades continues to climb. Moreover,
the imperative of maintaining our defense technological superiority
over the next 10 to 15 years will soon generate a further requirement
for substantial new investment.
Yet our defense spending is declining. The authorization for new
budget authority in this conference report is $270.5 billion, which is
$2.6 billion below the inflation-adjusted level for fiscal year 1998.
We are currently spending barely more than 3 percent of our gross
domestic product on defense. This level is consistent with defense
spending during the Depression-ridden 1930's. That level is projected
to decline even further to 2.6 percent by 2002. We cannot hope to meet
increasing foreign policy commitments with such declining resources.
We are already seeing the effects of this mismatch of resources and
commitments. The Chiefs of the military services indicate that they
have now hit rock bottom in readiness and modernization. We are seeing
increasing spare parts shortages, increased cannibalization, declining
unit operational readiness rates, cross-decking of critical weapons,
equipment and personnel. Personnel retention rates--especially for
skilled personnel such as pilots--are in a steep decline.
These trends have been evident for the last several years. The
leadership in the military services, distinguished observers in the
defense community, such as former Secretary of Defense Schlesinger, and
even the political leaders in the Department of Defense have been
sounding warnings of increasing peril for our national security. Now
even the President has been forced by the mounting evidence to
recognize
[[Page S11213]]
the impact of underfunded administration requests and to call for an
immediate increase in defense spending. In a letter to me last week,
the President called for a series of steps to redress defense
underfunding, including an increase of $1 billion in fiscal year 1999
and a process for revising the programmed spending in the future years
defense plan. I commend the President for this proposal and look
forward to working with the administration to make it a reality. I ask
that the full text of the President's letter be printed in the Record
at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. THURMOND. The extent of current and future readiness problems
were laid out in stark detail Tuesday morning by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The
service Chiefs all testified on the manner in which our current
readiness is fraying and the long-term health of the Total Force is in
jeopardy. While additional funding in fiscal year 1999 will help
address the most pressing short-term concerns, it is imperative that we
provide significant continuing increases in funds for modernization
above that for additional pay and benefits. The Marine Corps estimates
a shortfall of $1.8 billion per year in modernization over the Future
Years Defense Program under the current administration projections. The
Army estimates an annual $3 to $5 billion per year shortfall during the
same period. We must embark on a course of sustained increases in
defense investment over the next several years.
Mr. President, at the beginning of this Congress, I called for
developing a clearer strategic context within which to design an
effective, affordable national defense to meet our foreign policy
commitments. The need for this clarity has never been greater. With the
belated recognition by the President of the need for increased defense
resources, we have an opportunity to free the determination of U.S.
strategy from being a by-product of the budget process. As I said in
February 1997, let us seize the day. We must work in a cooperative,
bipartisan fashion to avert a certain military decline. The first step
in that process is the rapid and overwhelming approval of this
conference report.
Exhibit 1
Staff of the Armed Services Committee
Charlie Abell, John Barnes, June Borawski, Philip Bridwell,
Les Brownlee, Stuart Cain, Monica Chavez, Chris Cowart, Dan
Cox, Madelyn Creedon, Rick DeBobes, Marie Fabrizio Dickinson,
Katy Donovan, and Shawn Edwards.
Jon Etherton, Pamela Farrell, Richard Fieldhouse, Maria
Finley, Jan Gordon, Creighton Greene, Gary Hall, Larry Hoag,
Melinda Koutsoumpas, Larry Lanzillotta, George Lauffer, Henry
Leventis, Peter Levine, and Paul Longsworth.
David Lyles, Steve Madey, Mike McCord, Reaves McLeod, John
Miller, Ann Mittermeyer, Bert Mizusawa, Cindy Pearson, Sharen
Reaves, Cord Sterling, Scott Stucky, Eric Thoemmes, Roslyne
Turner, and Banks Willis.
Exhibit 2
The White House,
Washington, September 22, 1998.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Preserving our military's readiness has
been the top priority of my national security program. Since
I first took office, increasingly greater shares of our
Defense budget have been allocated to ensuring that our armed
forces are ready to respond and have the tools to accomplish
their mission. Although we have done much to support
readiness, more needs to be done.
This year alone, important steps have been taken to protect
military readiness. For FY 1998, we worked with the Congress
to secure both an additional $1 billion in military readiness
funds through a budget reprogramming and a $1.85 billion
emergency funding package to cover the costs of unanticipated
operations in Bosnia and Iraq. For FY 1999, my Administration
proposed a Defense budget request that increased funding for
personnel and operations programs over the 1998 appropriated
levels and a $1.9 billion emergency budget amendment to fund
the ongoing peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Passage of
this emergency funding is critical to avoid a readiness
crisis in the fiscal year that begins on October 1. I
strongly urge the Congress to approve these requests.
We also have done a lot on our own to address the burden on
our men and women who have been deployed at higher than
anticipated rates. We established standards for deploying
units and intensively manage the force to minimize the
possibility that units exceed these standards. We cut Air
Force temporary duty assignments in half. And we are cutting
back, by 25 percent over the course of five years, the total
number of exercise days. Additionally, we reduced or replaced
some overseas deployments with units on stand-by in the
United States.
My Administration has sought ways to get a greater
readiness return from each dollar spent implementing better
management practices, cutting overhead, and reducing base
infrastructure. Working together, we can identify methods for
eliminating wasteful spending. I need your help in addressing
these objectives if we are to ensure that our men and women
in uniform receive the best training and equipment possible
in the most cost effective manner. They deserve no less.
I recently met with Secretary Cohen and the Commanders-in-
Chief of our U.S.-based and overseas forces to receive a
status report of the units under their command. As always,
the dedication of our civilian and military leaders to the
troops' well being was clearly evident in their reports. I
was particularly satisfied to hear that our forces are
capable of carrying out our national military strategy and
meeting America's defense commitments around the globe. They
are, in the words of the Chiefs, the best-trained and best-
equipped forces in the world.
Notwithstanding this assessment of our overall posture, the
Secretary and the Chiefs identified several concerns that
must be addressed to sustain high military readiness levels.
To address our readiness needs, I believe several steps are
in order:
1. We must act now to provide additional resources in FY
1999 for operations and personnel programs important to
military readiness. This includes resources to minimize
shortfalls in certain critical spare parts, Navy manpower,
and Army unit training activities. I have asked key officials
of my Administration to work together over the coming days to
develop a fully offset $1 billion funding package for these
readiness programs.
2. I have instructed the Office of Management and Budget
and the National Security Council to establish with Secretary
Cohen and General Shelton a separate process within the
context of the FY 2000 joint budget review that will examine
the longer-term military readiness issues raised at my
meeting with the CINCs. Meeting this challenge will require a
multi-year plan with the necessary resources to preserve
military readiness, support our troops, and modernize the
equipment needed for the next century. I anticipate this
examination will result in a series of budget and policy
proposals for the FY 2000 Defense budget and the Future Years
Defense Program. Our challenge is to strike a balance between
providing sufficient resources for military readiness while
maintaining fiscal discipline and appropriate funding levels
for other investments necessary to sustain a growing economy.
The security of the nation depends on our military forces'
ability to quickly, effectively, and successfully prosecute
their mission. Ensuring that these forces are trained and
ready is a priority upon which we all can agree.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. First, Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to join with
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in bringing to the floor
the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
1999. It is truly a fitting honor for our chairman that this conference
report which is named in his honor has been signed by not only all the
Senate conferees on both sides of the aisle, but also by all conferees
from the House National Security Committee on both sides of the aisle.
I am sure that I speak for all of our colleagues in saying just how
much we appreciate the leadership that Senator Thurmond has provided on
this bill, the fair and even-handed manner in which he has managed the
committee not just on this bill, but as long as he has been a chairman
of this committee, as well as how much we appreciate the lifelong
dedication that he has brought to the national defense. We look forward
to many, many more years of working with him. He has expressed his
appreciation for having the bill named after him. I just want to tell
him that it is my very strong personal feeling that it has been a
pleasure for me to work with him to bring forward measures such as this
that are so critical to the national defense. We will miss him as
chairman, but we will not miss him as a member of the committee,
because he will continue to be an active member of the committee.
Mr. President, this is also the last defense authorization act for
several of our colleagues on the committee, as Senator Thurmond has
noted. Senator Glenn, Senator Coats and Senator Kempthorne will all be
leaving us at the end of this year. All three have
[[Page S11214]]
made great contributions to the work of the committee and to the
national security of our country. They will be greatly missed, and I
know many of us will have more to say about that during the next few
days.
The conference report that we bring to the Senate today is the
product of more than 6 months of work, including a full 2 months in
conference with the House. Overall, we have reached a bipartisan
conference report that advances the security of our country in the best
interests of the men and women in uniform. I am particularly pleased
that on a series of issues that were important to the Department of
Defense and the Department of Energy and to the administration, we have
been able to eliminate or modify positions that would have led to a
veto.
First, we eliminated a series of House provisions that would have
barred any exports of satellite or related technology for launch in
China, and also the provision which we eliminated also would have
prohibited participation in launch failure investigations. So we have
eliminated a number of provisions. However, the conference report does
provide that the licensing of applications to launch satellites in
China will be returned to the State Department. However, that return
will be delayed until March 15, 1999. In the interim, there is a
requirement for the Secretary of State to plan for a more timely and
orderly licensing process.
The only effective difference since January of 1996 between the
licensing being done by State or Commerce has been the long delays that
exist in the State Department's processing of license applications. The
delay in the effective date of the transfer from Commerce to State will
give the administration time to take steps to speed up the State
Department's licensing process and provide the new Congress with an
opportunity to review the transfer in a less politically heated
atmosphere after the elections.
It is critical for American security that American satellites
continue to be launched in large numbers, both because, as Senator Bob
Kerrey has pointed out, most of our intelligence information comes from
open sources, such as satellites, and because the satellite
transmission of programming is critically important to forcing open
closed societies whose dictatorships threaten American interests. The
compromise embodied in the bill before us should protect our national
security interests by helping to ensure that American satellites will
continue to be launched in appropriate numbers and in a timely and
secure manner.
Second, we have eliminated a House provision that would have
prohibited the Secretary of Energy from even considering the less
costly of the two options for renewed tritium production. It would have
achieved this result by prohibiting the production of tritium in a
commercial facility, even though tritium is widely used in commercial
products and is not a special nuclear material like uranium or
plutonium.
The provision in the bill will provide a level playing field for the
selection of an option for future tritium production by delaying the
implementation of the decision made by the Secretary of Energy to
select either option until October 1, 1999, the beginning of the next
fiscal year. This approach will provide Congress an opportunity to
review the Secretary's decision--whatever it may be--before it is
implemented. It will have no adverse impact on our national security
because we will not need a new source of tritium for several years. The
Secretary's decision could not be implemented in any case until funding
is approved by Congress, and Secretary Richardson has indicated that
delaying implementation of his decision until October 1 of next year
will have ``minimal impact'' on future tritium production.
Third, we eliminated a House provision that would have prohibited
gender-integrated training at the basic training level in all three
military services. This prohibition was opposed by the uniformed
military, opposed by a majority of the Senate, and it would have led to
a veto by the President. The bill does contain provisions that, (a),
direct the Secretaries of the military departments to provide for
separate and secure housing for male and female recruits with sleeping
areas separated by permanent walls and served by separate entrances;
and, (b), prohibit afterhours access to sleeping areas by unescorted
members of the opposite gender. These provisions are consistent with,
and would in fact codify, the current policies of the Department of
Defense.
Fourth, a Senate provision was dropped that would have made it harder
for the Secretary of Defense to downsize and close unneeded military
facilities. I recognize that many Members on both sides of the aisle
supported this provision. However, the provision was strongly opposed
by the civilian and uniformed leadership of the Department of Defense
and would have led to a veto. I am personally hopeful that in the next
session of Congress we will at least authorize one additional round of
base closings.
Mr. President, I am also pleased with the outcome on several issues
that have been important to the Department of Defense, including the
adoption of a Senate provision authorizing Bosnia funding on an
emergency basis; the decision to fund cooperative threat reduction
programs at a level close to the one proposed by the administration;
and, most importantly, the decision to fund a 3.6-percent pay raise for
our men and women in uniform. Nothing is more important to our national
security than their well-being and high morale.
Mr. President, this conference report is the product of hard-fought
compromise, and I cannot say, of course, that I support every provision
in it.
I would have preferred that we not fund seven C-130s and one F-16
that the Department of Defense says it doesn't want and doesn't need.
I would have preferred that we not cut into the readiness of our
Armed Forces by reducing the Department's operations and maintenance
accounts below the administration's budget request.
I would have preferred that we not include a House provision that
unfairly singles out a single facility by prohibiting the China Ocean
Shipping Company from leasing a facility at the Long Beach Shipyard
that was closed in the last base closure round.
I would have preferred that we not reach outside of our jurisdiction
to resolve a complicated tax dispute between two States.
On balance, I think we have succeeded in reaching a fair resolution
on the issues in the conference. I am convinced that we have a very
solid compromise of the major issues, and I hope the President will
sign the bill.
Again, I will conclude by thanking our chairman, Senator Thurmond,
for the open and the bipartisan manner in which he conducted the
conference on this bill. Senator Thurmond and his staff have made every
effort to include the minority at every stage of the deliberations. I
also thank the chairman and ranking minority member of the House
National Security Committee, Congressman Spence and Congressman
Skelton, for their cooperation in bringing the conference to a
successful conclusion.
Of course, none of this could have been accomplished without our
staffs. I want to express the appreciation we all feel on the committee
to the staffs of the Armed Services Committee--both the majority and
minority staffs--for the extraordinary effort they put into this bill
and this conference. It was a long, long conference. It just simply
would not have been possible to achieve the result we did without the
outstanding work of David Lyles, Les Brownlee, and their dedicated
supporting cast. I also extend my thanks to the staff of the House
National Security Committee and the House and Senate legislative
counsels for their help in preparing this large bill.
Mr. President, it is a good conference report. It strengthens our
national security. I know our colleagues will be pleased to join me in
supporting the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to
Senator Levin for the kind words he said about me. He has done a fine
job. We could not have done this work without him.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S11215]]
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
for the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. 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.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I believe I have 90 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I regret that I am here this morning making
my remarks, because in this piece of legislation we have preempted the
States and their ability to tax. Under the Buck Act, it gave that
responsibility to the States. But in here we are preempting the States.
The Presiding Officer understands the problem between Oregon and
Washington. But Oregon has passed a law that exempts residents of
Washington. So, therefore, the States have worked out their problem.
Here, the Federal Government, Big Brother, has to tell the States what
they can do. I think it is highly unfair. I think it is unprecedented
where the Armed Services Committee has gone around the Finance
Committee.
Senators can't come to this floor and say that the chairman of the
Finance Committee says this section is all right. It has to go before
the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is the committee of
jurisdiction here--not the Armed Services Committee.
The occupant of the Chair is one of the finest jurists in the Senate,
having been, I believe, Attorney General of his State.
The law says:
No person shall be relieved from his liability for any
income tax levied by any State, or by any duly constitutional
taxing authority therein having jurisdiction to levy such a
tax by reason of his residing within a Federal area, or
receiving income from transactions occurring or services
performed in such areas, and such State, or taxing authority,
shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect
such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same
extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a
Federal area.
That is the Buck Act.
The Armed Services Committee has altered or broken that statutory
provision. They preempted the States. They went around the Finance
Committee. Now they are altering the Buck Act.
As I said, Mr. President, this is regrettable, for me to think that
my colleagues would have such a sweetheart deal that when the State of
Kentucky and the State of Tennessee were in the process of negotiation
and working out their problems, they were told it would be worked out
in Washington and not to worry about it; therefore, the negotiations
were cut off, and the sweetheart deal was started.
I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the provision in the
defense authorization bill which I consider to be one of the most
misplaced, misguided, and unfair proposals I have seen in my 24 years
in the Senate. I am referring to a tax proposal in this defense
authorization bill which preempts the State of Kentucky from
administering its own tax laws.
Let me repeat that.
I am referring to a tax provision in the defense authorization bill.
We are now establishing, Mr. President, the precedent that defense
authorization bills can become vehicles for State tax provisions.
The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over tax issues in the Senate.
But the Finance Committee did not report this legislation. The Finance
Committee did not report any other legislation with this tax proposal
contained in this defense authorization bill. It is not even a Federal
tax issue. This is not a Federal tax issue. This is a tax provision in
this bill which dictates to States how they administer State income tax
laws.
The Republican Party has always been States rights. That is one of
their long suits. I have heard in campaigns all my life, ``States
rights.'' And now in this bill you are preempting States rights. We are
preempting my State, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, from deciding for
itself how to administer its own income tax laws on work performed
within the State of Kentucky by private sector employees. It is an
outrage that my colleagues who are conferees from the other side of the
aisle agreed to include this provision in the final bill.
Mr. President, Fort Campbell is a military facility which straddles
the Kentucky-Tennessee border. It is located partially in Trigg County
and Christian County in my State and partially in Tennessee. There are
Federal employees working at Fort Campbell who reside in both Kentucky
and Tennessee, and there are private sector employees working at Fort
Campbell, some on a full-time basis, some on a contractual or part-time
basis.
How would you like to be sitting at the table having lunch, and the
worker across the table from you, working for the same company, doing
the same job as you, pays no tax, but you have to pay yours?
For Kentucky employees, there is no exemption from the sales tax in
Tennessee. That will be the next bill that will be in the Chamber, and
I am going to encourage my colleagues to do that so all you have to do
is show your driver's license and where your residence is and you are
exempt from Tennessee sales tax, which is one of the highest in the
Nation.
According to groups such as the Federation of Tax Administrators,
which is an organization comprised of the top revenue officials from
all 50 States and the District of Columbia, it is a fundamental
principle of taxation that workers are taxed where the work is
performed. Workers are taxed where the work is performed. That is the
basic rule. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but the
exceptions come from agreements negotiated between States--negotiated
between States. States can agree to a variety of ways to treat income
tax earned within one State's borders by out-of-State residents--States
rights. And we recognized that a long time ago even in the Buck Act.
But this is for the States to decide. Congress should keep its nose
out of their business. But not this Congress, not this majority, and
not this defense authorization bill. Do I want to be against the Strom
Thurmond defense authorization bill? Of course, I do not. I do not want
to be against the Wendell H. Ford aviation bill either. But what is in
this bill is not right.
That is my responsibility as a Senator, and I am surprised that my
colleague on the other side, who is a major player with the Republican
Party, did not defend his constituents rather than his party. We are
losing $4 million a year. Not even the Congressman from the First
District raised a peep about it. Who are you supposed to be
representing up here in this body or in the other body? You are
supposed to be representing your State and your constituency.
A dispute arose when some Tennessee workers objected to paying income
taxes on work performed within the borders of Kentucky. Legislation was
introduced in the House to impose a Federal solution on the States.
Hearings were held. The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on
April 17th of last year on this issue. The Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee held hearings on October 24 of last year. To my knowledge,
the Senate Armed Services Committee held no hearings. The Senate Armed
Services Committee held no hearings on this issue during either session
of this Congress. The reason is obvious. Because the Armed Services
Committee has absolutely no jurisdiction over this issue--none. The
conferees for this defense authorization bill have no business
attaching language which preempts State tax laws as part of this
defense authorization bill. It has no place in this piece of
legislation.
Let's go back now to the House hearing of last April. What kind of
testimony did that committee hear? It heard that the Kentucky tax
structure met all appropriate constitutional standards for fairness and
nondiscrimination. The committee was
[[Page S11216]]
told that the ability of States to define their own tax structure
within the bounds of the Constitution was ``one of the core elements of
sovereignty preserved to the States under the Constitution.''
That committee was told that if Congress jumped in and preempted
State laws in this case, ``It will by definition create a preferred
class of taxpayers that benefits at the expense of all other taxpayers.
Currently, all workers, public and private, in Kentucky are subject to
the same rules. This should not be disrupted by the Congress without a
strong policy rationale.''
The House committee was also told that the proposal to grant special
status to Tennessee residents violated the spirit of the Unfunded
Mandate Act of 1995. I wonder how many colleagues on the other side in
1995 voted for the unfunded mandate bill. Are you going to fund this
unfunded mandate? No. It breaks that law. You are taking away by
mandate funds that belong to my State. It is under the unfunded mandate
law of 1995.
Do you think this bill is not going to go to court? You can bet your
sweet bippy that once the President signs it, if he does, this portion
of the bill will be in court. It is wrong. It is wrong from the start;
it is wrong from the middle; it is wrong from the end.
The House committee was also told that if Congress believes that the
impact of Federal workers employed on installations crossing the
borders of two States should be offset, it should provide the funding
necessary to offset the cost imposed on the States affected and not
just preempt legitimate taxing authorities. This is what the committee
was told, but the committee didn't pay any attention to that--it is our
way or nothing. What Kentucky is getting is nothing. I am not going to
allow this bill to go forward without having an opportunity, which I am
doing now, to express to my colleagues my outrage and what their
outrage should be. Pretty soon, I will tell you, 240 installations that
are subject to the same law--subject to the same law, 240 in this
country--will want the same. So what are you going to look forward to
next year? Are you going to preempt all these States? Be fair. Be fair.
So, let me repeat one section of that sentence that the committee in
the House was told:
. . . if Congress feels the impact of federal workers
employed on installations crossing the border of two states .
. . should be offset, it should provide the funding necessary
to offset the costs imposed on the states affected and not
just preempt legitimate taxing authority.
Mr. President, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee heard
similar testimony during its hearing last August. The Senate Armed
Services Committee, however, heard no such testimony because it held no
such hearings and has no jurisdiction over this issue. Nevertheless,
without any floor debate, a provision was snuck into the House version
of the defense authorization bill on the House floor. Where was my
Congressman from the First District when that happened to his employees
and to his State? I do not know where my House colleagues from Kentucky
were on this issue when this issue arose. Maybe they did not notice.
Maybe they were just asleep at the switch. But either way, not a finger
was lifted by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop it.
Let me explain to my colleagues why this provision is so offensive.
The provision preempts the State of Kentucky from applying its own tax
laws to Federal workers at Fort Campbell. But it does not stop there,
it is broader. It also exempts private sector employees, such as
contractors, who perform work at Fort Campbell. Private contractors are
exempt. This goes well beyond any precedent which exists anywhere else
in Federal law.
What it means is that when two contractors bid on work to be
performed on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell, a Tennessee contractor
is going to have a built-in advantage over a Kentucky contractor
because of the special exemption written into this defense
authorization bill. Can you imagine what other Senators would be doing
this morning if this had happened to them? Maybe, with this precedent,
it will. Why don't we try to prevent it?
The House language is overly broad and, in my opinion, extremely
unfair. No such language is included in the Senate version of the bill.
However, I was very concerned about the attempt to sneak this in. I
informed my colleagues on the committee of my strong concerns with this
tax proposal on June 25th, when the bill was debated on the floor.
I should say at this point that the ranking member of the committee,
the Senator from Michigan, acknowledged that tax issues had no place in
a defense authorization bill, he shared my concern about the broad and
misguided precedent set by this proposal to preempt State tax laws, and
he fought to keep it out of the final bill. However, apparently among
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this was a done deal. I
do not believe the issue was even a matter of serious discussion by the
Republican conferees. So here we are on the Senate floor with a
sweetheart deal being cut on a tax provision which preempts State law.
I thought I had seen it all.
Mr. President, this tax provision raises serious constitutional
questions. This provision raises serious constitutional questions. Back
in June I inserted in the Record a legal memorandum from the Office of
the Attorney General of Kentucky which raised serious constitutional
questions about this tax preemption proposal. I am sure the issue of
whether to challenge the constitutionality of this tax preemption
proposal will be studied carefully, should this bill become law--and it
will be.
Let me also inform my colleagues that revenue officials in my State
have had contact with those in the State of Tennessee. This is the
right way to solve this problem. The States of Washington and Oregon
did. But once the word was out that Congress will attempt to impose a
Federal solution regarding this matter, the discussions between the two
States became a moot point. Why should they spend the time and
resources necessary to reach a compromise agreement when Congress was
considering preempting State law and imposing a solution which favors
just one side? What incentive was there to negotiate? Big Brother in
Washington was acting to impose a solution on a matter which is
normally left to the States to work out on their own.
Mr. President, a sweetheart deal cut by the Republican conferees is
going to cost my State about $4 million per year. Let there be no
mistake about my Governor's opposition to this tax preemption
provision. Let me read from his letter of June 25, 1998, from Governor
Paul Patton of Kentucky.
I am writing to express Kentucky's opposition to the
Thompson amendment currently under consideration by the
United States Senate. The issue addressed by this legislation
is the tax imposed by the Commonwealth on income earned
within Kentucky by non-resident federal workers.
He went on to lay out why.
We are attempting to resolve this issue through a joint
effort with Tennessee Governor Sundquist's office. This
matter is one to be settled at the State level, and not an
issue for Congress to resolve.
* * * * *
In closing, I would like to reiterate the Kentucky taxation
of non-residents working in Kentucky is fair in concept and
in practice. To exempt all non-residents or a special group
of non-residents who work in Kentucky would be unfair. If I
may provide you with any other information on this issue,
please feel free to contact me.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from the Governor
of Kentucky be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Office of the Governor,
Frankfurt, KY, June 25, 1998.
Hon. Wendell Ford,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: I am writing to express Kentucky's
opposition to the Thompson amendment currently under
consideration by the United States Senate. The issue
addressed by this legislation is the tax imposed by the
Commonwealth on income earned within Kentucky by non-resident
federal workers.
The protest by federal workers employed at the Fort
Campbell military base against the imposition of the Kentucky
income tax has centered on their contention that the tax is
unfair to them. All income in question is taxed the same
whether earned by a resident or non-resident of Kentucky.
Only the income earned within the Commonwealth of Kentucky is
taxed. It would be unfair to tax the income of residents but
not the income of non-residents doing the same job in the
same place. Indeed, if this were the case, it would make
sense for Kentucky residents
[[Page S11217]]
working on the Fort Campbell base to move to Tennessee to
avoid the Kentucky income tax.
On June 23, 1998, Kentucky's Attorney General sent to me a
memorandum which offers a compelling and reasonable argument
against the constitutionality of the Thompson amendment under
the Commerce Clause. A consequence of this amendment would be
its detrimental impact on the Kentucky communities which
surround Fort Campbell. The legislation would exceed
Congressional authority and would likely be proven as
unconstitutional. Congress granted the states the power to
tax income, and on several occasions, courts have held that
states can assess an income tax to nonresidents who earn
their income in that state. Congress can reduce the states'
power of taxation, but only through an amendment within the
confines of the Commerce Clause.
We are attempting to resolve this issue through a joint
effort with Tennessee Governor Sundquist's office. This
matter is one to be settled at the state level, and not an
issue for Congress to resolve. The impacts of the Thompson
amendment would far surpass Fort Campbell. These impacts
would extend to the employees of every federal institution
within close proximity with state borders.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that Kentucky's
taxation of non-residents working in Kentucky is fair in
concept and in practice. To exempt all non-residents or a
special group of non-residents who work in Kentucky would be
unfair. If I may provide you with any other information on
this issue, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Patton,
Governor.
Mr. FORD. The State preemption provision in this bill is also
strongly opposed by the Federation of Tax Administrators. Let me read
from a June 24, 1998 letter from Mr. Harley T. Duncan, the executive
director of the Federation of Tax Administrators:
I am writing concerning amendments to the defense
appropriations bills (S. 2057) which would preempt Oregon,
Kentucky and Nebraska from applying their income tax to
certain federal employees (and in some cases, contractors)
who work in those states, but reside in bordering states with
no income taxes. . . .
These amendments have been separately considered earlier in
the 105th Congress as H.R. 1953. The Federation of Tax
Administrators is an association of the principal tax
administration agencies in the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and New York City. The Federation has adopted a
policy which urges that the Senate reject H.R. 1953 and any
similar language which may be offered as an amendment to
other bills.
We ask the Senate to recognize that, throughout the history
of income taxation, both federal and state, workers are taxed
by the jurisdiction where the work is performed. This system
represents the keystone of taxation. State lawmakers make
exceptions to this system to address individual circumstances
where strict adherence to the principle leads to undesirable
results. In particular, in those instances where sound fiscal
and government policy permit, a State may enter into a
reciprocal agreement with a bordering State to permit
taxpayers to file a single return in the state of
residency. Kentucky is at the forefront of such policy
refinements.
They are complimenting my State for being in the forefront of these
policy refinements.
--it has a reciprocal agreement with every border state that
has a broad-based individual income tax.
The U.S. Constitution imposes substantive constraints on
the manner in which such states may structure their tax
systems. These constraints ensure that the tax imposed meets
fundamental tests of fairness in dealing with all citizens.
The Constitution further ensures that state taxes do not
impose undue burdens on interstate commerce or the federal
government. The taxes imposed by these states meet these
requirements and should not be preempted. There is no
question that states have the legal authority to tax the
income of nonresidents working in Oregon, Kentucky or
Nebraska.
It goes on, Mr. President:
Further, the language exempts from taxation wages paid to
Federal workers . . . but it exempts from tax income paid to
all individuals who work in Fort Campbell in Kentucky.
A special group is set out here.
This encompasses not only contract employees who work
directly for the military . . . but also includes employees
of private companies who run businesses or perform services
on the bases, including such businesses as restaurants and
road maintenance firms. These are clearly private business
people, not federal workers.
But they are exempt. They are exempt under this particular bill.
Finally, and most importantly, if change is necessary, it
is within the power of the states involved to do so. This is
an issue for state lawmakers, not federal lawmakers.
Lawmakers in Kentucky and Tennessee are seeking an equitable
solution that would not impose an unfair burden on either
state. . .
The Senate is faced with an opportunity to demonstrate good
faith to the principles contained in the Unfunded Mandates
Act of 1995.
And we are not doing that.
If Congress feels that the impact of federal workers
employed on installations crossing the borders of two
states--one of which imposes an income tax and another which
does not--should be offset, it should provide the funding
necessary to offset the costs imposed on the states affected.
This is signed Harley T. Duncan, executive director, Federation of
Tax Administrators.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr.
Duncan be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Federation of Tax Administrators,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1998.
Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: I am writing concerning amendments to
the defense appropriations bills (S. 2057) which would
preempt Oregon, Kentucky and Nebraska from applying their
income taxes to certain federal employees (and in some cases
contractors) who work in those states, but reside in
bordering states with no income taxes (Washington, Tennessee
and South Dakota).
These amendments have been separately considered earlier in
the 105th Congress as H.R. 1953. The Federation of Tax
Administrators is an association of the principal tax
administration agencies in the 50 states, the District of
Columbia and New York City. The Federation has adopted a
policy which urges that the Senate reject H.R. 1953 and any
similar language which may be offered as an amendment to
other bills.
We ask the Senate to recognize that, throughout the history
of income taxation, both federal and state, workers are taxed
by the jurisdiction where the work is performed. This system
represents the keystone of taxation. State lawmakers make
exceptions to this system to address individual circumstances
where strict adherence to the principle leads to undesirable
results. In particular, in those instances where sound fiscal
and government policy permit, a state may enter into a
reciprocal agreement with a bordering state to permit
taxpayers to file a single return in the state of residency.
Kentucky is at the forefront of such policy refinements--it
has a reciprocal agreement with every border state that has a
broad-based individual income tax. (The agreements do not
function with non-income-tax states such as Tennessee, and
thus they are not applicable in this case.)
The U.S. Constitution imposes substantive constraints on
the manner in which states may structure their tax systems.
These constraint ensure that the tax imposed meets
fundamental tests of fairness in dealing with all citizens.
The Constitution further ensures that state taxes do not
impose undue burdens on interstate commerce or the federal
government. The taxes imposed by these states meet these
requirements and should not be preempted. There is no
question that states have the legal authority to tax the
income of nonresidents working in Oregon, Kentucky or
Nebraska.
What this amendment would do is carve out a special tax
benefit for workers who choose to live (or move) out of state
that would not be available to any other employees working at
the same location. Further, the language exempts from
taxation wages paid to federal workers in Oregon and
Nebraska--but it exempts from tax income paid to all
individuals who work in Fort Campbell in Kentucky. This
encompasses not only contract employees who work directly for
the military (for instance, school teachers), but also
includes the employees of private companies who run
businesses or perform services on the base, including such
businesses as restaurants and road maintenance firms. These
are clearly private businesspeople, not federal workers. If
Kentucky is to be preempted from taxing individuals who work
for the federal government, we particularly urge the Senate
to adopt language that more precisely defines the matter.
(More precise definitions have been offered by the Pentagon.)
Finally, and most importantly, if change is necessary, it
is within the power of the states involved to do so. This is
an issue for state lawmakers, not federal lawmakers.
Lawmakers in Kentucky and Tennessee are seeking an equitable
solution that would not impose an unfair burden on either
state. Oregon has already passed a law that exempts from
taxation those federal employees who work on the dam in
Oregon. (We would emphasize that to continue to include
Oregon in this bill is unnecessary and an insult to the
elected officials of that state.)
The ability to define their tax systems within the bounds
of the Constitution is one of the core elements of
sovereignty preserved to the states under the Constitution. A
central feature of this sovereignty is the ability to tax
economic activity and income earned within the borders of the
state, and it is vital to the continued strong role of the
states in the federal system. State taxing authority should
be preempted by the federal government only where there is a
compelling policy rationale. There is no such rationale
present here.
The Senate is faced with an opportunity to demonstrate good
faith to the principles contained in The Unfunded Mandates
Act of
[[Page S11218]]
1995. If Congress feels that the impact of federal workers on
installations crossing the borders of two states--one of
which imposes an income tax and the other of which does not--
should be offset, it should provide the funding necessary to
offset the costs imposed on the states affected.
Sincerely,
Harley T. Duncan,
Executive Director.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the National Conference of State
Legislatures also strongly oppose the State tax preemption provided in
the defense authorization bill. Let me read from an August 7, 1998,
letter to the conferees. This was written to the chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, the Senator from South Carolina, Senator
Thurmond. ``Federal preemption of legitimate State taxing authority.''
The National Conference of State Legislatures wrote to the chairman and
said this is wrong:
On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures,
I am writing in opposition to Section 1045 of the House
version of the National Defense Authorization bill (H.R.
3616). NCSL opposes federal action that preempts the states'
constitutional authority to tax income earned within their
borders . . . We urge you to preserve the States'
sovereignty--
Preserve the States' sovereignty.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the National Conference
of State Legislatures be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Conference
of State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, August 7, 1998.
Re Federal preemption of legitimate State taxing authority.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate,
Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: On behalf of the National Conference
of State Legislatures, I am writing in opposition to Section
1045 of the House version of the National Defense
Authorization bill (HR 3616). NCSL opposes federal action
that preempts the states' constitutional authority to tax
income earned within their borders. Such federal legislation
leads to inequitable, unfair and unlevel state tax policies
and establishes a precedent for increased restrictions on
source taxation.
Section 1045 of the House bill would preempt state taxation
of federal workers in three locations. NCSL believes that the
states in question should be allowed to determine how to tax
workers who reside in one state and work in another, free
from federal intrusion.
We urge you to preserve the states' sovereignty right to
define their own tax systems by removing. Section 1045 from
the conference report on the bill. Finally, should the
conferees include the provision in the final bill, we urge
you to find an offset for the cost. Burdening the states with
an unfunded mandate violates the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1994. The cost associated with the loss of states tax
revenue, due to change in federal policy, should be borne
exclusively by the federal government.
We look forward to working with you on this issue. Should
you have additional questions, please contact our committee
staff, Gerri Madrid, at (202) 624-8670.
Sincerely,
Tom Johnson,
Chair, Federal Budget and Taxation Committee, Ohio House of
Representatives.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, apparently all of these requests to the
Republican conferees to keep this State preemption provision out of the
defense bill fell on deaf ears. The conferees either did not listen or
did not care. One way or another, this was a done deal, a sweetheart
deal, a special tax provision which favors one set of workers over
another for the same work performed, at the same location, despite
State law.
We are sitting at the same table. We are both working for the same
employer. We are both doing the same job. We are both drawing the same
pay, but you do not pay any taxes because you are a resident of
Tennessee. I am a resident of Kentucky, and I pay my taxes.
Mr. President, all of the requests to the Republican conferees to
keep this State tax provision out of the defense bill fell on deaf
ears. I wanted to repeat that. It is a special tax provision which
favors one set of workers over another. It also gives the employers, or
the companies, an advantage when they bid, because they don't have to
pay the tax under this.
As I said earlier, the next bill ought to be exempting Kentucky
residents from the sales tax in Tennessee. Just show your driver's
license and your address and place of employment, and you don't pay the
taxes, one of the highest sales tax States in the Nation because their
income comes from the sales tax.
I hope my colleagues understand the precedent that is being set here.
We are preempting State law--preempting State law--and establishing a
special tax status for a group of not just Federal employees, but
private sector workers who perform their work entirely within one
State's borders. It is a very broad precedent. There is no stated
policy rationale for this special preemption and special tax status we
are granting. It is a precedent that will haunt my colleagues.
I want my colleagues to understand how many other Federal facilities
are in similar situations. When the workers at these facilities, not
just the Federal workers, but the private sector workers as well, when
these workers find out about the sweetheart deal at Fort Campbell, they
are going to be asking their Senators, ``Why can't we get a good deal
as well?''
I have asked the Federal Tax Administrators just how many other
Federal facilities are similarly situated. We have a preliminary list,
but it is only preliminary. It probably does not include everything.
The partial list we have shows there are 240 Federal facilities around
the country that are on or near the borders of two or more States with
significantly different income tax structures.
We talk about how hard it was to work out this bill, how many issues
came before the committee. In the future, if this is the precedent that
is being set, the Armed Services Committee will be in the tax business;
they will be in the finance business; they will be preempting State
laws and will not be looking after the right thing they should be
doing, and that is the defense of this great country of ours.
I want to share this with my colleagues because more than 20 other
States are affected. I think about 20 other States. That is 40
Senators--pretty good bunch of Senators. In other words, Senators from
at least 20 other States are in jeopardy of having to face this same
issue.
What have you done to the future of the military bill, the defense
authorization bill? What have you done to it? You have turned it into a
finance bill, not a defense bill. And I say to my colleagues, if they
are from one of these States, you might be standing up here next year.
Once the private sector employees find out about the special tax
preemption, they may be lobbying their Senators next year to exempt
them from the State tax laws in your State.
Let me read a list, and this is only a partial list: Arkansas has 7
installations. Arizona has 7. California has 50--50 installations
similar to the one in Kentucky. Think about that when the two Senators
from California will have to say--it goes all the way from military
facilities, such as Fort Irwin Naval Weapons Center, Sierra Army Depot,
the Grand Mesa National Forest.
Connecticut has 2. Georgia has 1. Maine has 1. Oh, I remember the
argument here between Maine and New Hampshire. They are left out of
this bill. They are left out of this bill because both of them
apparently are on the other side. I was for Maine.
Massachusetts has 1. Mississippi has 8. Mississippi is probably the
most vulnerable State of all of them because of their border situation.
Can you imagine what would happen if all of these employees went to the
two Senators in Mississippi and said, ``Right across the line here in
Tennessee they receive tax exemptions. What about us? What about us?
What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.''
Missouri has 6. Montana has 10. They are not in this bill. Nebraska
has 1. New Jersey has 20--New Jersey has 20. New Mexico has 6. New York
has only 1. I was surprised at that. But North Carolina has 13--North
Carolina has 13. Oregon has 20. Pennsylvania has 1. I heard a lot about
the Philadelphia Naval Yard last year.
South Carolina has 1. South Dakota has 3. Tennessee has 3. Utah has
37. Think about that. Utah has 37 installations similar to the
situation in this bill.
What about those employees--Federal employees, private sector
employees--who were not exempt? Can you
[[Page S11219]]
imagine what the two Senators from Utah are going to face when they
understand that other States were preempted and created a special tax
group?
Vermont has 2. The State of Washington has 37.
What about the Indian reservations? Oh, we get into a good one
there--Indian reservations. What about State workers at Indian casinos
located on tribal lands? I do not understand. Why, the little leak in
the dike here is beginning to take away the whole dike; and it could.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of these
locations in the various States be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
240 Federal Facilities Potentially Affected by the Precedent (Located
on or Near State Borders)
arizona (7)
Hoover Dam.
Davis Dam.
Glen Canyon Dam.
Parker Dam.
Imperial Dam.
Several National Forests.
Military Installations near Yuma.
arkansas (9)
Federal prison in Forrest City.
Corps of Engineers projects at Beaver Lake.
Corps of Engineers projects at Bull Shoals Lake.
Corps of Engineers projects at Norfolk Lake.
Corps of Engineers projects at the Arkansas River.
Fort Chaffee Army base.
Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge.
White River National Refuge.
VA Hospital in Fayetteville.
california (50)
Military Facilities--Fort Irwin, Naval Weapons Center,
Sierra Army Depot.
National Forests--Eldorado, Inyo, Klamath, Modoc, Plumas,
Rogue River, Shasta-Trinity, Sierra, Siskiyou, Six Rivers,
Stanislaus, Tahoe, Toiyabe.
National Parks and Monuments--Clear Lake National Wildlife
Refuge, Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National
Park, Kings Canyon National Park, Lava Beds National
Monuments, Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, Modoc
National Wildlife Refuge, Mojave National Preserve, Mt.
Shasta Recreation Center, Redwood National Park, Tule Lake
National Wildlife Refuge, Yosemite National Park.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation--Boca Dam, Imperial Diversion,
Laguana Diversion, Lake Tahoe Dam, Prosser Creek Dam, Senator
Wash, Sly Park, Stampede Dam, Colorado Dinosaur National
Monument.
Routt National Forest.
Arapaho National Forest.
Roosevelt National Forest.
Rocky Mountain National Park.
Pawnee National Grassland.
Comanche National Grassland.
Great Sand Dunes National Monument.
Rio Grande National Forest.
San Juan National Forest.
Mesa Verde National Park.
Uncompahgre National Forest.
Colorado National Monument.
Grand Mesa National Forest.
connecticut (2)
U.S. Naval Submarine Base, Groton.
U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London.
Georgia
Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base.
maine
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
massachusetts
Hanscom Air Force Base.
mississippi (8)
Holly Springs National Forest.
NASA Test Site, Bay St. Louis.
Vicksburg National Military Park.
U.S. Corps of Engineers District Office, Vicksburg.
Natchez Trace Parkway.
Meridian Naval Air Station.
Columbus Air Force Base.
TVA, Tupelo.
missouri (6)
Federal Locks and Dams:
No. 20 near Canton.
No. 21 near West Quincy.
No. 22 near Saverton.
No. 24 near Clarksville.
No. 25 near West Alton.
No. 27 near St. Louis.
montana (10)
Kootenai National Forest.
Lolo National Forest.
Bitteroot National Forest.
Beaverhead National Forest.
Custer National Forest.
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area.
Yellowstone National Park.
Glacier National Park.
Crow Reservation.
Blackfeet Reservation.
nebraska
Gavins Point Dam.
new jersey (20)
McGuire Air Force Base.
Fort Dix Army Installation.
U.S. Naval Air Station, Lakehurst.
Pomona Naval Training Airport.
U.S. Naval Recreation Target Area, Ocean City.
Ft. Monmouth, Monmouth.
Ft. Hancock, Sandy Hook.
U.S. Coast Guard Bases (Cape May, Fort Dix, Highland, Pt.
Pleasant, Ocean City).
Sandy Hook Gateway National Recreation Area.
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
Morristown National Historic Park.
Killcohock National Wildlife Refuge.
Red Bank National Battlefield Park.
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge.
new mexico (6)
White Sands Missile Range.
Cannon Air Force Base.
Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Kiowa National Grassland.
Carson National Forest.
Santa Fe National Forest.
new york
Ellis Island.
north carolina
Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Cherokee Indian Reservation.
Pisgah National Forest.
Blue Ridge Parkway.
Uwharrie National Forest.
Fort Bragg Military Reservation.
Pope Air Force Base.
Camp Butner Federal Prison.
Sunny Point Army Terminal.
U.S. Coast Guard Air Station, Elizabeth City.
Veterans Hospital--Swannanoa.
Veterans Hospital--Oteen.
Veterans Hospital--Durham.
oregon (20)
Bonneville Power Administration.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division.
FAA Facilities.
Portland Air Force Base.
Kingsley Air Force Base in Klamath Falls.
U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
Fremont National Forest.
Winema National Forest.
Rogue River National Forest.
Siskiyou National Forest.
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge.
Hart Mt. National Wildlife Refuge.
Wallawa-Whitman National Forest.
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.
Umatilla Army Depot.
Mt. Hood National Forest.
Umatilla National Forest.
Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge.
McCay Creek National Wildlife Refuge.
Warm Springs Indian Reservation.
pennsylvania
Philadelphia Naval Yard.
south carolina
Savannah River Site.
south dakota (3)
Black Hills National Forest.
Mt. Rushmore.
Lake Wahee.
tennessee (3)
Fort Campbell.
Millington Naval Base.
Arnold Engineering Research Facility.
Utah (37)
Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area.
Manti La-Sal National Forest.
Canyonlands National Park.
Arches National Park.
Ashley National Forest.
Dinosaur National Monument.
Brown's Park National Waterfowl Management Area.
Bryce Canyon National Park.
Caribou National Forest.
Cottonwood Canyon, BLM.
Dart Canyon Primitive Area.
Dart Canyon Wilderness Area.
Desert Range Experimental Station.
Deseret Test Center, USAF.
Dixie National Forest.
Dugway Proving Grounds.
Escalante Staircase National Monument.
Glen Canyon Dam.
Glen Canyon National Park.
Golden Spike National Historic Site.
Governor Arch, BLM.
Grand Gulch Primitive Area.
High Uintas Wilderness Area.
Hill Air Force Range.
Hovenweep National Monument.
Processing Center, Ogden.
Jones Hole Federal Hatchery.
Joshua Tree Forest, BLM.
Mount Naomi Wilderness Area.
Mt. Honeyville Wilderness Area.
Paria Canyon Cliffs Wilderness Area.
Piute Wilderness Area.
Rainbow Bridge National Monument.
Sawtooth National Forest.
Wasatch National Forest.
Wendover Range, USAF.
Zion National Park.
Vermont (2)
Green Mountain National Forest.
Border Patrol Station, Highgate.
Washington (37)
Federal Dams on the Columbia River.
Federal Dams on the Snake River.
Fairchild Air Force Base.
Mt. Spokane Air Force Facility.
U.S. DOT/U.S. Coast Guard Station Ilwaco and Westport.
[[Page S11220]]
Veterans Offices/Hospitals--Vancouver and Walla Walla.
U.S. Department of Energy--Hanford Site.
Indian Reservations--Spokane, Kalispel, Colville, Yakima,
Shoalwater.
National Forests--Gifford Pinchot, Umatilla, Colville,
Kaniksu, Pend Oreille, Okanogan.
National Historic Sites--Whitman Mission, Ft. Vancouver.
Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
USGS Cascade Volcano Observatory.
National Wildlife Refuges--Julia Butler Hanson, Willapa,
Ridgefield, Conboy Lake, Umatilla, Toppenish, Turnbull,
Little Pend Oreille.
Bonneville Power Administration--Vancouver facility.
Bureau of Reclamation Offices and Sites--Franklin County.
FAA Offices--Pasco, Walla Walla, Spokane.
other general categories
1. National Forests which straddle State borders.
2. Indian Reservations--What about state workers at Indian
casinos located on tribal lands?
3. National Refuges which straddle State borders.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I also want to make clear to my colleagues
that this special tax preemption provision in the bill is a clear
violation of the spirit of the Unfunded Mandates Act. I have said that
before, but I want to make it clear. This provision will cost my State
$4 million in lost revenue. What are we doing to offset the loss from
the special tax preemption provision in this bill? Nothing. Absolutely
nothing. Not a thing.
Mr. President, if this special provision had been offered on the
Senate floor, I would have offered a second-degree amendment requiring
us to at least study the broad scope of the precedent we were setting
here before we acted. I am not sure a great deal of thought has been
given to the far-reaching effect of this one little amendment in the
defense authorization bill. It was a special political decision, and
that special political decision will have ripples that will turn into
waves in the future.
Mr. President, had this special provision been offered on the Senate
floor, I would have asked for a study. Let's think through this one. We
are preempting the States; we are telling the States how they can tax
and how they cannot tax. This is not a Federal tax. This is a State
tax.
I think my colleagues would have been shocked at how broad this
precedent is by applying this sweetheart deal at Federal facilities
across the country. They would be embarrassed to find out the extent to
which we are meddling in State tax law matters on a defense
authorization bill--all to create a special State tax status for a
select group of Federal and private sector workers. I think my
colleagues would want to know this information.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the amendment I
would have offered be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
SEC. . STUDY ON NON-RESIDENT WAGE EARNERS AT FEDERAL
FACILITIES.
(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a study
which--
(1) identifies all federal facilities located within 50
miles of the border of an adjacent State;
(2) estimates the number of non-resident wage earners
employed at such federal facilities; and
(3) compiles and describes all agreements or compacts
between States regarding the taxation of non-resident wage
earners employed at such facilities.
(b) The Secretary shall transmit the results of such study
to the Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment
of this Act.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the proponents of this special deal suggest
that Tennessee employees receive no services from the State of Kentucky
and, therefore, should be entitled to their special exemption. Mr.
President, this is simply not the case. Let me read from a July 11,
1997, letter from the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet outlining the services
the State of Kentucky provides to those workers.
Again, I remind my colleagues that these are Federal and private
sector workers who perform their work within the borders of the State
of Kentucky.
Roads--Fort Campbell is accessible from both the Kentucky
side and the Tennessee side. Most workers enter the base at
the gate nearest their work station. This means, for example,
that most hospital workers enter on the Tennessee side . . .
and most school workers enter on the Kentucky side using
Kentucky maintained roads (the school is in Kentucky).
Water and sewer services-- . . .
Electrical service--Most is supplied directly to the base
by the Tennessee Valley Authority. One housing area, however,
is supplied by the Pennyrile Electric Cooperative, a
Kentucky-based electric company.
Cooperative Fire Protection [is there]. . . .
Schools--The school system on the Fort Campbell base is
fully self-contained and federally funded. It is limited
[however] to the children of active duty military personnel .
. .
Police Protection--. . . .
Unemployment Benefits--. . . .
Mr. President, we talk about exempting the Tennessee employees from
paying Kentucky tax, but the Federal civilian workers who become
unemployed can apply for benefits from the State where they work or the
State where they live. If a Tennessee resident working in Kentucky
becomes unemployed and applies in Tennessee, a transfer is made from
the Kentucky fund to the Tennessee fund to pay that worker's
unemployment claim.
What is wrong with that agreement? I don't think anything. The result
is that wherever the claim is filed, Kentucky funds pay the claim.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter from Alex W. Rose,
commissioner, Department of Law, Kentucky Revenue Cabinet, be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Revenue Cabinet,
Office of General Counsel,
Frankfort, KY, July 11, 1997.
Re H.R. 1953--Fort Campbell.
Mr. Harley Duncan,
Federation of Tax Administrators,
Washington, DC.
Dear Harley: The Revenue Cabinet has gathered some
information on the Fort Campbell issues of whether employees
who live in Tennessee and work on the Kentucky side of the
Fort Campbell installation receive any benefits from the
state of Kentucky.
The question of what services Kentucky provides is quite
broad. I will attempt to itemize below what we have
investigated and the results.
Roads--Fort Campbell is accessible from both the Kentucky
side and the Tennessee side. Most workers enter the base at
the gate nearest their work station. This means, for example,
that most hospital workers enter on the Tennessee side (the
hospital is in Tennessee), and most school workers enter on
the Kentucky side using Kentucky maintained roads (the school
is in Kentucky).
Water and Sewer Service--Self contained on the base.
Electric Service--Most is supplied directly to the base by
the Tennessee Valley Authority. One housing area, however, is
supplied by the Pennyrile Electric Cooperative, a Kentucky
based electric company.
Cooperative Fire Protection--Local communities in both
Kentucky and Tennessee have agreements with Fort Campbell to
assist in the event of a major fire or other emergency.
Schools--The school system on the Fort Campbell base is
fully self-contained and federally funded. It is limited to
the children of active duty military personnel stationed at
the military base.
Police Protection--All police protection is self-contained.
Responsibility for Fort Campbell and all federal military
bases rests with the federal/military police.
Unemployment Benefits--Federal civilian workers who become
unemployed can apply for benefits from the state where they
work or the state where they live. If a Tennessee resident
working in Kentucky becomes unemployed and applies in
Tennessee, a transfer is made from the Kentucky fund to the
Tennessee fund to pay that worker's unemployment claim. The
result is that wherever the claim is filed, Kentucky funds
pay the claim.
I hope this information is helpful to you in your efforts
concerning H.R. 1953. It is our belief that the civilian
employees who work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell
definitely receive some benefits from the state of Kentucky.
The Kentucky Revenue Cabinet greatly appreciates the work
FTA is doing on H.R. 1953. Harley, we can't thank you and
your staff enough. If I can be of further assistance, please
let me know.
Sincerely,
Alex W. Rose,
Commissioner, Department of Law,
Kentucky Revenue Cabinet.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, had this conference report been on a Senate
bill, I would have offered a motion to recommit the bill to conference
to strip this special State tax preemption provision from the bill. It
is quite unfair, and I think everybody understands that.
They are doing a political favor, because the Senators who represent
that
[[Page S11221]]
State are from another party. I do not understand why my colleague, who
is a member of that party, would allow this to happen to his State. I
thought we were here representing our constituents, not our party. I
think it is disappointing that both my colleagues here in the Senate
and the Congressman from the First District in my State allowed this to
happen without at least raising their voice in objection.
However, I understand the option is no longer mine to offer any kind
of amendment or any kind of motion to recommit. Since this is a House
bill and it has already been approved by the House, thereby dissolving
the conference, I understand the rules. I think I know the rules
reasonably well here--not quite as well as Senator Byrd or, hopefully,
the Parliamentarian, but I have no illusions about what the outcome of
that vote might have been. After all, a sweetheart deal is a sweetheart
deal.
I did want to draw attention to this provision. It is patently
unfair. It has no place in this bill. The committees that put this bill
together have no jurisdiction over the issue whatever. I think it is a
dark mark on this piece of legislation as it relates to States rights,
going outside the jurisdiction of the committee. I think it leaves a
black mark and a black cloud over this piece of legislation. This
special tax preemption provision is terrible policy. We should not be
dictating to States how to administer their own tax laws. We should not
be imposing our will on the States in matters that have nothing to do
with the Federal law and are traditionally and constitutionally left to
the States to resolve.
We hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side of the aisle that is
never matched by the actions we see around this place. They say ``lower
taxes,'' but fail to say how they will offset them without causing more
deficits. They say ``less government,'' without saying where they will
cut. They say ``no more unfunded mandates,'' but continue to impose
unfunded mandates on the States. And this is, in the strictest
interpretation, an unfunded mandate. They say ``States rights,'' but
continue to pass special proposals like this one, which preempt State
law, even in the areas that have been left to the States for the last
200 years.
Once again, Mr. President, we see that the rhetoric does not match
the reality. When my friends on the other side see that expanding the
role of Federal law fits their purposes, the rhetoric about States
rights goes out the window. When they create a special tax exemption by
imposing a $4 million cost onto another State, the unfunded mandates
rhetoric goes out the window.
Mr. President, I am very disappointed we have seen this issue, the
preemption of State tax law, legislated this way on a defense
authorization bill. It is bitterly opposed by my State and it ought to
be bitterly opposed by every other Senator on this floor.
I say to my colleagues, you have created a broad precedent here that
I believe will come back to haunt you. I will not be here on the floor
to see it play out but I can see it coming. The next time, it won't be
Kentucky that will be hit. It very well may be the State of one of the
Members who sat on the conference.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator has 40 minutes
remaining.
Mr. FORD. I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I
ask that the time be equally charged.
Mr. FORD. I object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. FORD. Since I objected, I will use some of my time.
I was hoping that the proposer of this amendment would be here on the
floor so we could discuss it a little bit more. I have been here, now,
for about 30 minutes--I guess, a little better--trying to discuss my
side, and I don't want to lose my time on the basis that the opposition
or the proponent is not here. I am more than willing to let the time
come off of the time of the managers of the bill but I prefer the time
not come off of mine. If the chairman of the committee and the manager
of the bill would like to do that, I would have no objection. If he
prefers not to do that, I hope he will encourage the Senators from
Tennessee to come to the floor.
The only problem I have here before I suggest a quorum is, I would
not want to be preempted from taking the quorum off--which I could--and
then we would have to go through the process. Would the Senator give me
the assurance he would not object if I want to take the quorum off?
Mr. THURMOND. No objection.
Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during
the quorum be charged equally to the four entities that have time on
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for
the conference report we are considering today. This report includes a
provision that will provide relief to approximately 2,000 citizens of
my State of Tennessee who are being unfairly taxed by the Commonwealth
of Kentucky. These people are civilian employees at Fort Campbell who
live in Tennessee and work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell.
They are being required to pay income tax to Kentucky. But they
receive no services from Kentucky.
I understand that it has been stated on the floor this morning that
Tennessee is taking unfair advantage of Kentucky, that perhaps we will
bankrupt the State or do grievous harm to them--basically a conspiracy
among Democrats and Republicans, apparently, Tennesseans and
Kentuckians, to perpetrate somewhat of an outrage against the good
folks of Kentucky.
I am sorry that we can't debate it based strictly on the merits of
the action being taken, because it is a very, very meritorious
objective consideration of what we are doing here today. On any
objective consideration in terms of sound policy, or in terms of
fairness, this provision stands and survives.
We are not taking unfair advantage of the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
our good neighbors to the north. What we are doing, as attested to by a
vote of 15-to-0 out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, is righting
a wrong and correcting an inequity.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has gotten used to being able to tax
Tennesseans--levy income tax on them--without providing any services to
them. Weaning from a situation like that I guess perhaps can be
somewhat painful, but I don't think it is going to do grievous harm to
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which I understand had a $306 million
surplus last year, and is perhaps beside the point.
But when we are talking about fairness and equity, and some of the
other things we are discussing today, and the fact that we are
discussing basic principles and so forth, and who looks out for the
little guy, we are basically dealing with civilian employees working at
Fort Campbell with average incomes of about $30,000 a year. So these
Tennesseans are paying about $1,800 a year to Kentucky for nothing in
return. So let's just put that in a little bit of perspective.
Of course, it is not just the Tennessee-Kentucky situation, it is two
other situations where the Federal facility straddles the State border.
This provides relief for the State of Washington also. It also provides
relief for the State of South Dakota. I don't see the Members of the
State of Oregon, which is affected by it, or the State of Nebraska,
which is affected by it, to seem to have any problems either with
[[Page S11222]]
the constitutionality or the fairness of their situations. The
situations are basically the same.
But we have an issue here today with regard to Tennessee and
Kentucky. So be it.
As I said, these are civilian Federal employees. They work in Fort
Campbell, KY. As it is well known, 80 percent of Fort Campbell is in
the State of Tennessee. The mailbox is Kentucky. It is referred to as
Fort Campbell, KY. There are several Federal civilian employees who
live in Tennessee and who work on the Kentucky side. Some of them have
worked on the Tennessee side for a long time and are assigned on the
Kentucky side. They have nothing to do with that. It is not within
their power, if they want to remain employed. And thereby Tennessee
does not have an income tax. Kentucky does. They pay the maximum sales
tax and other taxes in Tennessee, plus the income tax of Kentucky. They
enter the Federal facilities on the Kentucky side by a Federal route.
They do not go on the property of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to enter
the place where they are working.
As I said, there are no services provided. I understand there was
some reference made to some resident facilities being provided with
water or some services. Of course, these people do not avail themselves
of that. I can't imagine anything other than a most dire emergency
where fire, water, sewer, and police protection, and all of that is
provided by the Federal Government. If the problem gets so big, I
imagine folks in Tennessee and Kentucky would come in and try to help
out. But basically, in terms of basic services--fire, police, sewer,
and water--none of those services is provided by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky for the benefit of these employees. Basically what they are
doing is paying income taxes for nothing received.
As I said, these people are not in the military. There is already an
exemption for the military employees. They can only be taxed in their
State of residence.
This is a situation where literally some people have been transferred
and moved across the street, or even down the hall in their own
building, and become subject, just because of that move, to Federal
income tax or to income tax from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. When
people in that situation--who live in Tennessee, work in Kentucky, only
go on Federal property to get to their job, come right back, no
services--if those individuals go on unemployment, they can't go to the
Commonwealth of Kentucky and get unemployment benefits.
We had a witness before the Governmental Affairs Committee, when this
was taken up, who makes $15,000 a year--$15,000 a year, and three
kids--is a Federal civilian employee, lives in Tennessee, and works on
the Kentucky side. When she went on hard times and had to apply for
food stamps, she applied to the State of Kentucky and was turned down.
There was another witness who appeared before our committee who had
been in the Air Force for 20 years, grew up in Kentucky, and paid
Kentucky taxes far 20 years; then he moved to Tennessee; then he was
assigned at Fort Campbell on the Kentucky side while he was living in
Tennessee--the typical kind of a situation we are addressing. His
daughter applied to the University of Kentucky. He sought instate
tuition rates. He was denied that. He was treated as out-of-State for
purposes of tuition when his daughter wanted to go to the University of
Kentucky.
In other words, he is a Tennessean under some circumstances, when it
benefits the Commonwealth, and a Kentuckian in other circumstances,
when it benefits the Commonwealth.
As I said, it is not just Tennessee that is involved here. Employees
at the Gavin's Point Hydroelectric Dam are in a similar situation. This
dam is a Federal facility maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers and
it straddles the Missouri River. The Missouri River is the border
between South Dakota and Nebraska. The 35 South Dakotans who are
employed at the dam are subject to Nebraska income tax on half their
wages earned on the dam. Nebraska claims that because half of the
Gavin's Point Dam is in the State of Nebraska, half the wages earned by
South Dakotans on the dam are subject to Nebraska income tax. But these
South Dakotans only travel into Nebraska while they are working on the
Federal dam and they receive no benefits from Nebraska for the taxes
that they are required to pay. They are ineligible for Nebraska
unemployment benefits and accident insurance benefits.
Likewise, Washingtonians employed at the Columbia River hydroelectric
dams were subject to tax by the State of Oregon until just recently.
These dams are Federal facilities maintained by the Army Corps of
Engineers. They straddle the Columbia River. The Columbia River is the
border between Washington and Oregon. One-hundred and forty
Washingtonians working on these dams only cross into Oregon when their
work takes them across the midpoint of the dams. Oregon had required
these employees to keep detailed records regarding the exact amount of
the time they spent on the Oregon side of the dam in order to obtain a
tax refund from Oregon for time worked on the Washington side of the
dam. Oregon also required Washington residents to pay income tax on a
prorated amount of their vacation pay based upon the percentage of time
during the year worked on the Oregon side of the dam. Because employees
at the dam cross back and forth multiple times a day, Oregonians'
recordkeeping requirements forced the Federal employees to waste a good
portion of their workday documenting their movements across the dam.
The Washington residents working on the Columbia River Dam receive no
benefits from the State of Oregon. They are not eligible for instate
tuition rates at Oregon schools. They are not eligible for Oregon
unemployment compensation benefits. In fact, when a Washingtonian who
was laid off from Washington at one of the dams applied for Oregon
unemployment compensation, he was denied. But when he later received
unemployment benefits from Washington, Oregon tried to tax those
benefits.
I recognize that the Oregon State Legislature enacted a bill last
year to exempt Washingtonians employed at the Columbia River Dam from
Oregon income tax. But it appears that the State was only reacting to
the other body's swift movement of H.R. 1953. Oregon is continuing to
require Washington residents to file W-2 forms in Oregon. Therefore,
Washingtonians fear that Oregon may repeal the recently enacted
exemption in the absence of Federal legislation.
Now, there is no question that with the passage of the Buck Act in
1940, States have the authority to tax Federal employees, but over a
period of time, after due deliberation by Congress, there have been
exceptions that have been made to this. There has been an exception for
the military. There has been an exception for Members of Congress.
There has been an exception for Amtrak employees, for example,
employees who, of course, travel over several States. There was an
exemption with regard to the ability to tax pension income from
nonresidents. So these have been exemptions, and we can argue and
debate the wisdom of each of these exemptions, but it has been long
recognized.
There is no question about the constitutionality, incidentally. The
witnesses even before our committee who did not think that what we were
doing was the best way to go, I don't think raised any questions
concerning the constitutionality of what we were doing.
Congress clearly has the right constitutionally to move in this
regard. We can debate the merits of each of these exemptions, but there
has been no question over the years after due deliberation there have
been exemptions carved out on the basis of what is right and on the
basis of fairness. This idea that we are opening up Pandora's box and
it is going to affect anybody who works near a Federal facility or
anything of that nature is certainly a misplaced concern. But that is
not something that has been affected here--not employees who are near a
border. We are talking about a specific situation where you have a
Federal facility straddling two States. One State does not have a State
income tax and the other State does. That is a very, very specific and
narrow situation with which we are dealing.
It does not affect national parks, for example, where local
governments
[[Page S11223]]
have much more to do with providing emergency services and things of
that nature than the Commonwealth of Kentucky or the other two States
affected here, the State of Oregon and the State of Nebraska, provide
in these situations.
I agree that Congress should tread carefully when it acts to limit
the taxing authorities of States, but these three situations addressed
by the conference report are exceptional, and I believe they meet the
elevated threshold which has been set by Congress for preempting a
State's taxing authority.
At this time I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues who
have served as conferees on the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for including this important provision in the final
bill. I would also like to thank my friends from Tennessee, Congressman
Bryant and Senator Frist, for their hard work on behalf of these 2,000
Tennesseans. I am pleased they are finally getting the tax relief they
deserve. I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. I am delighted that the distinguished Senator from
Tennessee would come to the floor to explain his reasons for using the
Armed Services legislation in an authorization bill for a tax
provision.
One of the things my distinguished friend said is that Kentucky
provides no facilities. Well, if a person who is employed at Fort
Campbell files for unemployment benefits in Tennessee, guess who pays
for it. Guess who pays for it. Kentucky reimburses Tennessee. Isn't
that a service?
I heard talk about other States. Let's talk about our States--the
roads that enter at the nearest gate. Sure, we have electrical service
that is provided. That comes out of Kentucky into Fort Campbell. We
have cooperative fire suppression. If they say it is serious, both
Tennessee and Kentucky would be there.
Unemployment benefits--I am surprised the Senator would say that we
don't pay anything. We reimburse Tennessee for the unemployment.
Kentucky pays. He raised the fact that the Governmental Affairs
Committee held a hearing on this but the Finance Committee did not.
When did the Governmental Affairs Committee take over for the Finance
Committee?
The Senator has talked about Oregon quite a bit. I have a copy of a
letter to the Senator, written from the director of the Department of
Revenue, saying that they settled their own problem, that Oregon passed
their bill and the States worked it out. There is no need for them to
be included in this legislation. Here is the letter, dated October 21,
1997. The Senator had it almost a year, but yet they put Oregon and
Washington in this legislation and they don't need it. The States have
worked it out themselves.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Senator
Thompson from the director of the Oregon Department of Revenue be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Oregon Department of Revenue,
Salem, OR, October 21, 1997.
Hon. Fred Thompson,
U.S. Senate, Chair, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Senate
Dirksen, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to alert you to a piece of
proposed federal legislation that is scheduled for a hearing
this Friday. The proposal, contained in H.R. 1953, would
place a federal prohibition upon the state of Oregon that
would not allow Oregon to impose an income tax on Washington
residents whom are federal employees working on the dams that
span the Columbia River.
We were alerted to this problem earlier this year and were
successful in obtaining legislation at the state level that
exempts these Washington residents from Oregon income tax
effective January 1, 1997. A copy of the bill, which has been
signed into law by our Governor, is enclosed (See Sections 6
and 7 of Enrolled Senate Bill 998). We have been in contact
with the Army Corps of Engineers and have jointly developed
procedures that will ensure that the affected workers will
not be taxed on this income and will receive a full refund of
any amounts withheld prior to the passage of the bill.
I am concerned that the federal government is proceeding
with legislation to address a problem that Oregon has already
resolved. We take very seriously our responsibility to
establish and maintain a tax system that is fair to all
citizens regardless of their state of residency. As such, we
are generally opposed to external mandates believing that
they impinge on Oregon's sovereign right to define its own
tax system. Accordingly, any efforts on your part to remove
Oregon from this federal mandate would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns about
this proposed legislation. Please feel free to contact me if
you want to discuss the issue further.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Harchenko,
Director.
Mr. FORD. The Senator says that this only applies to two States
really, or very few. But the precedent here is the dangerous thing. We
start under the Buck Act, and I am sure the Senator, being a legal
expert, is fully familiar with the Buck Act and what it says about the
State's ability to tax its own. Now, if he is not familiar with that, I
can help him a little bit in trying to explain the Buck Act.
But the two States were in the process of negotiating when they were
informed, or at least the Tennessee side was informed, that it would be
taken care of here. And it was being taken care of, so the negotiations
were called off.
I remember when Tennessee called a special session to prevent
Kentucky contractors from doing business in Tennessee. This is a long-
term thing. It is just not the first one. I go back into the early
1960s when this occurred.
So, Mr. President, I understand what the Senator is trying to do, but
I wonder how he voted on the unfunded mandates bill. You are
eliminating $4 million a year--$4 million a year--from Kentucky's
income. Are Kentuckians excused from the high Tennessee sales tax? Why
not? Why wasn't that put in this bill? If you are going to be exempt
from our income tax, why don't you exempt Kentuckians, who are
identical employees with an identical employer? What about the
restaurants and the canteens and the cleaners and such that are going
to be exempt under this, the private sector? This is a broad, broad
piece of legislation. Broad, broad.
Let me read the Buck Act. Of course, we have the authority, I guess,
to do that, but is it right? There are 240 known installations similar
to this situation. And Mississippi is one of the most vulnerable States
in the country as it relates to this type of legislation.
The Buck Act says:
No person shall be relieved from his liability for any
income tax levied by any State, or by any duly constitutional
taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a
tax by reason of his residing within a Federal area or
receiving income from transactions occurring or services
performed in such area. And such State or taxing authority
shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect
such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same
extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a
Federal area.
That is the Buck Act.
My colleague lays out exempting military employees. When I served in
World War II, we got exempted then. You only paid taxes in the State
where you resided. That is nothing new. That is 55 years old, I guess--
something near that. It has been here for 55 years.
He talked about Amtrak employees. They are on a train, they are going
across the country. Would they pay tax in every State? Of course not.
That is common sense, to let them pay tax in the State where they
reside.
We have a lot of employees on the Interstate Highway System. They
live in one State and they work in several States, as they construct
interstate highways through various States. They are exempted. That is
common sense.
But, to take an exemption and cost a State $4 million--what kind of
surplus does Tennessee have? He refers to the surplus of Kentucky. What
kind of surplus does Tennessee have? That has nothing to do with the
principle and the character of this provision under the armed services
defense authorization bill.
The Senator can argue all he wants to, but when he talks about in-
State and out-of-State college, that individual renounced his Kentucky
citizenship and moved to Tennessee. You enjoyed him moving over there.
You probably welcomed him with open arms. But then you come in here and
say he cannot get exemption in another State? Why didn't he go to
Tennessee, if he likes it so much? We have a few universities there
that are pretty good. They
[[Page S11224]]
get State exemption, residential exemption. He just happened to want to
go to a better school. So, you fuss about that. They moved to
Tennessee. Anybody else from any other State would not be exempted.
Tennessee would not exempt a Kentuckian residing in the State of
Kentucky to go to a Tennessee school. That seems to me a pretty thin
reason for having this section of the armed services bill.
Mr. President, I go back to the point--I have heard many, many
Senators in this body talk about States rights. There is a lot of
rhetoric here. There is a difference between talk and action--talk and
action. The talk is States rights. The action is taking it away.
This bill is going to pass. There is no question about that. I have
no illusions. I have counted votes around here longer than the Senator
from Tennessee, and I understand what the vote will be. But you have
something in the legislation that is not right, that is not fair, that
the States were in the process of trying to work out and to negotiate.
Then the word comes from Big Brother: ``Don't you worry about it, we'll
take care of it. Big Brother is going to preempt the States. Big
Brother is going to take care of a few residents in this legislation.''
There are other States that have already settled. The Senator from
Tennessee has the letter setting it out and objecting to what he is
trying to do here because they worked it out as a State. You preempt
the States.
What would happen if we were preempting Tennessee? Oh, it would be a
bear in here. There would be growling and fighting and fuming and
fussing over preempting Kentuckians in Tennessee. I hope my colleague
from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, will offer an amendment or something
next year so Kentuckians who are in the same position will not have to
pay the outrageous Tennessee sales tax. Just have a drivers license,
show it, so we can be exempt.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I forgot to inquire as to the time
situation. I understand we had 30 minutes. May I ask if time was kept
on me before, how much time I have remaining on that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee controls 14 minutes
30 seconds.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, just in response on some of the points
that my friend from Kentucky made with regard to whether or not the
other States need this and whether or not it is worked out permanently
to their satisfaction, I think probably the Members of this body who
represent those States would be the best witnesses. If the Oregon
situation is worked out, then perhaps Senator Gorton and Senator Murray
will oppose me on this. But I do not think they do. I think the two
Senators from the State of Washington do not feel like it has been
worked out.
Just as the situation is with South Dakota. I think the distinguished
minority leader of this body supports this provision in the
legislation. So, regarding the Tennessee/Kentucky situation, the
negotiations that my friend refers to, I think the result was a bit
different than what has been alluded to. My understanding was there was
one meeting in August and the suggestion was that Tennessee absorb the
difference; that we give these Tennessee employees a credit and the
State of Tennessee absorb the difference. That was not considered to be
fair by the people in Tennessee, so those negotiations broke down.
With regard to the college tuition situation, at issue here is not
that this gentleman moved from Kentucky back to Tennessee; that is for
sure. The issue is he was working on the Kentucky side and paying
Kentucky income taxes and still not getting that benefit from Kentucky.
That is the point. I believe, if my colleague will check--I suppose we
cannot resolve it here this morning--but I think, if my colleague will
check, he will see that when the situation is reversed, my
understanding is when Kentuckians work on the Tennessee side, they get
Tennessee instate tuition.
I do not want to get into an extended battle between the States here.
We enjoy a common border and friendly relationships and all that. But
just on the basis of fairness, I believe we are doing a little bit
better in that regard, in terms of comity, in terms of out-of-State
tuition for workers who work at Fort Campbell. It is just simply based
upon the proposition that a person should not have to go across the
border, down the hall or down the street or across the street and so
forth, when he is assigned new duties, not use any of the Kentucky
facilities, and have to pay Kentucky income tax and not get any of the
benefits, whether it be college instate tuition or not.
I would also point out to my colleague with regard to Kentucky
employees working at Fort Campbell who work on the Tennessee side, as
far as ``on the post'' is concerned, they do not pay Tennessee sales
tax. If they go off the post they will pay Tennessee sales tax, but
then they are using Tennessee facilities. The point is just simply not
well founded any way that you look at it.
With regard to the States rights issue, that is something that, of
course, is of concern to all of us. A lot of people strongly believe in
federalism and that the proper role of the States should be preserved
in the relationship between the State and the Federal Government. I
would simply point out that with regard to most of these issues, it has
to do with the relationship between the State governments and the
Federal Government, and the Federal Government's relationship with the
States and their policies vis a vis the Federal Government.
This has to do with the way a State government is treating the
citizens of another State. Ever since we have had the interstate
commerce clause in the Constitution, that has been something that has
been appropriately addressed by the Congress of the United States.
So I do not want to beat a dead horse here either. I feel, as does my
colleague from Kentucky, that we are not going to change very many
votes on this debate. But, in closing, I hope our friends in Kentucky
do not feel that this is some kind of a power grab, something that is
unfair to them, something that we have them over the barrel on.
This is something that is supported by Democrats and Republicans in
this body. It is very narrowly tailored. My friend refers to 240 other
situations. They are not similar. The only comparable or analogous
situations would be those situations where Federal facilities straddle
a State border, and there are only three of them, and those are the
three that we deal with here.
We are trying to do what we often do in this body, and that is finely
tailor a remedy for something that doesn't affect many people. It
doesn't affect many people at all. But with regard to those who are
affected, it is important for those folks who on average are making
$30,000 a year. It is something we have been trying to work out for 10
years. We have not been able to. I would rather not have to come to the
floor of the U.S. Senate and resolve this matter this way, either.
After trying all other avenues, we were left with no choice.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and extend my good wishes and
respect to the senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky who has
fought so long and hard for his State. I never look forward to having
to come to the floor and take him on in any circumstance, especially
when he is defending or representing and taking the side of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, because I know his heart and soul is in it. I
respectfully disagree with him on this. I think it is the right thing
to do. I think it is fair to these employees, and I urge its adoption.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from the Commonwealth
of Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's flattery, but in
this case, it won't get him anywhere.
Let me correct one thing, if I can. The Senator said we were exempt
from sales tax. That is not true. We checked this morning. You pay tax
at restaurants, dry cleaners--all that--you pay the sales tax on the
base. On the base, you pay it. We called down there this morning. Now,
if you want to call again, that is fine. I know where it is. I have
been there. They have trooped out the troops for me. They jumped with
parachutes and all that. It is obvious my name won't be on any building
[[Page S11225]]
down there, however, but that is all right. I don't really worry about
that.
What I worry about is what is being done here and the precedent that
is being set. They talk about they are all similar. The two other
locations are dams. They are dams. They go across a river. They connect
the States. That is a very small area. This is 105,000 acres that we
are talking about here. This is a different facility, different
situation, different problem altogether. One is a hydro; the other one
is a dam. I say to my friend, in those two cases he is defending here,
it is limited to Federal employees. In the Tennessee-Kentucky problem,
it is not. You did not limit it to Federal employees. You went to
private sector contractors and their employees. That is the reason the
$4 million is there and there is no unfunded mandate help for my State.
It is quite different. This is as broad as broad can be, with a
capital B. It is not only Federal employees. The others are very
small--35 employees. They are hydroelectric and dams, both of them.
This is 105,000 acres.
We pay sales tax, as Kentucky residents, on the base. You exempt
private contractors and their employees, and it costs us plenty. People
will say, ``Ford, this is fair.'' Fair to whom? I can bring the
document--I don't have it here with me--but tuition was part of the
negotiations. I wouldn't negotiate either if it was going to be settled
here and you know what is going to happen. But the rights of the
minority should be protected. I can't change the vote. Mine is the only
one that I can handle, that I can guarantee, but we ought to be
protected.
I have seen a lot of debate here in a little over 24 years. The
distinguished Senator from South Carolina has seen a lot more. But most
of the time, almost without exception, both sides have wanted to
protect the minority, and here there is no protection.
Mr. President, as we are being stampeded here, I think it is highly
unfair, it is uncalled for, and this is very one-sided. We pay the
unemployment, reimburse Tennessee, we help with electricity, we help
with roads--we do all those things. You act like we don't do anything.
But if you have unemployment benefits and Kentucky pays a Tennessee
resident and reimburses the State--Kentucky doesn't do anything.
It is very difficult for me to understand when they start talking
about precedents set here. That is for active duty military. They pay
the tax, if any, in the State in which they are a resident. The Senator
brought up Amtrak employees. You can get on a train in New York and
wind up in California. Do you pay in each one of the States you go
through? Of course not. That is just common sense.
You can have a construction worker who is building interstate
highways and can go through several States. You wouldn't expect him to
pay tax in every State. So common sense says pay the tax in the State
in which he is a resident.
Here it is different. If you are a resident of Tennessee and work in
Kentucky, you don't pay any tax. If you are a private sector employee
and you are at a Federal facility, you don't pay any tax. The Tennessee
contractor who would offer a bid at Fort Campbell has a sweetheart deal
because a Kentucky contractor, or any other contractor, will have to
pay the taxes, but Tennessee will not.
Big Brother says we are going to settle State taxes, not Federal
taxes, State taxes, and put it on the defense authorization bill. It
has never been to the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction. And
the testimony that was received in the House was something that I think
we should go back to.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on October
24th of last year. The House held a hearing on April 17th of last year.
To my knowledge, the Senate Armed Services Committee held no hearings
on this issue in either session of this Congress. The reason is
obvious: because the Armed Services Committee had absolutely no
jurisdiction over this issue--none.
The conferees on the defense authorization bill, in my judgment, have
no business attaching language which preempts State tax as part of the
defense authorization bill.
Let's go back to the House hearing of last April. What kind of
testimony did that committee hear? It heard that Kentucky's tax
structure met all appropriate constitutional standards for fairness and
nondiscrimination. That is the testimony. That committee was told that
the ability of States to define their own tax structures within the
bounds of the Constitution was ``one of the core elements of
sovereignty preserved to the States under the Constitution.'' It may be
constitutional, but it is ``one of the core elements of sovereignty
preserved to the States under the Constitution.''
The committee was told that if Congress jumps in and preempts State
laws in this case, ``it will by definition create a preferred class of
taxpayer * * *. Currently all workers--public and private--in Kentucky
* * * are subject to the same rules. This should not be disrupted by
the Congress without a strong policy [mandate].''
The House committee was also told that the proposal to grant special
status to Tennessee residents violated the spirit of the Unfunded
Mandates Act of 1995. The committee was told, ``if Congress feels that
the impact of federal workers employed on installations crossing the
borders of two states * * * should be offset, it should provide the
funding necessary to offset the costs imposed on the states affected
and not just preempt legitimate taxing authority.'' That is the
testimony. That is what the committee was told.
Mr. President, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee I believe
heard similar testimony during the hearing last August. The Senate
Armed Services Committee, however, heard no testimony--the Senate Armed
Services Committee, however, heard no such testimony--because it held
no such hearing and had no such jurisdiction over this piece of
legislation.
Nonetheless, without any floor debate, a provision was snuck into the
House version of the defense authorization. So I ask where my Kentucky
colleagues were.
Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. FORD. Glad to.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the
floor manager, Senator Thurmond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. FORD. I ask the Chair, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 38 seconds.
Mr. FORD. Well, I understand why the Senator from Tennessee does not
want to debate this; because he is wrong. I like him. He is a nice
fellow, friendly. Oh, you could not ask anybody to be any friendlier
than the Senator from Tennessee. And I have always enjoyed his acting.
In fact, I have seen some reruns. I have enjoyed watching those a
second and third time. I look for him. But that does not mean he is
wrong or right all the time. But in this case he is wrong.
And I wish this would not happen because, I say to my colleagues,
when we start telling the States how to tax, when we take that
authority away from the States, then we have gone a long way in
disrupting what the Founding Fathers said this country should be made
up of.
So I will not leave this Senate without having made this statement. I
understand where the votes are. I understand what is going to happen to
this bill. But at some point, I believe, sincerely, that it will be in
court. And the constitutionality of this and the preemption of States'
ability--not a Federal tax but a State tax--they give a preferred class
of taxpayer here. You have two people sitting across the table, having
lunch, and both are working for the same company; both do the same job;
both make the same money; but the fellow from Tennessee pays no tax;
the fellow from Kentucky pays it on a military installation.
There are 240 of these, at least, out there. And as I said,
Mississippi is going to be one of the most vulnerable States.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Levin for
his use, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields the time?
Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and it be charged
equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S11226]]
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 1999 Strom
Thurmond defense authorization conference report. I congratulate the
managers of this bill for their exemplary work. In particular, I would
like to express my most sincere gratitude and appreciation to Chairman
Thurmond for his service to the Senate and for his service to our
country.
Mr. President, I know that this was one of the most contentious
conferences in the past decade, particularly because of the U.S.
satellite licensing provisions. However, I am pleased that this
conference report contains a provision shifting the jurisdiction for
U.S. satellite licensing from the Commerce Department back to the State
Department, where I believe the national security of this country can
best be protected. This action is a step away from the controversial
policy that President Clinton established in 1996 and it is a step
toward enhanced national security. I hope the President, in signing
this bill, will walk forward with us.
In addition, I am very pleased by the addition of several China-
related provisions that I spoke in behalf of--sponsored some of those--
that I believe will limit the role of the oppressive Chinese regime and
United States complicity in their actions.
In particular, this conference report includes a provision requiring
the Departments of Defense and Justice, FBI, and the CIA to compile a
list of known PLA commercial fronts operating in the United States.
This provision also authorizes the President to monitor, to restrict,
and to seize, if necessary, the assets of, and ban the operation of,
such PLA companies within these United States.
Furthermore, the Senate adopted and included in the conference report
a provision authorizing funding for additional customs agents to
enforce the existing ban on slave labor products, an ongoing problem.
These products are produced in slave-labor conditions in China and are
sold to American consumers, unbeknownst to the consumer. These sections
call upon the President to strengthen international agreements to
improve monitoring of slave-labor imports.
There is yet a further provision that I am heartened the conference
has included regarding Radio Free Asia. This provision would fund 24-
hour-a-day Radio Free Asia broadcasts throughout China in each of the
major dialects. This provision will allow the Voice of Freedom to
penetrate through the oppressive veil now muting the Chinese people.
I want to make one final observation. Last week, in declaring the
success of his country in combating the floods raging throughout China,
President Jiang Zemin compared that success to the success of stemming
the tide of democracy and praising their crackdown at Tiananmen Square.
I think I need say little more, Mr. President, as to the ongoing
problems of an oppressive regime in China. I applaud the chairman and
the conference for including these very important provisions in the
conference report.
I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats.
Again, I want to say, since the Senator is leaving this year, he has
been one of the ablest men on the Armed Services Committee. The Armed
Services Committee and the Senate will greatly miss this individual.
Again, I commend him and wish him well in all of his undertakings.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his kind words. I
want to return that compliment, because it has been a distinct
privilege and pleasure for me to serve under the able leadership of our
chairman, Senator Thurmond. Senator Thurmond is, perhaps, not one of
but perhaps the most remarkable individual I have ever known, someone
who has committed a lifetime and more of political service to his
fellow man and to his Nation, and who has served as a Rock of Gibraltar
in support of a strong national defense. Serving on the committee with
his leadership has been a great privilege for me, as well as it has
been with all my colleagues who serve on the Armed Services Committee.
This committee of the Congress is the least partisan of all the
congressional committees. We put the national defense and national
security above partisanship. We work together in a team fashion. While
we don't always agree across the aisle on every issue, we do find
consensus. Our purpose is to protect and support our men and women in
uniform, and protect the citizens of the United States by giving them
the very best defense that we can purchase for their investment of tax
dollars.
This particular bill is to be commended in many ways. It addresses
some of the quality of life and readiness and modernization issues that
we have been struggling with. As chairman of the Airland Committee, I
have had the privilege of overseeing a very considerable amount of
spending that goes into modernizing our forces. We haven't been able to
do everything that has been asked, but we certainly have taken
important steps in trying to make sure that our defense forces are
capable of meeting the threat and are unparalleled in terms of their
superiority.
As a member of the Personnel Subcommittee, as former chairman of that
committee, I am pleased that we have continued to address some of the
important issues of pay and housing that are necessary to maintaining
the spirit and moral of the people in our force. But, we have a great
deal more to do in this area.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff testified just a couple of days ago about
the state of readiness for today and tomorrow. Readiness is a function
of quality of life, of training, and of adequate infrastructure. Two of
these three areas--the infrastructure, the housing, the equipment, the
facilities, the tools which we provide our service members with, and
the quality of life--are strained and in many cases inadequate. The pay
is too low and military benefits are in question. We are losing good
people, too many good people. A great deal needs to be done in this
area.
A great deal also needs to be done on the whole infrastructure front,
not only in providing necessary facilities, but in terminating that
infrastructure which is no longer needed. Too often we have perpetuated
that infrastructure that is no longer required, and done so at great
expense.
I have also been engaged in the whole question of defense
transformation. How can we transform our national defense from a cold-
war effort that has been unparalleled in the history of national
defense--not only this country, but in this world. How can we transform
that into a national security apparatus our defense structure to
addresses the threats of the future, which will be different from the
threats of the past. That is a monumental undertaking. I have suggested
a number of ways in which this could be done. I have joined with my
colleagues on the committee, particularly Senator Lieberman, to define
a process by which we can make those decisions, utilizing both inside
and outside experts.
We have attempted, through this process, to ask the necessary
questions and to make the necessary decisions about how we move
forward. In that regard, in the future some very difficult but
necessary decisions and tough choices are going to have to be made
about how we spend our limited defense resources.
While we all acknowledge and hopefully will provide some additional
funds to address the readiness concerns addressed by the Joint Chiefs,
we are a long way from successfully allocating the resources we have
available to us in the very best way that will give us the national
security apparatus we need to address future threats. Tough decisions
have to be made because we have the tendency to continue to fund
systems that we already have in the force. Decisions are often made,
both in the Pentagon and in the Congress, about maintaining what I call
``legacy'' systems--systems that have had a long shelf life, that are
very near and dear to our heart, produced in our district, or systems
we have related to over the
[[Page S11227]]
years. There is a great tendency to perpetuate these legacy systems and
not give sufficient resources and weight to the new systems that are
necessary to address the new threats of the future.
My challenge to the Congress, and my challenge to the Department of
Defense, is to step up and make the unpopular choices, make the very
difficult choices to divest legacy systems and structures which are no
longer required, or whose value will depreciate quickly in the future,
so that we can free up the resources that we must to address the
question of providing the right national security apparatus that
embraces the potential for a revolution in military affairs and
addresses the threats of the future.
Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman, Senator Thurmond, and the
ranking member, Senator Levin, for their leadership of a truly
bipartison effort which achieves an effective balance across the
quality of life of our servicemembers and their families, the readiness
of the force, and the modernization of our systems as we enter the 21st
century.
This accomplishment is of particular note because this defense bill
adheres to the budget agreement of approximately $270 billion, a 1.1
percent decline in real terms over last year's defense budget, and it
is approximately 35 percent below the cold war heights.
This defense authorization includes numerous provisions that will
enhance military quality of life. It includes a 3.6 percent pay raise
for military personnel. It also provides an increase of $660 million in
military construction projects, over $250 million of which will fund
barracks, dining facilities, and military housing. And this bill
directs three health care demonstrations for our military retirees who
are Medicare eligible.
This bill also adds over $800 million to the key readiness accounts
of our active and reserve forces. We are all aware of the stress that
current operations such as those in Bosnia or the Persian Gulf have on
military readiness. The funds we have added will support infrastructure
maintenance, training, and the availability of parts and supplies to
sustain readiness levels.
Despite the gains we have made in areas of quality of life and
readiness, we are still well short of the $60 billion procurement goal
stated by Secretary of Defense Cohen and his predecessor Secretary
Perry which was to have been achieved in fiscal year 1998.
Here we are again proposing a procurement level for fiscal year 1999
that is below $50 billion. Correspondingly, service modernization
accounts remain on the margin--well short of the level required to
recapitalize our joint capabilities for the 21st century.
And now I would like to comment on several modernization issues from
my perspective as chairman of the Airland Subcommittee.
The Army is moving to consolidate the gains from the Force XXI
process and to investigate smaller, faster, more lethal, and more
deployable forces. But the Army's modernization strategy to pursue this
transformation is lacking in areas of aviation, armored vehicles, and
trucks, and we have provisions addressing these issues.
And I must say that we have made progress in addressing reserve
component modernization thanks to the fine work of Senator Glenn, the
ranking member of the Airland Subcommittee, to structure a coherent
process for the consideration of Guard procurement. First, the budget
request included nearly $1.4 billion in procurement for the guard and
reserves--about a 50 percent increase over last year. And this bill
provides another several hundred million. Clearly, the Senate's
bipartisan efforts are having a positive affect on total force
integration.
This bill also supports TACAIR modernization programs of the services
and we have taken additional prudent steps to ensure these programs
stay on track.
Last year, I spoke at length about my concerns with F-22 cost
overruns and demonstrated performance. And I must acknowledge that I
have these concerns as a supporter of F-22 development. But based on
the testimony of the Air Force and the assessment of the General
Accounting Office, there are many who share a deep concern over whether
we can maintain support for the F-22, whose costs are approaching $200
million per aircraft, if the program does not adequately demonstrate
performance and cost control.
This bill takes a very important further step to put key oversight
provisions in place that fence the contract award for advance
procurement of lot II F-22 until:
10 percent of testing is complete (the minimum specified by the
Defense Science Board); or, the Secretary of Defense certifies that a
lesser amount of flight testing is sufficient, and provides his
rationale and analysis for that certification; however, the funds are
fenced until the F-22 flies at least 4 percent of flight tests--the
amount now planned prior to contract award--have been completed.
This provision holds the Department to its own plan at a minimum and
places the emphasis squarely on the demonstrated performance of the F-
22 program. No performance, no money.
This bill also contains a provision on a new joint experimentation
initiative that is fundamental to defense transformation.
The Congress has been keenly aware of the need to transform our
military capabilities to address the potentially very different
operational challenges of the future. The National Defense Panel Report
argues that these challenges--which include among other things,
asymmetric challenges in power projection, information operations, and
weapons of mass destruction--may place this Nation's security at far
greater risk than we face today.
This provision includes a sense of Congress on the designation of a
combatant commander with the mission for developing, preparing,
conducting, and assessing a process of joint warfighting
experimentation. Secretary Cohen has signed a charter assigning this
mission to USACOM in Norfolk. And the provision lays out a set of
reporting requirements from this CINC to keep Congress informed of the
status of transformation.
The process of joint experimentation is designed to investigate the
co-evolution of advances in technology, with changes in the
organizational structure of our forces, and the development of new
operational concepts. Accordingly, the purpose of joint experimentation
is to find those technologies, organizations, and concepts which
provide true leap-aheads in joint warfighting capabilities.
And just as important, it is the purpose of joint experimentation to
identify those technologies and concepts which are failures. Some will
consider the cost of these failures as wasteful. But quite the
contrary. The true failure would be continuing to invest in systems
before we really know what will or will not work on the battlefields of
the 21st century. And given the level of defense budgets, we cannot
afford to invest in systems which fail to contribute markedly to our
future warfighting capabilities.
Previously in our history we have found ourselves unprepared for
threats we faced at the outset of war. Our Nation rallied to eventually
overcome these threats, but at a cost--not only in fiscal terms, but in
lives.
In the very near future, technology will enable a different range of
threats we must be prepared for. The process of joint experimentation
supported in this bill will be central to ensuring our Armed Forces are
prepared to successfully meet the national security challenges of the
21st century.
This bill makes great strides in improving the quality of life,
readiness, and modernization of the force; and in laying the framework
for the transformation of defense capabilities for the 21st century.
Yet there is much more work that needs to be done. The Joint Chiefs
testified on Tuesday that defense budgets are not adequate to sustain
current readiness and to keep our defense forces on firm footing for
the future.
But defense budgets will likely not increase to the levels requested
and this will leave the Pentagon, the administration, and the Congress
with some tough decisions which must be made. And we need to know what
these decisions are and when they need to be made. I proposed that
another quadrennial defense review and national defense panel be
established in the year 2000 to conduct another comprehensive
assessment of defense strategy, policy, and programs. I trust that the
defense committees will work to include those provisions in next year's
bill.
[[Page S11228]]
I would like to thank and acknowledge the distinguished service of
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond
and the distinguished ranking member of the Airland Subcommittee,
Senator Glenn for their tremendous stewardship of defense issues in
this Defense authorization bill.
We often ask ourselves: ``Where have the heroes gone?''. Well I know
where two of them have been, and that is working side-by-side with many
of us deliberating defense issues. I commend them for their service and
wish them the best in all future endeavors. In closing, this bill has
my full support, and I strongly encourage all Members to support it.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, again, I wish to thank the Senator for
his good work on the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the conference report on the
Fiscal Year 1999 Defense authorization bill. The House and Senate
conferees have produced a worthwhile defense bill that deserves to be
approved.
Before the conference, the House version contained several provisions
that the administration had threatened to veto. We worked effectively
in our deliberations with the House to resolve these differences and
find satisfactory solutions.
Gender integration in basic military training is the first of these
important issues. In the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act,
Congress established a bipartisan panel to review gender integration in
basic military training. That commission has started its work and will
report to us next year. The conference compromise on this issue will
enable the commission to finish its work, while requiring each of the
services to provide separate, safe and secure housing for male and
female recruits with the sleeping areas separated by permanent barriers
and limited access.
The second of these issues is production of tritium for the nation's
strategic arsenal. The Secretary of Energy has already initiated a
comprehensive analysis to determine the best way to produce this
material. That study will be concluded by December 31, 1998. The
conference report includes a provision to withhold funds for the
implementation of the Secretary of Energy's recommendation until full
and complete congressional review next year.
The conference report provides needed support for our military forces
while maintaining a realistic balance between readiness to take care of
immediate needs, and investment in new systems for the future. The
report also includes a fully funded and well-deserved 3.6 percent pay
raise for military personnel.
We also tried to deal with the important and complex issue of
military retiree health care. The report includes a provision for the
Department of Defense to initiate a comprehensive test plan to evaluate
the best method to provide health care to retired military personnel
and their families. The Department of Defense will establish two
demonstration plans, which will be evaluated before any future
implementation. The first plan will allow selected retirees to enroll
in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. The second plan will
implement a redesigned pharmacy benefit for Medicare-eligible DOD
beneficiaries at two sites. This plan will also provide needed
information for reducing out-of-pocket costs for military retirees.
Protecting the safety of our service men and women was also high on
our priorities in the conference. The daily operations of our military
forces have obvious risks and dangers. All branches of the Armed Forces
have made progress in improving safety, but more remains to be done. I
commend the Department of Defense for its accelerated installation of
needed additional safety systems on military aircraft that carry
passengers. The conference report includes additional funding for
aircraft safety modifications.
Our troops are at risk from high tech attacks as well. The growing
frequency and sophistication of such attacks on the Pentagon's computer
networks demonstrate the need for improved protection of critical
networks. The conference report recognizes the importance of this
effort and supports the Air Force cyber-security program.
In the past 8 years, the Navy-Marine Corps team has responded to over
90 contingencies--almost one per month. As the ranking Democrat on the
Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased
that the conference report provides the support necessary for our naval
forces as they modernize to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
The report includes the necessary advance procurement funding for
fiscal year 1999 for the Navy's next aircraft carrier, CVN-77. The
Navy's procurement schedule for this carrier, revised from its budget
submission of last year, will be under the cost cap mandated in last
year's Defense Authorization Act. Also, much of the new technology
being developed for the next generation aircraft carrier, the CVX, will
be included in CVN-77.
The budget request for the 30 Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters is
included in the report. The Super Hornet combines the outstanding
characteristics of earlier F/A-18 models with cutting edge technology
in an affordable aircraft with significantly improved performance and
endurance.
In addition, the Marine Corps' MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft
procurement for next year was increased to eight. The Osprey is a
vertical take-off and landing aircraft designed to replace the Marine
Corps' aging fleet of CH-46 and CH-53 helicopters.
The constructive compromises we reached during the conference on
critical issues have produced a comprehensive bill which provides
effectively for our national security, and which contains no provisions
that would draw a veto.
I also join in commending the distinguished leadership of the
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond. He
has worked effectively with all of us to see that our national security
and the needs of our service men and women are met in this legislation.
It has been a privilege to work with Senator Thurmond as chairman, and
I look forward to continuing our work together on this important
issues. It is especially fitting that this bill is named in his honor.
I urge my colleagues to support the Strong Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today as we consider the fiscal year
1999 Defense authorization conference to draw the Senate's attention to
what appears to be a brewing controversy over the state of our
military's readiness. Yesterday, the Committee on Armed Services held a
hearing with Joint Chiefs to discuss some readiness issues that
recently have been brought to the committee's attention. I believe
there are very legitimate concerns regarding recruiting and retention
trends, increased Personnel Tempo, as well as pay and benefits
comparability, spare parts availability, and growing depot and real
property maintenance issues to be examined.
I agree that we must pay very close attention to these issues because
we are asking our men and women in uniform to do more today than we
ever have during peacetime. We are asking them to do more, not so much
with ``less,'' but with fewer and fewer people and that is placing a
strain on our military. I believe we must proceed very, very carefully
before any further reductions are considered.
I am concerned that our problem may be more basic than these issues I
have just mentioned. I have come to this Senate floor many times over
the years and have spoken repeatedly in the Armed Services Committee to
voice my concerns over the drawdown in our end strength. In my view, I
don't believe we should have gone below 1.6 million in our active duty
end strength.
I am concerned that with fewer than 1.6 million in end strength our
military strategy becomes a bit of a myth, Mr. President. I don't think
we can fight two contingencies today with an end strength of 1.4
million. I'm not confident we could repeat Desert Storm and embark on a
second contingency if something broke out in Korea.
1.6 million is not a number I pulled from thin air. Rather, it is
based on a time-proven formula that requires a force that basically is
divided in three. One third of the force is forward deployed and
fighting, one third of the force is training for deployment or in
transit and one third of the force is maintaining the other two-
thirds--
[[Page S11229]]
manning the Pentagon, plowing the runways, etc.
In the Persian Gulf, we had about 575,000 Americans deployed. That's
one major regional contingency or one major theater war (MTW) as we are
now calling them. To repeat Operation Desert Storm, we need an end
strength of at least 1.6 million. Today, we appear to be falling below
the manning levels necessary to conduct our peacetime operations let
alone credibly maintain a combat force capable of carrying out two
nearly simultaneous major operations.
Mr. President, let me add at this point that I believe those
commitments are important. We have alliance deployments in Japan,
Korea, and Europe. We are conducting peacekeeping operations on the
Kuwait border and in the Western Sahara. Our so-called ``Operations
Other Than War'' also require American service members to be deployed
to the Sinai, to Bosnia, to the Persian Gulf in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
and on the border between Peru and Ecuador. We've had deployments to
Rwanda, Angola, Somalia, Haiti and Cambodia to name a few other
operations that have all contributed to the services' high OPTEMPO and
PERSTEMPO. I support these operations.
We literally have saved millions of lives through our presence in
troubled areas of the world and I believe that that is an appropriate
use of our military forces. The cold war may be over but the killing
has not stopped. The United States has no territorial ambitions but we
do need to remain engaged. The constant demands on our personnel around
the world, however, are not without consequence. We are asking the men
and women in our military services to be deployed for longer periods
and more often than we have in the past. They have served well through
a difficult and turbulent period.
I understand, and I hope my colleagues understand, the rationale for
continued reductions in our end strength. End strength cuts are being
made in order to generate cash to pay for modernization programs. I
agree that our service members deserve the best and most modern
equipment available but I do not agree that reductions should be made
simply to generate cash. Even if modernization programs can reduce
manpower requirements in the long term, in the near term, we still need
people to carry out our important worldwide commitments. The time has
come to step back and consider how we are going to achieve our goals.
We may need more funding for modernization. In my view, we also need
funding for more people.
We also need to impose more discipline before simply raising the
topline. We should have given the Department base closure authority so
we could get unneeded bases off the books. And we should impose more
discipline on ourselves. This year we added about $2 billion in items
that the Services didn't request in the procurement and research and
development accounts. We added over $600 million in military
construction add-ons. It is only in the past few years that the
Congress has agreed that when adding military construction projects,
those projects should at least be projects that the Defense Department
wants. Even meeting that criteria, I am not sure that annually adding
hundreds of millions of dollars for military construction projects just
to ``bring home the bacon'' is necessarily the best approach to
establishing and funding national security priorities.
I am supporting this conference report because on balance I believe
it is a good conference report but I do believe that the Congress needs
to focus more carefully on true spending priorities particularly as we
are learning that there may be some readiness funding problems.
HELPING OUR MILITARY AND SUPPORTING OUR DIPLOMACY
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Naming this bill after
my good friend Strom Thurmond is a fitting tribute to one of the
Senate's greatest defenders of America's military interests. I urge
everyone to take a minute to read Section 1, which highlights Senator
Thurmond's distinguished record of service and leadership.
As always, finding the right compromises to protect our national
security while still living within our budget caps has been hard.
Recent events in Iraq and Kosovo, and the attack on our embassies in
Tanzania and Kenya are stark reminders of why our diplomatic efforts
must be supported by a robust military.
I compliment the Committee on Armed Services, under the leadership of
Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin, for its dedicated effort to
address some of our nation's critical national security needs. While I
do not agree with everything in the conference report, on balance I
believe this bill does a great deal of good.
On the personnel front, I know that all of us are pleased with the
3.6 percent pay raise. We know that our patriotic men and women in
uniform do not serve in order to make money, but that doesn't change
the needs of their families and themselves for adequate recompense.
This is a solid step in the right direction.
Along the same lines, I thank the conferees for joining me in
supporting an increase in hazardous duty incentive pay for mid- and
senior level enlisted aircrew personnel. This necessary increase
reflects our commitment to the experienced aircrew personnel without
whom our planes could not fly vital missions in Bosnia and Iraq.
I was also pleased to see that this bill recognized the increasingly
vital role of our Guard and Reserve personnel in the new Total Force.
As that old Oldsmobile commercial said, ``this is not your father's''
military. Guard and Reserve personnel are absolutely vital to meeting
America's leadership commitments around the world, to protecting
communities here at home, and to defending national security. Among
other things, this bill authorizes the payment of selective
reenlistment bonuses, increased funding for Guard and Reserve training,
the restoration of up to 800 military technicians (dual-status), and
funds for the Guard's Youth ChalleNGe program and STARBASE program.
The conference report continues Congress's effort to address the
strains on our ability to provide high quality health care to our
military retirees. Both houses of Congress are agreed that more work
needs to be done in this area and the demonstration projects included
in this year's bill are part of that process.
In looking at some of the provisions in this bill that address
foreign relations issues, I am less sanguine. As I said when the Senate
dealt with this bill, I do not support the Sense of Congress provision
that endorses NATO missions with ground forces that would not include
any American troops. This is a dangerous precedent that encourages the
erosion of American leadership in NATO.
This bill also addressed satellite transfers. While we do not want to
handicap America's satellite manufacturers and telecommunications
firms, the most important consideration must always be to safeguard
national security. The changes made in the licensing system appear to
make sense, despite their being adopted on the basis of a very
incomplete analysis of a complex issue. Transferring licensing
authority back to the State Department--the same agency that licensed
the controversial Loral satellite launch in February 1996--may help, so
long as the State Department is given the resources to do the job
right. This conference report permits the Department of State to keep
all the fees it collects for registration by the Office of Defense
Trade Controls--the office which administers licenses for military
exports--a sensible approach that is also contained in the Department
of State authorization bill. Now the Commerce, Justice, State
appropriations conference must adopt a similar provision; otherwise we
will be giving the State Department an unfunded mandate that it will be
unable to fulfill. We run the risk of exacerbating the problem of
perpetually under funding of our foreign policy tools.
One provision addressing foreign policy that I was very pleased to
see retained is the amendment that I authored calling for a report on
the peaceful employment of former Soviet experts on weapons of mass
destruction. The slightly revised provision is now found at section
1309. Section 1309 requires detailed reporting on the
[[Page S11230]]
former Soviet experts who are at risk of recruitment by a rogue state
or terrorist group. I am confident that this language will not require
the Department of Defense to produce an impossibly detailed analysis. I
am pleased to note that the revised provision will permit the Secretary
of Defense to inform Congress of ways to increase the number of former
Soviet arms experts whom we assist in their transitions into new
occupations. That is a vital national security objective, and it will
become even more vital in the coming years as Russia's nuclear
establishment is substantially downsized and more of their nuclear
weapons experts are left to find new ways to earn a living.
In conclusion, Mr. President, the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act is a comprehensive bill that addresses many of our
military needs. As I have said, there are some provisions that concern
me. But, overall, I believe this bill provides some of the bricks that
make up the foundation of our national security policy. It takes
important steps to improve the quality of life for our most critical
national security asset--our military personnel. My overall concern
continues to be that it should not take terrorist attacks to realize
that spending more on our first line of defense--our foreign policy--is
an equally vital part of our national security policy.
sec. 1512
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, the Chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, after whom this defense authorization bill is
named.
Section 1512 of this bill requires the President to certify to
Congress 15 days prior to any export to the People's Republic of China
of missile equipment or technology, as defined in the Annex to the
Missile Technology Control Regime, that such export is not detrimental
to the U.S. space launch industry, and that such export will not
measurably improve China's missile or space launch capabilities.
The intent of this section is not to prevent the export of commercial
communications satellites to the PRC, consistent with U.S. law and
national security and foreign policy interests, nor to harm our
domestic satellite industry. The purpose of this section is to ensure
that exports of such satellites and related technology to China will
not harm U.S. security. As long as sufficient export controls are in
force and are being enforced, such exports are consistent with our
national security.
Furthermore, this certification requirement for exports to China is
not intended to prevent the export of commercial technology for
emergency repair of civilian equipment, such as navigation systems
required for safe flight of passenger aircraft. If a U.S.-made aircraft
requires emergency repair or replacement of its navigation system while
in China, we would not want to delay such required repair unreasonably.
I wish to ask the Chairman if he shares this view of Section 1512.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I agree with the view expressed by my
colleague, the Ranking Minority Member of the Armed Services Committee.
He has stated correctly the views of the Senate and the House in
agreeing to Section 1512 during the conference on the defense bill.
With regard to concerns that the requirement for a 15-day advance
certification concerning the export of items listed in the MTCR Annex
to the PRC would delay the ability to provide spare parts for in-
service civilian commercial aircraft in an emergency while in the PRC,
it is not the intent to delay the export of items for emergency repair
of in-service civilian commercial aircraft while in the PRC.
This view, however, should not be mistaken as a green light to
stockpile technology and spare parts which are on the MTCR Annex above
what is necessary to provide emergency service for in-service
commercial aircraft.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services
Committee for helping to clarify the intent of this provision.
C-130 Tragedy
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in November 1996, there was a tragic
accident off the coast of California that claimed the lives of 10 out
of 11 airmen, the crew of an Air Force Reserve C-130 aircraft out of
Portland. All of these crewmen were from my home state of Oregon.
This was a devastating loss for all of us, but most of all for the
families of those airmen who lost their lives. After any tragedy like
this, the first question on everyone's minds is ``why?'' Why were my
loved ones taken from me? This is what the families of these airmen
wanted to know, but no one would give them a straight answer.
After many, many months of frustration, these families came to me and
my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, to get the Air Force to tell
us exactly what happened.
As a result of working with these families, with the Air Force, and
with the committee staff, and with Senator Levin in particular, we were
able to craft some language that is now included in the Defense
Authorization Conference Report that we are considering today. This
language takes a two pronged approach to dealing with the pressing
issues the families have raised: improving crash investigations, and
eliminating the secrecy in which these investigations are shrouded.
Specifically, the language directs the Defense Department to review
the way it conducts aviation accident investigations so that they are
conducted in as thorough and objective a manner as possible, including
making sure crash investigators receive the best training, and ensuring
that the military department coordinate and share information on fleet
safety. The bill also urges the Pentagon to seek the advice of the
National Transportation Safety Board in improving investigation
procedures, and I intend to make sure their valuable input is part of
their review.
Secrecy has long been the hallmark of these investigations and has
kept loved ones in the dark about what happened and why. We have worked
to reduce the secrecy involved in the investigations of tragedies, and
this legislation takes a solid step forward in providing families and
the public with better information.
That's why this language also requires the Department of Defense to
issue regulations to provide to family members periodic reports on the
progress of investigations. I also spoke with Secretary Cohen about
this recently, and he has pledged to make a solid effort to make sure
families are kept informed of the progress of investigations.
It's important that we eliminate secrecy from these proceedings. The
last thing we should do is add to these terrible tragedies by keeping
the families in the dark about the status of these investigations. From
day to day, from week to week, from month to month, these families had
to cope with not only the incredible pain of losing a loved one, but
with the incredible frustration of not knowing the status of the
investigation into their deaths. This new language seeks to put an end
to this type of treatment. We owe it to the men and women who give
their lives for their country.
tritium provision
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, yesterday the Chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, Senator Thurmond, along with Senators Warner, Smith, and Kyl
entered into a colloquy on the tritium provision in the pending
National Defense Authorization Act Conference Committee Report.
While I was not available to participate in that colloquy, I would
like to make a few comments on this subject.
First and foremost, the restoration of tritium production is
absolutely critical. Without tritium, our entire nuclear deterrent
would be left inoperable. Our nuclear warheads cannot function without
replacement tritium. And time is wasting.
For those who do not know, tritium is a radioactive gas that is an
essential component of modern nuclear weapons. It decays at a rate of
five-and-a-half percent per year, so it has to be continually replaced.
We have not produced tritium in this country since 1988, when the
reactors at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina were shut down.
Since that time the Department of Energy has examined countless options
and technologies, but has not yet selected a new source. We cannot
afford to delay this program. The potential costs of delay are too
great.
The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, had a
difficult Defense Authorization conference with the House this year.
[[Page S11231]]
Chairman Thurmond and the other members of the Committee negotiated
over 570 legislative provisions and more than 1,000 funding differences
with the House. The final result was a strong bipartisan bill. In fact,
for the first time in many years, all the members of the conference,
both Democrats and Republicans, signed the final conference report.
Tritium was one of the most difficult issues that had to be
addressed. The House and Senate bills had wildly differing provisions
on this topic. In addition, there was a Presidential veto threat on one
of the House tritium provisions. Chairman Thurmond, as always, put all
other interests aside and delivered a compromise that put the national
security interests of the U.S. ahead of all other interests. I am
confident that his provision will keep the tritium program moving
forward.
However, there remain some disagreements as to the best method to
produce tritium. It's not my place to comment on that today. I will say
that under this conference agreement, Energy Secretary Richardson will
be required to select his preferred technology in December of this
year. I expect him to meet that requirement.
I might also say to Secretary Richardson that the conference report
requires him to submit along with the President's fiscal year 2000
budget request, a plan to implement whichever technology he selects in
December. I expect him to identify the funding requirements, schedule,
and legislation necessary to restore tritium production in time to meet
Defense Department requirements. In order to be credible, his
implementation plan must include adequate funding in fiscal year 2000
and beyond.
This matter is too important to the national security of the United
States to be undermined by deficient budget requests or lack of
attention on the part of DOE.
Furthermore, I put my colleagues on notice that I intend to be fully
engaged in the debate when this matter comes before the Senate next
year. Let me assure all interested parties that I intend to ensure that
only one interest will dictate the outcome of that debate--the national
security interests of the United States. The safety and security of the
American people require all of us to ensure that there are no further
unnecessary delays--for any reason.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'd like to join my colleagues in
saluting the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the
distinguished Senator Strom Thurmond, whose leadership, together with
the ranking member, Senator Levin, has produced the fiscal year 1999
Defense authorization bill which is named in the chairman's honor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your untiring efforts, both for putting
together this bill and for your long and distinguished service to our
nation. We are a grateful Senate and a grateful nation.
Achieving this year's defense bill has been no easy task. Every
defense budget represents the outcome of an annual debate concerning
competing national security priorities. Everyone is familiar with the
litany of our defense needs: procurement and modernization, quality of
life for defense personnel, operations and maintenance, research and
development, training, medical care, and so forth. This year is no
different.
Much has been said about the lack of funding for procurement and
modernization of military equipment. Certainly, by historical standards
we are far below cold war levels. But our defense needs have changed
and will continue to do so. We need to look carefully at the
capabilities and quantities of weapons that we will need in the
future--particularly in areas where technology could provide lower cost
alternatives of getting the job done.
Nevertheless, in this year's conference report the Congress is taking
a step towards meeting those procurement needs. Funding for procurement
is up from $49.1 billion requested by the President to $49.9 billion
authorized by the conference.
The conference also took steps to increase funding for quality of
life priorities. Funding for military construction and family housing
was increased from $7.8 billion to about $8.5 billion.
But those increases come at a cost. In balancing priorities while
remaining within the budget agreement cap, this budget pays the bill by
reducing funding in other categories. Funding for research and
development, operations and maintenance, and Department of Energy
defense activities, for example, were funded at lower levels than
requested by the Administration.
Are those tradeoffs the correct ones from the point of view of our
national security? Or are they the outcome of partisan negotiations to
meet parochial needs?
I remain concerned that the teamwork that's needed between the
Department of Defense, the Administration, and the Congress to produce
a defense budget that meets our real military priorities is flawed.
While the Congress took steps to increase procurement funding, many of
those purchases do not reflect the priorities stated by the military
services themselves. The cost of those purchases were bought by cuts to
readiness accounts that must now be repaired through an emergency
supplemental agreed to by the President.
Similarly, we risk mortgaging our long term security future by
cutting funding for research and development, particularly for basic
research. I am pleased, however, that this bill includes a provision
that sets successively higher goals for research and development
funding during the next decade. I am hopeful that implementation of
that provision can enable us to avoid having research and development
remain the billpayer for future defense spending increases.
I applaud this bill for its many specific provisions that serve the
simultaneous interests of my New Mexico constituents and the nation's
security.
The bill contains $4.3 billion for weapons activities at the
Department of Energy National Labs, approximately half of which will
support work being done at Los Alamos and Sandia.
That work will support the stockpile stewardship program that will
enable us to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons
stockpile without building new ones and without testing old ones.
I am hopeful that continued funding for the stockpile stewardship
program will enable us to move forward in the Senate with ratification
of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty next year.
The bill also includes essential funding for the Cooperative Threat
Reduction and the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention programs
intended to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials
through cooperative efforts with Russian nuclear laboratories and
scientists. Our laboratories in New Mexico are working closely with
their Russian colleagues to benefit the security of both nations
against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of
terrorists or rogue governments.
The bill also provides essential funding to remedy the disrepair of
the nation's finest weapons testing facility, White Sands Missile
Range, in southern New Mexico. Without those funds, we won't be able to
assure the technologies and military capabilities to have the effective
fighting forces we will need for the nation's future defense.
The bill also includes key quality of life improvements for our
military personnel at Cannon, Kirtland, and Holloman Air Force bases.
Units from those bases have served honorably and effectively in Bosnia
and the Persian Gulf. The personnel and their families assigned to
those bases appreciate the support they are given in this year's
defense bill.
Mr. President, I support this conference report and urge my collegues
to vote in favor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me commend the senior Senator from
South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, and Senator Levin for having
completed work on this important conference report on the Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I
particularly want to express my appreciation to Senator Thurmond and
Senator Warner and their staff for working with me and my staff to
address the provision that the House of Representatives had attempted
to include (section 1216) which would have negatively impacted the
export capabilities of U.S. vendors of civilian nuclear power
equipment. I am pleased to say that the Senate conferees were able to
replace the House language regarding nuclear exports with an acceptable
notification requirement in Section 1523.
[[Page S11232]]
Mr. President, as some of my colleagues are aware, the House of
Representatives had added language that would have changed the
reporting requirements for nuclear exports and added a congressional
disapproval process. The change in the export law contemplated by the
House of Representatives was unwise and unnecessary.
A change in the reporting requirements was unnecessary because the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission closely regulates the export activities
of U.S. nuclear vendors. The nuclear export licensing process by law
requires not only public notice of export license applications as soon
as they are received by the N.R.C., but also the opportunity for public
intervention with the N.R.C. prior to issuance of a license. Moreover,
the N.R.C. is not allowed to issue an export license for any nuclear
equipment and technology unless the government of the recipient nation
has negotiated, signed and implemented a bilateral agreement for
nuclear cooperation with the United States. Such agreements provide the
United States with a broad array of inspection rights and control over
the fuel cycle. I am unaware of any allegations that, under this
regime, the United States has exported any nuclear material or
technology which has been diverted for military or proliferation
purposes. Since our export control system appears to be working, it is
difficult to see why it should be altered or supplemented.
A change in the reporting requirements was unwise because it would
negatively impact U.S. exporters of civilian nuclear power equipment
without advancing any national security goal. Although the author of
the provision made clear that his proposal was designed to add
restrictions to trade in civilian nuclear power equipment and
technology with China, it would have impacted many other countries,
including Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and
Taiwan who purchase U.S. nuclear goods. I am convinced that, faced with
new restrictions, all these countries would be extremely reluctant to
deal with U.S. suppliers. Certainly, European and Canadian suppliers
would use such new restrictions as part of their commercial armory to
argue that, for these countries, dealing with U.S. suppliers is
complex, time absorbing, and subject to political whims, while their
procedures are simple and straightforward.
Some members may want to block trade with China in civilian nuclear
goods and technology. But, my colleagues should recall that President
Clinton sent to Congress the certifications necessary to implement the
Reagan Administration's 1985 Agreement for U.S.-China Peaceful Nuclear
Cooperation on January 27, 1998. The Congress considered those
certifications for 30 legislative days, as provided by law. Existing
law provided the opponents of the certifications with every opportunity
to challenge the Administration's determination. However, no attempt
was made to pass a resolution of disapproval of those certifications,
and consequently, the 1985 Agreement went into effect on March 19,
1998. Any changes made after the fact would be seen as aimed at
impeding or delaying such cooperation and, as such, could seriously
undercut the non-proliferation assurances China provided as a condition
of implementing the nuclear cooperation agreement. Moreover, as a
matter of principle, moving the goalposts regarding certification after
the fact is unfair.
Mr. President, again, I want to thank the managers for their
assistance on this important matter.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to register my
opposition to the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense Authorization
conference report. Sadly, we continue to spend precious military
resources on unneeded, unwanted, pork-barrel projects, all at the
expense of our military's legitimate needs.
Mr. President, our military needs to be lean and mean, not weighed
down with unnecessary, unwanted, expensive pork. We don't need to spend
more money, we need to spend money more wisely. Our military leaders
have begun to recognize this and some of my colleagues in Congress have
recognized it. I hope we can work together toward a more wisely funded
military.
I am not alone in my call for more efficient and accountable military
spending. Lawrence J. Korb, President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of
Defense, recently issued a rebuke of the state of the Pentagon's
military spending. He said,
The problem is not lack of money or aging equipment . . .
the Pentagon is buying the wrong weapons. The military
behaves as if it is still in an arms race with the Soviet
Union, buying $2 billion bombers, $3 billion submarines and
$5 billion aircraft carriers . . . Russia, China, Iran, Iraq,
North Korea--throw in Libya or whoever else you want--all of
them together don't spend as much on the military as we do.
Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. There is no Cold War. It's
over. We need to move toward a 21st century military force. This
conference report fails to adequately modernize our armed forces and
move toward that goal.
As my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, has so eloquently stated
year after year, it's unconscionable that we spend billions of dollars
on pork-barrel projects that the Pentagon doesn't need and doesn't
want.
Mr. President, we can't afford to pretend we're still dealing with
the Cold War Soviet threat. Military leaders agree that we need
lighter, faster and more agile forces. This strategy does not include
wholesale purchase of cumbersome B-2 bombers, new attack submarines, or
Cold War-era heavy tanks.
One particular program epitomizes the worst of pork-barrel politics.
The C-130 air cargo planes have sapped billions of dollars from vital
military programs even though our military leaders are incessant in
their pleas to end the harmful practice of forcing the Pentagon to buy
more planes than it needs.
Mr. President, since 1978, the Congress has added a whopping 263 C-
130s for which our Department of Defense has not asked. That's right--
the taxpayers have paid for 263 C-130s the Pentagon didn't need. If you
lined them up wing to wing, that would be six and a half miles of
unwanted airplanes, with the taxpayers on the hook for $22.4 billion.
This assault on military planning hamstrings readiness, equipment, and
compensation for our soldiers. As we all know, these are the precise
areas which the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified this week were at
greatest risk. Politicians who want to bring home the bacon at
taxpayers' expense should not be second-guessing the judgment of our
military leaders in this way.
This conference report follows in the dubious footsteps of its
ancestors by authorizing 7 C-130s, while the Pentagon asked for only
one. Not only does it take from other procurement money, but DoD must
divert operations and maintenance money to look after all these
unneeded planes. This is the height of irresponsibility and
shortsightedness.
Finally, Mr. President, I would like to congratulate my distinguished
colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley. He held a hearing on Tuesday to
discuss accounting fraud at the Pentagon. His continued efforts to rein
in obvious and debilitating fraud at the Pentagon need to be applauded.
Perhaps the Senator's most important finding is summed by his quote,
``If we put adequate controls on the money we have, there should be no
need for more defense spending.''
That, Mr. President, sums up my point, as well. We don't need to
throw good money after bad with pork-barrel spending in our military
budget. What we need to do is spend our money more wisely. That is how
we will move toward a lean, efficient, and effective military. This
conference report does not move toward the new 21st century military
force.
I thank the chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President I rise today to discuss the Defense
Authorization bill. I support this bill and believe the Conferees have
acted appropriately and supported the vital needs of our national
security. However, I strenuously object to one provision that I believe
is a grave mistake.
Section 1075 of H.R. 3616 inserts language which would have the
effect of changing the tax structure of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Mr. President, this is a terrible and misguided assault on the rights
of Kentucky to levy income tax. I believe this decision sets a
dangerous precedent and will harm citizens of my state.
[[Page S11233]]
Fort Campbell is a unique military post which straddles the Kentucky-
Tennessee state lines. As a result, many residents of Tennessee go to
work every day across the border in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Currently, those who work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell are
subject to Kentucky's state income tax. Section 1075 takes away
Kentucky's ability to legally enforce its state tax on these employees.
As a result, Kentucky will lose millions of dollars a year in revenue.
I am unable to come up with any justification for the Armed Services
committee to impose its will on the Commonwealth of Kentucky in this
manner.
Mr. President, for the Armed Services committee to take this action
astonishes me. This issue should be debated and resolved by the
impacted states. By imposing this solution, the Armed Services
committee has effectively foreclosed any opportunity for future
negotiations.
My colleague from Kentucky, Senator Ford, has made lengthy remarks on
this issue, and I agree with much of what he said. However, I do take
offense at the partisan barbs, as they are unwarranted and
unproductive. Perhaps the diatribe was cathartic, but cheap shots get
us no closer to the solution.
That said Mr. President, like my colleague from Kentucky, I will vote
for final passage of this bill. It contains a number of items that I
encouraged the committee to adopt, and I thank them for their
consideration.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate adopted the
conference report on H.R. 4103, the Department of Defense
Appropriations bill. I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss a
relatively small part of this budget which has a huge impact on my
state.
Outside of the City of New Orleans, we have one of the few remaining
shipyards in the country that still builds ocean-going ships for the
Navy. Avondale Shipyards is a key employer in the area. With over 5,000
working men and women, it is the largest private employer in the
region. Louisiana has a proud maritime tradition, and has a particular
expertise in ship building. As a shipyard of tremendous capacity and
infrastructure, and the host of the Maritime Excellence Center,
Avondale has played an important part in the development of this
industry.
However, Avondale has also maintained a record of labor relations
which Judge Evans of the National Labor Relations Board termed
``outrageous and pervasive.'' This is not the image of Louisiana's
growing maritime industry that I want projected. I believe that
Louisiana should be the world leader in shipbuilding, but I also
believe that we cannot attain that status through substandard wages and
unsafe working conditions. Many manufacturing sectors in our country
have been faced with international competition that created difficult
times. The way these industries rebounded was not to turn back the
clock on progress made in working conditions and wages. Instead, our
industrial sector did just the opposite: they grew more hi-tech and
more specialized; they invested in their workers, and they invested in
new technologies. This is the only route to true success and
leadership. Louisiana's shipyards will never be able to compete with
countries like China and the Phillippines on the basis of wages--the
key is to concentrate on American strengths: technology, craftsmanship
and quality.
That is my goal for Avondale. To help them become a world leader, and
transition away from practices which threaten that objective. The
seemingly endless dispute between management and labor at Avondale is a
huge impediment to the process. I am ready to work with anyone who in
good faith seeks to resolve the problem. In this spirit, I have talked
to the Navy about Avondale and inquired about the significance of labor
relations in Navy contracts. Let me be clear, I did not make these
inquires to block contracts from being awarded to Avondale. It benefits
no one to have workers loose their jobs and the state diminish its
industrial base in order to make a point. This is especially true when
we should have a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the union
election in the near future.
I voted for the Defense Appropriations bill, because I believe in a
strong defense. I also voted for the Defense Appropriations bill
because I believe in a strong Avondale. The government provides over
eighty percent of Avondale's contracts. The shipyard cannot function
without them. I have no intention of jeopardizing Avondale's future. My
sole objective is to facilitate my state's future success in the
maritime field. Avondale must be part of that success. This long-
standing labor dispute should be resolved at the earliest possible time
to achieve that end.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer strong support for
the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999. As several of my colleagues in the Senate have also recognized,
we owe a great deal of gratitude to Senator Thurmond. As a soldier and
as a Senator, he has fought to defend our country and safeguard our
national interest.
I thank Senator Thurmond his unceasing commitment and untiring
service to this country and its institutions.
Mr. President, this legislation contains many positive things for the
state of New Mexico--both in the programs funded and the changes made
to enhance research and development efforts.
The most significant contribution made by this legislation to R&D
efforts in our state will be realized by eliminating several barriers
to cooperation between national laboratories and the private sector.
The partnerships among our federal laboratories, universities, and
industry provide important benefits to our nation.
A substantial amount of benefits are attainable in New Mexico, given
the unique assets in this state. These partnerships help to create
innovative new products and services that drive our economy and improve
our quality of life.
I am pleased that this year's conference ruled favorably on so many
of the requests for increases that I put forward. Many of these
increases will leverage unique assets and capabilities in New Mexico to
ensure that our national interests are protected.
The bill authorizes $4.5 billion for Department of Energy defense
activities, much of which is done at Sandia National Laboratories and
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), in addition to DOE's Lawrence
Livermore facility in California. Approximately $2.5 billion of this
authorization will be spent in New Mexico.
In addition, the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management programs are authorized at $5.44 billion. Of that,
approximately $415 million will be spent in New Mexico for waste
management functions, environmental restoration activities, technology
development efforts, nuclear materials and facilities stabilization
functions, and a variety of cost-cutting and program support
initiatives.
Several other important items for defense efforts in New Mexico that
are authorized in the bill.
For example, this year's authorization for the High Energy Laser
System Test Facility (HELSTF) at White Sands Missile Range is $23
million, including $8 million for solid state laser research. An
additional $10 million is authorized for further research in the
Theater High Energy Laser (THEL), an effort jointly funded and
supported by Israel.
The Exploratory Development of Advanced Weapons technology at
Kirtland's Air Force Research Laboratory is authorized at $129 million
for the coming year.
A total of $40.2 million is also authorized to support the Advanced
Radiation Technology Program at Kirtland's Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL). The lab is using its expertise in laser technologies
to develop a new deep space imaging system, in addition to a special
interactions development program.
$24 million is authorized for Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion
Program. The Air Force Laboratory at Kirkland is involved in this
program.
The Ballistic Missile Technology Program is authorized at $16. This
funding was not included in the President's request. Kirkland AFRL and
White Sands Missile Range are involved in this program.
$75 million is authorized for the Advanced Spacecraft Technology
Program, $32 million more than the budget
[[Page S11234]]
request. These funds will advance space plane development, the
Clementine microsatellite program at Kirkland AFRL, and the Satellite
Orbital Transfer Vehicle which is worked on at the New Mexico
Engineering and Research Institute.
In a related endeavor, a total of $10 million is authorized for the
Scorpius Low-Cost Launch program. This program utilizes assets at New
Mexico Tech in Socorro and will be tested at White Sands in the coming
months.
The Airborne Laser Program is authorized at $235 million. The Special
Programs Office for this critical Air Force effort in theater missile
defense is located at Kirkland, and this program relies heavily on
basic research in directed energy and adaptive optics at the AFRL
there.
The Air Force Operational Test & Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) at
Kirkland is authorized at $29.5 million. This is $5 million more than
the President's budget request and will support the Initial Operational
Test and Evaluation Center's independent operational tests to evaluate
weapon systems operational effectiveness and suitability.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Flat Panel
Display Program is authorized at $41. This includes an earmark of $7
million for High Definitions Systems in integrated command and control
technology.
The Warfighter Information Network is authorized at $132.1 million
for procurement of weapons communications equipment, including the
Echelon Above Corps (EAC) communications program. This authorization
level includes a $35 million increase to continue modernization of the
Army's tactical voice and data communication system. Laguna Industries
at the Pueblo of Laguna is involved in producing these shelters.
$21.9 million is authorized for Ground Penetrating Radar Program &
Landmine Warfare & Barrier Technology, including a $2 million increase
for a ground radar and vehicle mounted mine detector.
Also, this legislation authorizes military construction for several
projects critical to the viability of New Mexico's military
installations.
This bill authorizes $6.8 million for the Nuclear Weapons Integration
Facility and $1.8 million for the Fire Training Facility, as well as
$6.4 million to improve family housing at Kirkland.
Holloman is authorized $1.3 million for improvements to its War
Readiness Materials Warehouse and $11.1 million to construct a state-
of-the-art physical fitness center.
$3.6 million is authorized for improvements to family housing at
White Sands Missile Range, and a $3.3 million authorization is included
to allow New Mexico's National Guard to build the Taos Armory.
An additional $8 million is authorized to support the Big Crow
Program Office--DoD's only asset for testing high power stand-off
jamming capability in electronic warfare scenarios.
These are some of the major programs related to U.S. military
capabilities and research and development efforts that reside in the
state of New Mexico. I thank Chairman Thurmond and the Senate Armed
Services Committee for recognizing and supporting the many
contributions to our national security needs that are based in New
Mexico.
Unfortunately, however, I cannot pretend that the measures contained
in the legislation will ensure U.S. security. I cannot in good
conscience purport that this legislation--or any legislation--can solve
the current crisis faced by the armed forces.
The strength of the U.S. military cannot simply be measured in
numbers of soldiers or the state-of-the-art weapons they possess. The
fortitude of this country's military is not only based on advanced
weaponry, but rather is also a reflection of the strength of its
morale.
Mr. President, the morale of our military is under siege. When
retired colonels are heard commenting that in their half a century of
hanging around soldiers they have seldom seen the cutting edge of our
fighting forces so dull, nor morale lower, there is good reason for
concern. Rather than focusing on the hardware issues encapsulated in
the term ``modernization,'' I would like today to emphasize the
problems with readiness, morale and quality of life. Equipment is
secondary to the well-being of the men and women in uniform. The best
weapons cannot bring about victory without adequate training in their
use and the firm loyalty of the soldier to buttress the military
objectives fought for.
We are now in our fourteenth year of decline in defense spending.
What can no longer be ignored is that the increase in non-traditional
deployments coupled with down-sizing is steadily eroding readiness and
morale.
Our reduced force structure is overextended. Overextension is eroding
retention rates, quality of life, operational readiness, and, most
importantly, morale. Whereas the U.S. military had 22 foreign missions
during the 1980s, they have already been involved in 36 foreign
missions since 1990.
At the same time, our forces have been down-sized by 35 to 40%. In
addition, forward basing has decreased by two-thirds--from 39 major
installations to 13. This translates into more forces based in the U.S.
while deployments are overseas.
The result? More frequent and longer deployments, due to down-sized
forces and up-sized involvement in foreign missions. The OPS TEMPO
required under these constraints lead to grueling days even after
returning home from prolonged overseas missions.
Some soldiers are currently required to spend up to 150 days away
from their families annually. Then, upon returning home, they still
have too many additional duties to really spend quality time at home.
Retention rates continue to plummet, especially in the Air Force.
This is not happening because we are not offering generous pay bonuses
to re-enlist. Last year, 800 pilots refused re-enlistment bonuses of
$60,000. The Air Force is planning to increase these bonuses to
$110,000, but the Air Force is also planning for this problem to get
worse.
Why? Although military planners contend that competition with a
booming U.S. economy and the private sector is the cause for defection,
the reality is more complex and points to the same problems already
discussed. Heavy deployment schedules and no down-time between
deployments cause stresses on service personnel, especially those with
families.
A related issue is that the men and women in our armed forces
increasingly believe that their loyalty is a one-way street. In
addition to demanding more for less from our soldiers, their quality of
life is also eroding.
The United States, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the
world, currently has military men and women who require food stamps to
provide for their families. The Defense Department says it would be
``too expensive'' to solve this problem.
Housing for our military families is also inadequate. According to a
study from the Defense Science Board, 62 percent of our barracks and 64
percent of our family housing are unsuitable. In the face of this, the
President's request for military construction and family housing for
1999 was $1.1 billion less than Congress provided in 1998.
Some in Washington are saying this is a money problem. It is a money
problem, but it is also more than that. It is also a leadership
problem, and it is a question of how competently our defenses are being
managed.
Our pilots and other specialists are leaving the services in droves
not just to get better paying jobs; they are also leaving because they
are being worn out; and they are not getting the support they need from
their own leadership. They are being worn out by repeated deployments.
And they are not always convinced that what they are being asked to do
makes sense.
Back home their spouses resent the military for turning their
families into single-parent households. And the quality of life offered
to these military families can't begin to compensate.
Is it any wonder that with a booming economy and plenty of good jobs
available in the private sector that our soldiers are voting with their
feet? Is it any surprise that given inadequate housing for the families
back home that they rarely see due to deployments abroad for missions
they don't understand that our soldiers are frustrated, ill-prepared
and low on morale?
Perhaps most disturbing, I am beginning to see too many reports that
the
[[Page S11235]]
leadership is not addressing the real problems. There seems to be an
emerging question of the confidence in our military's senior
leadership. There is a growing concern that the top leadership is not
willing to make the hard decisions to restrain our military missions to
the available human and material resources or to expand those resources
to meet the increasing demand.
That brings us back to the question of money. There is simply not
enough money in the defense budget as it is currently projected to do
everything that needs to be done. There is an effort underway to
provide emergency supplemental funding for military readiness. I
support that effort. However, this will not solve the bigger problems.
Our military leaders are beginning to agree. In a recent Armed
Services Committee Hearing with the Joint Chiefs, U.S. military leaders
finally conceded that they do, indeed, have a severe problem. The $1
billion in supplemental funding will help, but according to the most
recent Joint Chiefs' testimony, between $10 to $13.5 billion would be
necessary in the coming year to meet U.S. defense needs.
One thing is blatantly clear. We must strive to adequately feed,
house, and train our most precious military resource--the men and women
in our armed forces. To do this will mean more resources for our
defense budget and it will mean better management of the resources--
human and material--that we already have.
For next year, for the fiscal year 2000 budget, I believe, we need to
start the new millennium by at least stopping the ebbing tide and end
the 15 year decline.
Each year the Armed Services Committee is given the difficult task of
balancing between current and long-term readiness under current budget
constraints. In recent years, they have had the impossible task of
ensuring that personnel, quality of life, readiness, and modernization
programs are adequately supported, while funding levels remain
insufficient to achieve that objective.
The Committee recognizes, as do most of us concerned about our
national defense, that combat readiness of our armed forces is at risk.
The risk is a function of older equipment resulting from inadequate
modernization and a force structure too small to meet ongoing demands.
Aging equipment and weary soldiers cannot possibly defend this country
adequately. Nor can dominance result from this equation.
I am gravely concerned about preparedness, modernization and
procurement. However, I am most concerned about the human element of
our armed forces. The best equipment and the most rigorous training
cannot compensate for too lengthy, too frequent deployments and time
away from loved ones.
Mr. President, the solution is clear. We must stop the ebbing tide in
our national defense budget. If we don't the hollowing out of our
military forces will continue. Our national security will be at risk
during a time of international uncertainty and growing threats. Our
soldiers deserve better and U.S. citizens are counting on us.
Mr. THURMOND. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 10 seconds.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to thank the leadership of the
Senate for their cooperation and support in bringing this conference
report to the floor for approval of the Senate. The bipartisan support
of both the majority and the minority leaders is critical to successful
passage of the conference report of such magnitude.
The majority leader, Senator Lott, a former member of our committee,
recognizes the importance of this bill and has always given his full
support and assistance in passing a bill of this nature. I thank him
for his time and support and all he has done in this respect.
I extend my appreciation to the leadership staff and the floor staff
for their assistance which is essential to passing this large, complex
bill.
In that connection, Mr. President, I wish to especially commend Les
Brownlee, staff director of the Armed Services Committee. He has
rendered yeoman service to this committee, and I can't say enough in
support of all he has done. George Lauffer, the deputy staff director,
has also been most faithful and has done an outstanding job. We
appreciate that and thank him for what he has done in this connection.
I also wish to thank David Lyles on the other side, and those who
worked with him, for their fine cooperation and support. They have been
most cooperative and have rendered a great service.
Mr. President, we appreciate the work of two House Members. We thank
Floyd Spence, who happens to be from my State, for handling the House
bill. He is an outstanding gentleman of character and ability, and I
thank him for all he has done in cooperating with us on the defense
legislation. Ike Skelton, a Democrat, who works with Congressman
Spence, has also been cooperative and helpful, and I express my
appreciation to him, too.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in his capacity as a Senator from
the State of Washington, suggests the absence of a quorum and, without
objection, directs that the time be divided equally between the two
sides.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and one-half minutes.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield that to the able Senator from
Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is it possible
for me to ask unanimous consent to go into morning business rather than
take from Senator Thurmond's time? I wanted to talk about the 40th
anniversary of NASA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an order that a vote occur on the
defense authorization bill at noon. The request is in order and will
probably be charged against both sides.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. If that is acceptable, I ask unanimous consent to
have 5 minutes to speak on the 40th anniversary of NASA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________