[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 79 (Monday, June 7, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6458-S6460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1122, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1122) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair for bringing the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000 before the Senate.
  It is my privilege to once again bring this defense bill to the 
Members of the Senate in partnership with my distinguished colleague, 
the Senator from Hawaii.
  I hope all Senators were able to see or at least learn of the very 
distinguished memorial that was created to honor the 442nd, which was 
the most decorated unit of World War II; our colleague, Senator Inouye, 
was part of that unit. I am very pleased we are once again able to come 
before the Senate to pursue a matter of great concern to each of us, 
and that is the defense of our country.
  We have served together on this subcommittee now for more than 20 
years, and we have been chairman or ranking member, depending upon the 
political tides of this country. I want the Senate to know that I could 
not have brought this bill to the Senate so early this year without the 
wisdom, experience, and judgment of my good friend from Hawaii.
  I also commend Senator Levin and Senator Warner of the authorization 
committee for their handling of the defense authorization bill. We have

[[Page S6459]]

worked closely together with that committee to stay close to the budget 
and the policy determinations which were made in the armed services 
bill. Amendments which we will offer later today reflect adjustments 
made to that bill to make this appropriations bill fully compatible 
with the authorization process.
  As Senator Inouye and I reported to the committee when we considered 
this bill in the committee, and as reflected by the Armed Services 
Committee in their bill, the military has faced a difficult challenge 
in meeting critical readiness and quality-of-life needs while 
modernizing our total force for the 21st century.
  The armed services have sought to maintain that balance while 
undertaking contingency operations in the Balkans, southwest Asia, and 
the heightened alert on the Korean peninsula. Last month, the Congress, 
at our request, provided a second emergency supplemental bill for the 
fiscal year 1999 to meet some of those contingency requirements.
  For fiscal year 2000, our committee was presented a budget that 
reflected real progress compared to the original forecast for the 
upcoming fiscal year.
  More realistic estimates for the Bosnia operations and procurement 
and development of a national missile defense system established a 
better baseline for our national defense program.
  Initiatives by OMB did leave real holes in the budget for fiscal year 
2000, with incremental funding for MILCON, the military construction 
bill, and a $1.65 billion unspecified rescission recommended by the 
Office of Management and Budget.
  The budget resolution adopted by Congress has provided adjustments 
for the defense function that offset some of those defense gaps.
  The $8.3 billion increase in the new defense budget authority enabled 
the committee to restore the military construction reduction and to 
offset the suggested rescission. In addition, needed increases were 
provided for defense functions of the Energy and Water and 
Transportation Subcommittees.
  Our bill reported by the Appropriations Committee is within the 
302(B) allocation for the Defense Subcommittee. That is an allocation 
made pursuant to the budget resolution.
  As I noted at the outset, the bill before the Senate follows closely 
the Defense Department authorization bill that passed this Senate by a 
vote of 94-4. Our bill fully funds the authorized 4.8-percent pay raise 
for military personnel. This bill adds $598 million to the O&M 
accounts, the operation and maintenance accounts, and provides 
flexibility to accommodate a larger civilian pay raise, if that is 
authorized. The increase in O&M spending will also protect the 
readiness of our forces and the quality of life for military personnel 
and their families.
  This bill before the Senate does not include any funding for the war 
in Kosovo; no assumptions are made concerning either extension of the 
air war or a ground campaign or peacekeeping force. At this tense 
moment in the peace negotiations in Europe, I hope all Members of the 
Senate will be cognizant of these efforts in their comments and the 
amendments offered to this bill.
  We will probably have another supplemental yet for peacekeeping 
operations in Kosovo for fiscal year 2000. That additional funding will 
be essential to avoid reductions in readiness and modernization for the 
armed services next year, if there is a peacekeeping operation, which 
we all expect.
  To achieve the modernization goals by Secretary Cohen and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the recommendation increases procurement spending by 
$2.7 billion.
  Looking further out in the future to the next generation of weapons 
systems, the bill before the Senate recommends an increase of $2.1 
billion in research and development.
  Funding for the defense health program continues to be the fastest 
growing component of our defense budget. The request for fiscal year 
2000 grew by 7 percent compared to the appropriation of 1999. And the 
recommendation provides an increase of more than $1 billion for fiscal 
year 2000.
  Included in that defense health program is $300 million for medical 
research, with $175 million allocated to breast cancer research and $75 
million allocated for prostate cancer research.
  One new initiative is the transfer of the responsibility for the 
soldiers, sailors, and airmen homes from the Labor, Health, and Human 
Services Subcommittee to our Defense Subcommittee. These facilities are 
more appropriately funded in conjunction with the Department of 
Defense, in our judgment. I hope the Senate will approve that 
recommendation.
  To reflect fact-of-life economic assumption changes since the budget 
was prepared last autumn, our bill makes a series of adjustments. These 
changes are based upon the Department of Defense authorization bill and 
revised Office of Management Budget estimates. These estimates and 
items include adjusted prior year inflation rates, fuel costs, foreign 
currency rates, and underexecution of civilian personnel allowances. 
All of those are adjustments that must be made to the bill.
  The bill also includes a general provision, section 8108, that 
reduces funding to reflect the amounts anticipated to carry over from 
the recently enacted Kosovo supplemental.
  Mr. President, $3.1 billion is reduced from this bill and was shifted 
to the Deficiencies Subcommittee of our Committee. Those funds will be 
reallocated to other subcommittees as we proceed with the remaining 
fiscal year 2000 bills.
  This adjustment holds the total defense funding for the fiscal year 
at roughly the level set in the budget resolution that was adopted by 
Congress earlier this year.
  The Appropriations Committee also reported S. 1186, the Department of 
Energy appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. That bill contains 
nearly $12 billion in defense funding. Our committee will also report 
the military construction bill later this week.
  Again, let me thank Senator Inouye for his support and input in this 
bill and thank him again for his cooperation.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for any statement he 
wishes to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, before I proceed, I thank my colleague 
from Alaska for his very generous remarks.
  I will take a few moments to discuss the DOD appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2000. Let me begin by congratulating our chairman, Senator 
Ted Stevens of Alaska.
  To meet our Senate leaders' desire, the chairman and his staff 
expedited the review and preparation time and put this bill together. 
Then, after they had crafted a very good package, as you know, we were 
told to reduce this package by $3 billion. We had to go back to the 
drawing board again.
  When one takes into consideration how this package was reshaped to 
meet those very difficult goals, I believe the committee has prepared 
the best bill that could have been recommended.
  First of all, if adopted, it will fulfill the committee's No. 1 
priority. It will provide adequate funding to ensure that our men and 
women in the armed services are fairly compensated. It also will 
provide sufficient funding so that they can be well prepared, trained, 
and ready to meet the Nation's requirements.
  This bill funds a 4.8-percent pay raise, the largest percentage 
increase since the early 1980s. This increase is between 2 and 3 
percent more than current forecasts of inflation. The bill also funds 
changes in the military retirement system and reforms the pay table 
sought by the administration.
  The total funding in the bill represents an increase of $1.4 billion 
above the President's budget request. In addition to fully funding the 
needs of our military personnel, the bill provides $300 million for 
additional medical research: As the chairman indicated, $175 million 
for breast cancer research; $75 million for prostate cancer research, 
and $50 million to cover many of the high-priority medical research 
programs of interest to the Members.
  More than $2.8 billion is added for procurement for two more F-16 
aircraft, 15 more Black Hawk helicopters, and a half-billion-dollar 
downpayment in the next Marine amphibious assault ship, the LXD-8.
  For research for new technology, the bill is $2 billion over the 
President's request. This includes $400 million for missile defense and 
related programs.

[[Page S6460]]

  The bill before us does not match, dollar for dollar, the 
authorization bill we approved last month, but it is in general quite 
consistent with the recommendations of the authorizing committee.
  To my colleagues on my side of the aisle, I realize that the bill 
provides funds in some areas which you may not all endorse fully. But, 
in total, the bill offers a good balance between current operations and 
future modernization. It funds both the needs of the military and the 
priorities of the Congress. I believe it is a very good bill that we 
should all support.
  In closing, may I just add a footnote to my remarks.
  Senator Stevens and I are two of the few remaining Members who served 
in World War II, the ``ancient'' war. In that war, over 10 percent of 
our Nation's population stepped forward to put on the uniform of the 
armed services. Today, fewer than 1 percent have done so.
  Today's military force is an All Volunteer Force. But beyond that, 
there are other vast differences.
  In my youth, only 4 percent of my regiment had dependents. The 
remaining 96 percent were single men. Today, the average is about 70 
percent with dependents. Therefore, it is essential that we provide in 
areas that were not considered during World War II, such as day care 
centers and hospitals.
  In the hospital in which Senator Stevens and I spent some time, there 
were just men--men in uniform. It may be of interest to Members to note 
that today at Walter Reed, 14 percent of the beds are occupied by 
active-duty personnel, and 86 percent are occupied by dependents and 
retirees. There are more gynecologists in hospitals today than 
orthopedic surgeons, and there are more pediatricians than orthopedic 
surgeons. That is a difference of which most Members of the Senate, and 
I believe most Americans, are not aware.
  The largest cost of defense is not missiles; it is not bullets; it is 
not ships; it is personnel; it is people. If we want the best military, 
men and women who are willing to step forward in harm's way and, if 
necessary, give their lives for our Nation, then we should be able to 
provide the very best--not just in pay, but make certain that their 
health care and educational system are the finest.
  We use the phrase ``quality of life'' quite often. If quality of life 
is not what the people receive, then I don't think we can anticipate 
the very best of our Nation volunteering to serve. After all, I want my 
son to go to college; I am certain that a man in uniform wants his son 
or his daughter to go to college. We should give them the same 
opportunity.


                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  I ask unanimous consent that a staff member, Patricia Boyle, be given 
the privilege of the floor during this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 540

     (Purpose: To reduce to $500,000 the threshold amount for the 
applicability of the requirement for advance matching of Department of 
            Defense disbursements to particular obligations)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Grassley, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Grassley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 540.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the general provisions, add the following:
       Sec.   . Section 8106(a) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter 
     under section 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-
     111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``not later than June 30, 1997,''; and
       (2) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a 
few minutes in morning business.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have no objection. How long does the 
Senator desire?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think I can do this in 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I remind Members of the Senate desiring to offer 
amendments that we could discuss today, we are prepared to take some. 
There will be no votes on this bill today, but we do hope to have a 
vote on an amendment starting in the morning so we can get the bill 
expedited.
  We have no objection to the Senator's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________