Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 80 (Tuesday, June 8, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 8, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6658-S6692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

amendment no. 596

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress commending the men and women
of Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, for their ongoing contributions
to Operation Allied Force over Yugoslavia)

At the end of the general provisions, add the following:
Sec. 8109. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The B-2 bomber has been used in combat for the first
time in Operation Allied Force against Yugoslavia.
(2) The B-2 bomber has demonstrated unparalleled strike
capability in Operation Allied Force, with cursory data
indicating that the bomber could have dropped nearly 20
percent of the precision ordnance while flying less than 3
percent of the attack sorties.
(3) According to the congressionally mandated Long Range
Air Power Panel, ``long range air power is an increasingly
important element of United States military capability''.
(4) The crews of the B-2 bomber and the personnel of
Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, deserve particular credit
for flying and supporting the strike missions against
Yugoslavia, some of the longest combat missions in the
history of the Air Force.
(5) The bravery and professionalism of the personnel of
Whiteman Air Force Base have advanced American interests in
the face of significant challenge and hardship.
(6) The dedication of those who serve in the Armed Forces,
exemplified clearly by the personnel of Whiteman Air Force
Base, is the greatest national security asset of the United
States.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the skill and professionalism with which the B-2 bomber
has been used in Operation Allied Force is a credit to the
personnel of Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and the Air
Force;
(2) the B-2 bomber has demonstrated an unparalleled
capability to travel long distances and deliver devastating
weapons payloads, proving its essential role for United
States power projection in the future; and
(3) the crews of the B-2 bomber and the personnel of
Whiteman Air Force Base deserve the gratitude of the American
people for their dedicated performance in an indispensable
role in the air campaign against Yugoslavia and in the
defense of the United States.
____

amendment no. 597

In the appropriate page in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the funds appropriated in title III under the
heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force,'' up to
$10,000,000 may be made available for U-2 aircraft defensive
system modernization.
____

amendment no. 598

(Purpose: To set aside $25,185,000, the amount provided for research
and development relating to Persian Gulf illnesses, of which $4,000,000
is to be available for continuation of research into Gulf War syndrome
that includes multidisciplinary studies of fibromyalgia, chronic
fatigue syndrome and $2,000,000 is to be available for expansion of the
research program in the Upper Great Plains region)

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. 8104. Of the amount appropriated in title IV under the
heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide'', $25,185,000 shall be available for research
and development relating to Persian Gulf illnesses, of which
$4,000,000 shall be available for continuation of research
into Gulf War syndrome that includes multidisciplinary
studies of fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple
chemical sensitivity, and the use of research methods of
cognitive and computational neuroscience, and of which up to
$2,000,000 may be made available for expansion of the
research program in the Upper Great Plains region.
____

Amendment No. 599

(Purpose: To set aside $17,500,000 for procurement of the F-15A/B data
link for the Air National Guard)

At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the total amount appropriated in title III
under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', up to
$17,500,000 may be made available for procurement of the F-
15A/B data link for the Air National Guard.
____

Amendment No. 600

(Purpose: To increase funds for the MK-43 Machine Gun Conversion
Program)

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

[[Page S6659]]

Sec. . Of the funds appropriated in Title III under the
heading ``Weapons Procurement, Navy,'' up to $3,000,000 may
be made available for the MK-43 Machine Gun Conversion
Program.
____

amendment no. 601

At the appropriate place in the bill insert:

SEC. . DEVELOPMENT OF FORD ISLAND, HAWAII.

(a) In General.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary of the Navy may exercise any authority or
combination of authorities in this section for the purpose of
developing or facilitating the development of Ford Island,
Hawaii, to the extent that the Secretary determines the
development is compatible with the mission of the Navy.
(2) The Secretary may not exercise any authority under this
section until--
(A) the Secretary submits to the appropriate committees of
Congress a master plan for the development of Ford Island;
and
(B) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed following the
date on which the notification is received by those
committees.
(b) Conveyance Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy
may convey to any public or private person or entity all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to any
real property (including any improvements thereon) or
personal property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in
the State of Hawaii that the Secretary determines--
(A) is excess to the needs of the Navy and all of the other
Armed Forces; and
(B) will promote the purpose of this section.
(2) A conveyance under this subsection may include such
terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate
to protect the interests of the United States.
(c) Lease Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may
lease to any public or private person or entity any real
property or personal property under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary in the State of Hawaii that the Secretary
determines--
(A) is not needed for current operations of the Navy and
all of the other Armed Forces; and
(B) will promote the purpose of this section.
(2) A lease under this subsection shall be subject to
section 2667(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, and may
include such others terms as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(3) A lease of real property under this subsection may
provide that, upon termination of the lease term, the lessee
shall have the right of first refusal to acquire the real
property covered by the lease if the property is then
conveyed under subsection (b).
(4)(A) The Secretary may provide property support services
to or for real property leased under this subsection.
(B) To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, any
payment made to the Secretary for services provided under
this paragraph shall be credited to the appropriation,
account, or fund from which the cost of providing the
services was paid.
(d) Acquisition of Leasehold Interest by Secretary.--(1)
The Secretary of the Navy may acquire a leasehold interest in
any facility constructed under subsection (f) as
consideration for a transaction authorized by this section
upon such terms as the Secretary considers appropriate to
promote the purpose of this section.
(2) The term of a lease under paragraph (1) may not exceed
10 years, unless the Secretary of Defense approves a term in
excess of 10 years for the purpose of this section.
(3) A lease under this subsection may provide that, upon
termination of the lease term, the United States shall have
the right of first refusal to acquire the facility covered by
the lease.
(e) Requirement for Competition.--The Secretary of the Navy
shall use competitive procedures for purposes of selecting
the recipient of real or personal property under subsection
(b) and the lessee of real or personal property under
subsection (c).
(f) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance
of real or personal property under subsection (b), or for the
lease of real or personal property under subsection (c), the
Secretary of the Navy shall accept cash, real property,
personal property, or services, or any combination thereof,
in an aggregate amount equal to not less than the fair market
value of the real or personal property conveyed or leased.
(2) Subject to subsection (i), the services accepted by the
Secretary under paragraph (1) may include the following:
(A) The construction or improvement of facilities at Ford
Island.
(B) The restoration or rehabilitation of real property at
Ford Island.
(C) The provision of property support services for property
or facilities at Ford Island.
(g) Notice and Wait Requirements.--The Secretary of the
Navy may not carry out a transaction authorized by this
section until--
(1) the Secretary submits to the appropriate committees of
Congress a notification of the transaction, including--
(A) a detailed description of the transaction; and
(B) a justification for the transaction specifying the
manner in which the transaction will meet the purpose of this
section; and
(2) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed following the
date on which the notification is received by those
committees.
(h) Ford Island Improvement Account.--(1) There is
established on the books of the Treasury an account to be
known as the ``Ford Island Improvement Account''.
(2) There shall be deposited into the account the following
amounts:
(A) Amounts authorized and appropriated to the account.
(B) Except as provided in subsection (c)(4)(B), the amount
of any cash payment received by the Secretary for a
transaction under this section.
(i) Use of Account.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), to the
extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts, funds in
the Ford Island Improvement Account may be used as follows:
(A) To carry out or facilitate the carrying out of a
transaction authorized by this section.
(B) To carry out improvements of property or facilities at
Ford Island.
(C) To obtain property support services for property or
facilities at Ford Island.
(2) To extent that the authorities provided under
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
are available to the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary may
not use the authorities in this section to acquire,
construct, or improve family housing units, military
unaccompanied housing units, or ancillary supporting
facilities related to military housing at Ford Island.
(3)(A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the Ford
Island Improvement Account to the following funds:
(i) The Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund established by section 2883(a)(1) of title 10, United
States Code.
(ii) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(2) of
that title.
(B) Amounts transferred under subparagraph (A) to a fund
referred to in that subparagraph shall be available in
accordance with the provisions of section 2883 of title 10,
United States Code, for activities authorized under
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of that title at Ford Island.
(j) Inapplicability of Certain Property Management Laws.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, transactions
under this section shall not be subject to the following:
(1) Sections 2667 and 2696 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) Section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411).
(3) Sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483, 484).
(k) Scoring.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
waive the applicability to any lease entered into under this
section of the budget scorekeeping guidelines used to measure
compliance with the Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985.
(l) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2883(c) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers
to that Fund pursuant to section 2862(i)(3)(A)(i) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,
subject to the restrictions on the use of the transferred
amounts specified in that section.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers
to that Fund pursuant to section 2862(i)(3)(A)(ii) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,
subject to the restrictions on the use of the transferred
amounts specified in that section.''.
(m) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' has the
meaning given that term in section 2801(4) of title 10,
United States Code.
(2) The term ``property support service'' means the
following:
(A) Any utility service or other service listed in section
2686(a) of title 10, United States Code.
(B) Any other service determined by the Secretary to be a
service that supports the operation and maintenance of real
property, personal property, or facilities.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments (Nos. 592 through 601) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that action.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time has
now arrived when no more first degree amendments will be cleared to be
offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I inquire from the Senator from Arizona if he wishes to
address the Senate at this time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

[[Page S6660]]

Amendment No. 584

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment restores $3.1 billion in
operations and maintenance and procurement funding that is cut by
section 108 of the bill. It reduces various accounts to eliminate
funding for low-priority, unnecessary and wasteful spending by an equal
amount. The amendment doesn't change the total amount for defense in
this bill. It simply redirects the cuts to eliminate pork barrel
spending rather than high-priority readiness and modernization funds.
I find it staggering that the committee would cut funding for
readiness and modernization by $3.1 billion when this bill contains
nearly $5 billion in spending for unrequested, low-priority,
unnecessary and wasteful spending programs that have not been
scrutinized in the normal merit-based review process.
Congress recently passed an emergency spending bill that contained
nearly $11 billion in defense spending to pay for the costs of ongoing
operations in Kosovo. I believe the administration request was around
$5 billion. As the chairman of the committee stated on the floor
yesterday, we will very likely need to act later this year on another
supplemental bill to pay for continued offensive operations against
Serbia or to enforce a peace agreement and protect the Kosovars who
return home.
Why, then, would we want to cut funding from this bill that would be
needed to carry out these operations into the next fiscal year?
Why wouldn't we instead cut some of the $5 billion in pork barrel
spending that has been put in this bill principally for the benefit of
Members and their constituents?
Here is the list of unrequested programs included in the bill that I
have accumulated.
I ask unanimous consent that this list of unrequested and unwanted
projects be printed in the Record at this time.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Department of Defense appropriation bill for fiscal year 2000,
objectionable provisions

[In millions of dollars]

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Army
Fort Wainwright utilidors........................................... $7
Air Battle Captain Helo. Flight Training Program....................1.2
Joint Assessment Neurological Examination Equip.....................1.5
Army Conservation and Ecosystem Management.......................... 3
BOS-Dugway Proving Ground, Utah..................................... 5
UC-35A Basing and Sustainment......................................17.8
Rock Island Bridge Repairs.......................................... 5
Fort Des Moines--Historic OCS Memorial.............................. 2

Directive Report Language: Directs the Army to consider conveying
firefighting equipment to the Bayonne Local Redevelopment
Authority and the City of Bayonne;
Recommends that Rock Island Arsenal be included as a priority
facility for the Department's Total Asset Visibility
Implementation Plan.

Navy
Operational Meteorology and Oceanography............................ 10
Shipyard Apprentice Program......................................... 12
Ship Depot Operations Support, Phila. Naval Shipyard................ 23
Warfare Tactics PMRF facilities improvements........................ 5
UNOLS............................................................... 3
Professional Development/Education Asia Pacific Ctr.................1.7
Barrow landfill..................................................... 3

Directive Report Language: Directs the Navy to establish a pilot
program for purpose of verifying cost savings that can be
achieved through the use of a west coast propeller overhaul
facility. Specifies characteristics that result in one possible
candidate site.

Marine Corps
Initial Issue....................................................... 15
NBC Defense Equipment...............................................1.1
Air Force
B-52 attrition reserve.............................................. 35
Civil Air Patrol Corporation.......................................12.5
University Partnering for Operational Support....................... 5
TACCSF upgrades..................................................... 10
Eielson utilidors...................................................9.9
Tinker and Altus base repairs....................................... 25
Defense-Wide
DoDDS Math Teacher Leadership Program............................... .4
Technology innovation and teacher education......................... 5
OEA; Fitzsimmons Army Hospital...................................... 10
Charleston Macalloy site............................................ 10
OSD; Pacific Disaster Center operations............................. 4
Clara Barton Center, Pine Bluff.....................................1.3
Jefferson Project................................................... 5
Civil-Military Programs
Youth Challenge....................................................62.5
Innovative readiness training....................................... 20
Starbase Youth Program.............................................. 6
National Guard and Reserve

Directive Report Language: The Committee encourages the Army Reserve
to expend resources on the Modern Burner Unit.

Distance Learning Project........................................... 45
Addtional full-time support technicians............................. 26
School house support................................................ 10
Project Alert.......................................................3.2
Fort Belknap Training Range......................................... 2
Defense Systems Evaluation, White Sands Missile Range...............2.5
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft, Army
UC-35 aircraft (5).................................................. 27
UH-60 helicopter (11)...............................................175
AH-64 helicopter mods............................................... 45
C-12 airplane mods.................................................. 3
Kiowa Warrior helicopter mission trainer............................6.6
Kiowa Warrior switchable eyesafe laser rangefinder..................2.6
Aircraft survivability equipment: advanced threat infrared
countermeasures/common missile warning system.....................8.1
Night Vision Imaging Systems........................................ 5
Aircrew integrated systems.......................................... 8
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Command and control vehicle......................................... 6
Heavy assault bridge mods..........................................15.5
MK-19 automatic grenada launcher.................................... 5
Items less than $5 million.......................................... 15
Ammunition Procurement, Army
40mm CTG............................................................ 8
60mm mortar......................................................... 9
120mm HE mortar CTG................................................. 3
120mm WP smoke CTG.................................................. 5
105mm CTG artillery................................................. 10
Wide area munitions................................................. 10
ARMS Initiative..................................................... 14
Other Procurement, Army
Tactical trailers/dolly sets........................................ 6
Army Data Distribution System....................................... 15
SINCGARS family..................................................... 20
AN/TTC-56 warfighter information network (ACUS)..................... 40
Secure terminal equipment (ISSP)...................................12.5
Worldwide Technical Control Improvement Program (Multi-purpose Range
Targetry Electronics).............................................5.1
Information systems................................................. 45
LTWT Video reconnaissance system....................................1.5
Firefinder radar system mods........................................8.1
Striker command and control system.................................. 10
LOGTECH Army Automatic Identification Technology (AIT).............. 5
Ribbon bridge equipment............................................13.5
Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure...................................3.2
Water purification system........................................... 3
Combat medical support equipment.................................... 4
Combat training centers support (incl. Ft. Polk).................... 10
Improved moving target simulator upgrade program....................3.5
Commercial Construction Equipment SLEP.............................. 8
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
F/A-18E/F advance procurement (6)................................... 14
EA-6 aircraft transmitters.......................................... 25
EA-6 night vision devises........................................... 15
SH-60 helicopter AQS-13F............................................7.5
UH-1 helicopter infrared radar system............................... 10
UH-1 helicopter engine torque pressure system.......................2.5
P-3 aircraft AIP kits..............................................24.2
C-2A aircraft propeller............................................. 5
Common ground equipment direct support sqdrn, readiness training.... 3
High Pressure Pure Air Generator....................................2.5
Weapons Procurement, Navy
BQM-74 aerial targets............................................... 30
Improved tactical air launched decoy (ITALD)........................ 20
Weapons industrial facilities.......................................7.7
MK-45 gun mount mods................................................ 28
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
LHD-8 advance procurement...........................................500
Other Procurement, Navy
Other navigation equipment.......................................... 19
Items less than $5 million (Distance Learning)......................6.5
AN/BPS-15H surface search radar..................................... 8
AN/SPS-73 radar..................................................... 8
SSN acoustics.......................................................2.6

[[Page S6661]]

JEDMICS............................................................. 9
Information Systems Security Program (ISSP).........................3.5
Passive sonobuoys................................................... 3
AN/SSQ-62........................................................... 3
AN-SSQ-101.......................................................... 3
Weapons Range Support Equipment..................................... 11
Retrofit OMNI IV/V night vision goggles............................18.1
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy....................................... 12
Procurement, Marine Corps
LAV mortar test program sets........................................ 4
Tracked vehicle modification kits..................................60.5
K-Band test obscuration pairing system.............................. 2
Radio systems....................................................... 10
D-7G bulldozer...................................................... 10
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
F-16C/D (2)......................................................... 50
F-16C/D advance procurement (12).................................... 24
EC-130J (1)........................................................87.8
C-130J spares and mods.............................................24.2
F-15 E-Kit engine upgrades for Air National Guard................... 20
F-16 fuel tanks; oxygen generating systems; digital terrain system;
theater airborne recon. system...................................34.5
C-17 maintenance trainer............................................3.5
C-12 spare parts.................................................... 5
Common support equip.: multi-platform boresight equip............... 10
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Minuteman III mods.................................................. 40
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
Sensor Fuzed Weapon................................................. 8
Other Procurement, Air Force
Combat training ranges: unmanned treat emitter...................... 28
C3 countermeasures.................................................. 5
Theater Deployable Communication.................................... 35
Radio equipment.....................................................3.7
Laser eye protection................................................2.4
Mechanized material handling equipment.............................. 10
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Automatic Document Conversion System................................ 50
Patriot PAC-3 procurement........................................... 60
Chemical decontamination............................................ 5
National Guard and Reserve equipment................................300
RDTE ARMY
Defense Research Sciences: Cold Regions Military Eng................1.0
University and Industry Research Centers:
Basic Research In Counter Terrorism..............................15.0
Electro And Hyper Velocity Physics Research.......................3.0
Advanced And Interactive Displays.................................1.3
National Automotive Center..........................................3.0
Materials Technology: AAN Materials.................................2.5
Missile Technology:
Scramjet Technologies.............................................2.0
Computational Fluid Dynamics......................................9.2
Modeling and Simulation Technology: Photonics.......................5.0
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology:
``Smart Truck'' Initiative........................................3.5
Alternative Vehicle Propulsion...................................10.0
Chemical, Smoke, and Equipment Defeating Technology: Optical
Spectroscopy......................................................2.0
Electronics and Electronic Devices:
Hybrid Fuel Cell..................................................1.5
Improved High Rate Alkaline Cell..................................1.0
Low Cost Reusable Alkaline Manganese-Zinc.........................1.4
Re-Usable Coin Cells..............................................0.6
Lithium Carbon Monoflouride Coin Cells............................0.4
``AA'' Zinc Air Battery...........................................0.7
Countermine Systems: Nonlinear Acoustic Technology..................1.0
Human Factors Engineering Technology: Emergency Medical Team
Coordination......................................................3.4
Environmental Quality Technology:
Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System (PEPS).............................8.0
Phyto-Remediation In Arid Lands...................................3.0
Texas Regional Institute for Env. Studies.........................1.0
Military Engineering Technology:
University Partnering For Ops Support.............................3.0
Cold Regions R&D..................................................1.3
Medical Technology:
Disaster Relief And Emergency Medical Services....................5.0
Center For Innovative Minimally Invasive Therapy.................10.0
Osteoporosis And Bone Disease.....................................2.5
Medical Advanced Technology:
Center For Prostate Disease Research WRAMC........................7.5
Intravenous Membrane Oxygenator...................................1.0
Volume Angio CAT..................................................6.0
Joint Diabetes Project...........................................10.0
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology:
Future Combat Vehicle Development.................................5.0
Improved HMMWV Research...........................................8.0
Command, Control, Communications Advanced Technology: Innovative
Sensor Enhancement And Integration...............................10.0
Manpower, Personnel and Training Advanced Technology: Army Aircrew
Coordination Training.............................................3.0
Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology: Future Missile Technology
Integration (FMTI)................................................5.0
Joint Service Small Arms Program: Objective Crew Served Weapon
(OCSW)............................................................5.0
Advanced Tactical Computer Science and Sensor Technology: Digital
Situation Mapboard................................................2.0
Army Missile Defense Systems Integration (DEM/VAL):
Missile Defense Flight Experiment Support........................14.7
Tactical High Energy Laser.......................................15.0
Acoustic Technology Research......................................4.0
Radar Power Technology............................................4.0
Family Of Systems Simulators (Fossim).............................1.5
Small Fast ChemBio Detectors......................................1.0
SMDC Battlelab....................................................5.0
Armament Enhancement Initiative: XM 1007 Precision Guided Kinetic
Energy Munition..................................................15.0
Aviation--Adv Dev: Virtual Cockpit Optimization.....................5.0
Medical Systems--Adv Dev: Combat Trauma Patient Simulation..........5.8
EW Development: ATIRCMS/CMWS........................................4.0
Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition (BAT): TACMS 2000.................10.0
Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System: JSTARS..............10.0
Weapons and Munitions--Eng Dev:
Motar Anti-Personnel/Anti-Material (MAPAM)........................7.2
50 Caliber Quick Change Barrels...................................2.0
Sense and Destroy Armament Missile: Program Increase...............10.0
Firefinder: TBM Cueing..............................................7.9
Threat Simulator Development:
Threat EO/IR Simulator............................................2.5
Threat Mine Simulator.............................................1.2
Virtual Threat Simulator..........................................4.0
Concepts Experimentation Program: Digital Information Technology
Testbed...........................................................3.0
Army Test Ranges and Facilities: White Sands Missile Range..........7.5
DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility: HELSTF........................14.0
Munitions Standardization Effectiveness and Safety:
Contained Detonation Technology...................................3.0
Bluegrass Army Depot..............................................2.5
Management Headquarters (R&D): Akamai research project.............23.0
Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs: M-1 Large Area Flat Panel
Displays.......................................................... 8
Digitization: Fort Hood Digitization Research.......................2.0
Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below (FBCB2): FBCB2.........21.7
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities:
Instrumental Factory For Gears (INFAC)............................4.0
Totally Integrated Manufacturing Enterprise......................10.0

Directive Report Language: Directs the Army and Marine Corps to
develop a plan, and report on its implementation, for including
the Rock Island arsenal in all aspects of howitzer design,
development and production.

RDTE NAVY
Air and Surface Launched Weapons Technology: Pulsed Detonation
Engine Technology.................................................5.0
Ship, Submarine and Logistics Technology: Stainless Steel Double
Hull..............................................................5.0
Marine Corps Landing Force Technology: Non-Traditional Military
Operations........................................................5.0
Communications, Command and Control, Intel Surveillance:
Hyperspectral Research............................................4.0
UESA Signal Processing Support....................................5.0
Human Systems Technology:
Coastal Cancer Control (MUSC).....................................5.0
Retinal Pigment Laser Damage......................................0.2
Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology:
Heatshield Research...............................................2.0
Thermal Management Materials......................................2.0
Photomagnetic Material Research...................................0.5
Silicon Carbide For Electronic Power Devices......................2.0
Innovative Communications Materials..............................2.25
Advanced Material Processing Center...............................5.0
ADPICAS..........................................................1.15
Electronic Warfare Technology:
Free Electron Laser..............................................10.0
Waveform Generator................................................3.0

[[Page S6662]]

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology: Distributed Marine-
Environment Forecast System.......................................2.4
Undersea Warfare Weaponry Technology:
Computational Eng. Design.........................................3.5
SAUVIM............................................................1.5
Surface Ship and Submarine HM&E Advanced Technology:
Composite Helo Hangar.............................................5.0
Reconfigurable Ship Simulation....................................2.5
Power Node Control Centers........................................3.0
Virtual Testbed For Advanced Electrical Systems...................5.0
Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration (ADT):
BURRO.............................................................5.0
Advanced Light Weight Grenade.....................................1.0
Project Albert....................................................4.0
Vehicle Technology Demo...........................................1.0
Medical Development (Advanced):
Naval Dental Research Institute...................................3.0
Prostate Cancer Immuno- therapy...................................1.5
Manpower, Personnel and Training Adv Tech Dev:
Integrated Manufacturing Studies..................................3.0
T-Star............................................................1.5
Environmental Quality and Logistics Advanced Technology:
Visualization Of Technical Information (VTI)......................3.0
Navy Technical Information Presentation System: Joint
Experimentation..................................................15.0
Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology: Terfenol-D....................2.5
Mine and Expeditionalary Warfare Advanced Technology: Ocean Modeling9.0
Advanced Technology Transition:
Low Observable Stack.............................................10.0
Vector Thrusted Dusted Propeller..................................6.0
Advanced Trailer Research.........................................6.0
Mine Countermeasures Ship........................................12.0
C3 Advanced Technology: National Technology Alliance...............10.0
Surface and Shallow Ater Mine Countermeasures: Integrated Combat
Weapons Systems (ICWS)...........................................18.0
Shipboard System Component Development: Advanced Water Jet
Technology........................................................2.0
Pilot Fish..........................................................2.5
Advanced Submarine System Development: Enhanced Performance Motor
Brush.............................................................2.3
Ship Concept Advanced Design: STEP Development--Navy CAE Technology.2.0
Advanced Surface Machinery Systems: Naval Ship Survivability........2.5
Combat Systems Integration: Common Command And Decision Systems.....5.0
Cooperative Engagement: CEC Space..................................15.0
Environmental Protection: Asbestos Conversion Pilot Program.........4.0
Land Attack Technology: Continuous Processor, NSWC..................6.3
Land Attack Technology: Extended Range Guided Munition.............. 10
Non-Lethal Weapons--Dem/Val:........................................
Innovation Initiatives..............................................3.0
Space and Electronic Warfare (SEW) Arch/Eng Support: NAVCIITI.......4.0
Other Helo Development:
Sentient Sensors..................................................1.0
Parametric Airborne Dipping Sonar................................15.0
H-1 Upgrades: EMD Program..........................................26.6
Aircrew Systems Development: Aircrew Systems........................3.5
Surface Combatant Combat System Engineering: AEGIS Interoperability25.0
Airborne MCM: CH-60 Upgrades........................................2.0
Air Control: ECARS..................................................7.0
Enhanced Modular Signal Processor: ARCI/MPP........................11.0
Swath (Small Waterplane are Twin Hull) Oceanographic Ship: SWATH....9.0
New Design SSN: Non-propulsion Electronic Systems..................10.0
Ship Contract Design/Live Fire T&E: Smart Propulsor Product Model...2.0
Ship Self Defense--EMD: NULKA.......................................4.4
Distributed Surveillance System: Advanced Deployable System........22.0
Major T&E Investment................................................5.0
Marine Corps Program Wide Support:
ChemBio Individual Sampler (CBIS).................................4.8
Consequence Management Information System (CMIS)..................1.2
Small Unit Biological Detector (SUBD).............................4.0
F-18 Squadrons: Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System..................5.0
Consolidated Training Systems Development: Battle Force Tactical
Training System (BFTT)............................................7.5
Surface ASW Combat System Integration: High Dyn. Range, Towed Array
Rec. & Sonar......................................................8.0
Navy Science Assistance Program:
Lash.............................................................12.0
Airship/LASH Study for Range Enhancements.........................1.0
Airborne Reconnaissance Systems: Hyperspectral Modular Upgrades.....4.0
Modeling and Simulation Support: SPAWAR Modeling and Simulation
Initiative........................................................3.0
Industrial Preparedness Mantech....................................10.0
RDTE AIR FORCE
Defense Research Sciences: National Solar Observatory..............0.65
Materials:
Structural Monitoring of Aging Aircraft...........................1.5
Friction Stir Welding.............................................2.0
Thermal Management For Space Structures...........................2.5
Titanium Matrix Composites........................................2.2
Materials--High Temperature Ceramic Fibers........................2.4
Resin Systems For AF Engine Applications..........................2.0
Metals Affordability Initiative Consortium........................9.0
Electrochem Fatigue Sensor Dev & Field Use Tests..................3.0
Human Effectiveness Applied Research:
Solid Electrolyte Oxygen Separator................................6.0
Behavioral Science Res Under AFRL.................................5.1
Aerospace Proulsion:
High Thermal Stability Fuel Technology............................1.0
KC-135 Variable Displacement Vane Pump............................4.0
High Power, Advanced Low Mass Systems Prototype...................6.0
More Electric Aircraft Program....................................3.0
Thermophotovoltaic (TPV)..........................................2.0
ISSES/AFRL......................................................0.775
Hypersonic Technology Program: Restore Hypersonic And High Speed
Propulsion.......................................................16.0
Phillips Lab Exploratory Development:
HAARP............................................................10.0
Radio Frequency Applications Development..........................5.0
Tropo-Weather.....................................................2.5
Space Survivability...............................................0.6
HIS Spectral Sensing..............................................0.8
Command, Control and Communications: Electromagnetic Technology.....9.3
Advanced Materials for Weapon Systems: Composite Space Launch
Payload Dispensers................................................4.5
Aerospace Structures: Polymeric Foam Core...........................4.0
Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology: More Electric Aircraft
Program..........................................................0.25
Personnel Training and Simulation Technology: Behaviorial Science
Research & AFRL...................................................1.8
Crew Systems and Personnel Protection Technology:
Helmet Mounted Visual System Comp. & Mini-CRT.....................5.0
Panoramic Night Vision Goggles (PNVG).............................3.0
Advanced Spacecraft Technology: Scorpius............................5.0
MSTRS:
Upper Stage Flight Experiment....................................15.0
Space Maneuver Vehicles..........................................25.0
Advanced Weapons Technology:
Laser Spark Missile Countermeasures Program.......................5.0
Field Laser, Radar Upgrades.......................................6.0
Environmental Engineering Technology: E-Smart Environmental
Monitoring Tool...................................................5.0
Space Control Technology: Program Increase..........................5.0
Joint Strike Fighter: Alternative Engine Development...............15.0
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (Dem/Val): Quick Reaction Launch
Demonstration Under RSLP.........................................19.2
Space Based Laser: SBL Plan, Eng. And Design Of SBL Test Facility..10.0
B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber: B-2 Upgrades And Maintainability
Enhancements.....................................................37.0
EW Development: Precision And Location & ID Prog. (PLAID) Upgrade..10.0
Submunitions: 3-D Advanced Track Acquisition And Imaging System.....4.5
Life Support Systems: Life Support Systems..........................2.5
Computer Resource Technology Transition (CRTT): Asset Software Re-
Use Program.......................................................2.8
Major T&E Investment: MARIAH II Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Program......6.0
Program Reduction: Big Crow Program Office..........................5.0
Space Test Program (STP): Micro Satellite Technology...............10.0
F-16 Squadrons: ADV Identification Friend Or Foe (AIFF) For F-16....6.0

[[Page S6663]]

F-117A Squadrons: Pre-EMD And EMD Efforts On Block 3 Upgrades......20.0
Compass Cass: TRACS-F Upgrade.......................................8.0
Theater Air Control Systems: Theater Air Control Systems (TACS).....6.0
Theater Battle Management (TBM) C41: Theater Battle Management Core
Systems...........................................................5.0
Cobra Ball: Advanced Airborne Sensor................................4.0
Information Systems Security Program: Lighthouse Cyber Security
Program..........................................................10.0
Airborne Reconnaissance Systems: JSAF LBSS And HBSS................10.0
Manned Reconnaissance Systems:
Prototype Pre-Processor...........................................4.5
U-2 Dual Data-Link II Upgrade.....................................8.0
Industrial Preparedness: Nickel-Metal Hydride Replacement Battery
For F-16.........................................................1.33
Productivity, Reliability, Availability, Maintain, Program OFC:
Aging Aircraft Extension Program..................................7.0
Blade Repair Facility.............................................7.0
Support Systems Development: Integrated Maintenance Data Systems....9.0
DEFENSE-WIDE, RDT&E
Support Technologies--Applied Research:
Wide Band Gap Materials..........................................14.0
POAP..............................................................8.0
Laser Communications Experiment...................................3.0
Support Technologies--Advanced Technology Dev.
Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT).........................30.0
Excalibur...........................................................5.0
Scorpius..........................................................5.0
Silicon Thick Film Mirror Coatings................................2.0
Joint Theater Missile Defense Program:
Liquid Surrogate Target Development Program.......................5.0
PMRF TMD Upgrades................................................10.0
Optical-Electro Sensors...........................................5.0
Kauai Test Facility...............................................4.0
BMD Technical Operations: SMDC Adv. Research Center.................3.0
Threat and Countermeasures:
Comprehensive Advanced Radar Technology...........................4.0
Phase IV of Long Range Missile Feasibility........................3.0
Patriot PAC-3 Theater Missile Defense Acquisition-EMD: Program Cost
Growth..........................................................152.0
OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
Defense Research Sciences: Spectral Hole Burning Applications.......2.0
University Research Initiatives:
Anticorrosion Studies.............................................1.5
Advanced High Yield Software Development..........................1.5
Active Hyperspectral Imaging Sensor Research Program Chemical And
Biological Defense Programs: Chemical And Biological Detection
Programs..........................................................4.0
Medical Free Electron Laser.......................................2.281
Re-Use Technology Adoption Program.................................. 3
Chemical And Biological Defense Program: Chemical And Biological
Detection Programs...............................................10.0
Tactical Technology: CEROS.......................................... 7
Integrated Command And Control Technology: High Definition System
(HDS)............................................................10.0
Fabrication of 3-D Micro Structures................................. 2
Biodegradable Plastics..............................................1.5
Strategic Materials................................................. 2
WMD Related Technology:
Thermionics.......................................................3.0
Nuclear Weapons Effects...........................................7.0
Deep Digger.......................................................5.0
Explosives Demilitarization Technology: Explosives Demilitarization
Technology........................................................7.0
Counter Terror Technical Support:
Facial Recognition Technology.....................................3.0
Testing Of Air Blast And Improvised Explosives....................4.0
Special Technical Support: Complex Systems Development..............5.0
Verification Technology Demonstration: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Verification......................................................1.5
Generic Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations:
Microelectronics..................................................3.0
Computer Assisted Technology Transfer.............................6.0
Strategic Environmental Research Program: Biosystems Technology.....6.0
Cooperative DOD/VA Medical Research................................10.0
Advanced Electronics Technologies:
Change Detection Technology....................................... 3
Defense Techlink..................................................1.5
Center for Advanced Microstructures and Devices................... 4
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations: Magnetic Bearing Cooling
Turbine...........................................................4.0
High Performance Computing Modernization Program:
Multi Thread Arch. System For High Per. Modem.....................4.0
High Performance Visualization Center.............................3.0
Large Millimeter Telescope.......................................... 2
Joint Wargaming Simulations Management Office: Synthetic Range Study1.0
Joint Robotics Program: Lightweight Robotic Vehicles................5.0
Advanced Sensor Applications Program:
HAARP.............................................................5.0
Solid State Dye Laser Applications................................6.0
CALS Initiative: CALS--Integrated Date Environment (IDE)............4.0
Chemical and Biological Defense program--Dem/Val:
Bioadhesion Research To Combat Biological Warfare.................2.0
M93 Al For Chemical Simulation Training Suites....................5.0
Humanitarian Demining: Demining Technologies For Unexploded Land
Mines.............................................................3.0
Joint Robotics Program EMD: Vehicle Teleoperations..................5.0
Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization: Support Jamming
AOA..............................................................10.0
Defense Technology Analysis: Commodity MGT System Consolidation.....5.0
Information Systems Security Program: Trusted Rubix Database Guard..1.8
Defense Imagery and Mapping Program:
Pacific Imagery Program for Exploitations.........................2.8
NIMA View Joint Mapping Tool......................................8.0
Defense Reconnaissance Support Activities (Space): Pacific Disaster
Center............................................................6.0
Defense Health Program
Operation and Maintenance:
Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership............................1.4
Graduate School of Nursing........................................2.3
Tri-Service Nursing Research Program..............................6.0
Pacific Island Health Care........................................ 5
Center for Disaster Management....................................5.0
Military Health Services Information Management................... 10
Brown Tree Snakes................................................. 1
PACMEDNET, Hawaii................................................12.0
Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines............................7.5
Outcome Driven Health Care and Info Systems.......................6.0
Research, development, test and evaluation:
Breast Cancer Research Program..................................175.0
Prostate Cancer Research Program.................................75.0
Acute lung injury, advanced soft tissue modeling, alcohol abuse
prevention, alcoholism, brain injury, childhood asthma,
cognitive neuroscience, diabetes, digital mammography imaging,
disease management demonstration, enzymatic wound disinfectants,
neurofibromatosis, osteoporosis and bone disease, ovarian
cancer, polynitroxylated hemoglobin, smoking cessation, stem
cell, tissue regeneration research.............................50.0
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities
National Guard counterdrug support, New Jersey.....................20.0
Gulf States counterdrug computer upgrades in Alabama, Georgia,
Louisiana & Mississippi..........................................10.0
Marijuana eradication...............................................6.0
Counterdrug intelligence and infrastructure support................50.0
R-OTHR radar study..................................................1.0
Northeast Regional Counterdrug Training Center......................2.0
Counternarcotics Center at Hammer...................................8.0
__________

Total........................................................4.887B
Some Examples of Protectionist Legislation
``Buy American'' anchor chains.
``Buy American'' carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate.
``Buy American'' ball and roller bearings.
``Buy American'' computers.
``Buy American'' coal for municipal district heat, Germany.
``Buy American'' food, speciality metals, hand tools,
measuring tools, clothing, and fabrics (Berry Amendment).

bill language

Operations and Maintenance, Army
Not less than $355 million shall be available only for
conventional ammunition care and maintenance.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to enter into a
contract for an LHD-1 Amphibious Assault Ship which shall be
funded on an incremental basis.
Chemical Agents and Munition Destruction, Army
$1 million shall be available until expended each year only
for a Johnston Atoll off-island leave program.

[[Page S6664]]

Intelligence Community Management Account
$27 million shall be transferred to the Department of
Justice for the National Drug Intelligence Center.
Kaho' olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and
Environmental Restoration Fund: $35 million.
Section 8022: $500,000 shall be used during a single fiscal
year for any single relocation of an organization, unit,
activity or function of the Department of Defense into or
within the National Capitol Region.
Section 8029: Prohibition on the use of funds to reduce or
disestablish the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the
Air Force Reserve, Keesler Air Force Base.
Section 8033: $26.4 million shall be available only for the
Civil Air Patrol Corporation.
Section 8070: Restrictive employment practices for
contractors that could increase the cost of the work to be
performed.
Section 8071: The Army shall use the former George Air
Force Base as the airhead for the National Training Center at
Fort Irwin.
Section 8083: Authorizes the Defense Department to waive
reimbursement costs associated with the conduct of seminars,
conferences and other activities at the Asia-Pacific Center
for Security Studies.
Section 8098: Authorizes $255,333 for payment to Trans
World Airlines to replace lost and canceled Treasury checks.
Section 8103: $5 million shall be transferred to the
Department of Transportation to realign railroad track on
Elmendorf Air Force Base.
Section 8105: Requires procurement of malt beverages and
wine sold by nonappropriated fund activities of the Defense
Department from commercial entities within the state in which
the military installation resides.
Section 8107: Amends the Communications Act with respect to
the bidding process involving the sale of the frequency
spectrum. Mandates such bidding process be initiated during
fiscal year 1999.
Section 8108: Reduces the amount available for national
defense by $3.1 billion.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it totals $5 billion. Self-restraint in
fiduciary matters is a virtue, especially for a party that rose to
majority status with the promise of reducing this type of practice.
But every year it is the same old story: More money for NULKA
antiship decoy systems; more money for the plethora of laser projects
that have proliferated at every lab in the country; more money for
unrequested and unneeded aircraft; more money for automatic grenade
launchers--we have got to have a stockpile of these things that will
last forever--more money for research into double-hull technology,
which shipbuilders are supposed to provide themselves per the
requirements of the Oil Pollution Prevention Act.
There are millions every year for hyperspectral research that is not
requested by the military. Earmarks like the one that requires the Army
and Marine Corps to make the Rock Island arsenal the center of all
future design, development and production activities related to
artillery do not represent good public policy. What is it that forces
us to designate Rock Island arsenal as a center for this? That's not
public policy.
Medical research and environmental matters unrelated to combat ought
to be carefully scrutinized when funded in the defense budget. We do
just the opposite: we use the defense budget to fund pet projects that
should be funded through nondefense agencies in nondefense spending
bills. Osteoporosis is a serious problem, but in the defense budget? $3
million to fund phyto-remediation research and arid lands? In the
defense budget? How can we take ourselves seriously--how can the public
take us seriously, when we demonstrate absolutely no willingness to
curtail the very spending practices that put this country so heavily in
debt?
At the very time a consensus has formed around the proposition that
the armed forces are being stretched perilously thin, a situation that
will get worse when we send more than a brigade's worth of ground
forces into Kosovo, it is incumbent upon those of us elected to
represent the interests of the nation that we act with a modicum of
self-restraint where the public treasure is concerned. Failing to do so
will not only damage the treasure, it will most assuredly cost lives.
This is, after all, national defense.
Let's review some recent examples of readiness shortcomings,
shortcomings that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly emphasized
pose a serious threat to both near and long-term readiness:
The nuclear carrier U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65) recently deployed to
the Persian Gulf and Kosovo, undermanned by some 800 sailors.
We are losing pilots to the commercial airlines faster than we can
train them.
The Navy has one-half the F/A-18 pilots, one-third of the S-3 pilots,
and only one-quarter of the EA-6B pilots it needs.
Only 26 percent of the Air Force pilots have committed to stay beyond
their current service agreement.
The Army says that five of its ten divisions lack enough majors,
captains, senior enlisted personnel, tankers and gunners.
Again, the world watches as the Air Force's main bomber, the B-52,
once again is called to duty to delivery air launched cruise missiles
in combat. How many times has the Air Force called upon this 40-year
old workhorse to deliver devastating firepower? The B-52 bomber was
already old when I saw it fly in Vietnam, and yet the Air Force plan
will carry the current bomber fleet through the next 40 years, with a
replacement to the B-52 tentatively planned in 2037.
The Navy is struggling to maintain a fleet of 300 ships, down from
over 500 in the early 1990s. The fiscal year 2000 budget will not
support a Navy of even 200 ships.
The Marine Corps saves money in spare parts by retreading light
trucks and Humvees, so as to afford small arms ammunition for forward
deployed Marines.
Mr. President, the cumulative effect of these types of readiness
problems will most assuredly translate into higher risks for the young
men and women we send into harm's way to defend us and our country.
Mr. President, I understand what is going on here. We have a problem,
and that is the existence of stringent budget caps designed to keep
government spending in check. I support those who are resisting the
urge to bust the budget by exceeding the spending allowed by the 1997
budget agreement.
I also understand that the Appropriations Committee has to balance
the interests of those who favor domestic spending over defense
spending, and I realize that compromises have to be made.
But we shouldn't be stuffing appropriations bills, defense or
otherwise, full of pork-barrel spending. And we shouldn't be cutting
defense, like this bill does, to set aside money to cover the excess
pork-barrel spending that will inevitably show up in other domestic
appropriations bills later in the process.
And I would just like to make the point that the money that was taken
from this bill for later pork-barrel spending could just as easily be
reallocated back into this bill, when this amendment is adopted.
We shouldn't be jeopardizing the readiness of our Armed Forces by
cutting high-priority funding just to stay within the budget caps. We
should do the right thing, and cut the pork instead of potentially
putting our men and women in harm's way without the training and tools
they need to defend themselves and our nation.
I was going through this list here. Some of them are interesting and
some are amusing:
Under Defense Health Program is $1.4 billion for the Alaska Federal
Health Care Partnership; Tri-Service Nursing Research Program, $6
million--remember, this is out of Defense. I don't even know where the
Tri-Service Nursing Research Program is. Then there is Pacific Island
Health Care, $5 million; brown tree snakes--the perennial tree snakes--
is only a million dollars this year. I would have thought that with all
the millions and millions we have spent on brown tree snakes over the
past years, we would have at least been able to defend a nation from
them. Unfortunately, the spending for brown tree snakes continues, and
probably will for a long time--at least in my lifetime.
Outcome Driven Health Care and Info Systems, $6 million; Breast
Cancer Research Program, $175 million; Prostate Cancer Research
Program, $75 million; Acute lung injury, advanced soft tissue modeling,
et cetera, et cetera, $50 million. Then, of course, we have the usual
protections in this legislation that requires us to ``buy American''
anchor chains, carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate, and ball and roller
bearings. We have to buy American for computers this time. That is
interesting. We have to buy American coal for municipal

[[Page S6665]]

district heat in Germany. Talk about the old line about bringing coal
to New Castle. Then, of course, we have to buy American food, specialty
metals, hand tools, measuring tools, clothing and fabrics.
Then we have Ship Depot Operation Support at the Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard, $23 million. I am very curious about that expenditure up in
Philadelphia, which was supposed to be opened and going to be in
private hands. Barrow landfill, $3 million; Professional Development/
Education Asia Pacific Center, $1.7 million. I wonder whose profession
is being developed there. Let's see. The list goes on.
I think I have made my point, as usual. Here is Counternarcotics
Center at Hammer. Since I don't know where Hammer is, I probably should
not comment on it. The list goes on. Here is one the military didn't
request: A smart truck initiative. Perhaps we will have trucks that gas
themselves, because $3.5 million is a pretty hefty sum to spend on
smart trucks.
Here is Plasma Energy Pyrolysis system and Phyto-remediation in Arid
Lands. Not to mention one of our important defense items, Texas
Regional Institute for Environmental Studies. Then there is the
University Partnering for Operations Support and Cold Regions R&D.
The list goes on. The point is that we now have 11,000 enlisted
families that are on food stamps. We now have a shortage of air launch
cruise missiles, which everybody knows about. We now have an incredible
increase in the wear and tear of our equipment because of the
dramatically increased operations regarding Kosovo. What do we do? We
think that we spend the money the military needs for modernization and
operations and maintenance? No, Mr. President. We spend $5 billion in
unnecessary and unwanted things, which is up, by the way, from the
supplemental. I think I only identified a little over $2 billion that
was in the ``emergency'' supplemental, such as Dungeness crab
fishermen, reindeer, and other ``vital emergencies'' that required our
immediate attention.
So, I have very little confidence that this amendment will carry. I
think it is important, however, that the American people know where
their tax dollars are going, and sooner or later--perhaps later--they
will demand that we stop doing this with their hard-earned tax dollars.
It may be later, as I say. But I also have to say to my dear friends on
the Appropriations Committee, I see increases in this kind of wasteful
and unnecessary spending, not decreases. There is going to have to come
a point where we are going to have to start having recorded votes on
all this stuff. I am worried about brown tree snakes like everybody
else, but I am much more worried about the men and women in the
military who happen to be subsisting on food stamps today. I think a
lot of Americans are growing rather weary of this procedure.

Mr. President, I will be glad to have a tabling motion vote or an up-
or-down vote on this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regretfully must oppose Senator
McCain's amendment. I understand the amendment, but it takes a
different approach to funding critical Department of Defense priorities
for fiscal year 2000 than the committee has approved in this bill
before the Senate.
Based upon the amounts that we provided in the fiscal year 1999
emergency supplemental appropriations for Kosovo and funds that were
remaining from the 1999 supplemental for Bosnia, the committee
determined--and I add that it was at my request--that at least $3.1
billion now available to the Department of Defense can and should be
carried over to the year 2000. As a matter of fact, on the floor of the
Senate I stated that our intent was to try and take care of some of the
year 2000 obligations in that supplemental to best reflect the needs of
the Department and the pressures across the discretionary accounts
under the 1997 budget agreement.
Our committee adjusted the totals in this bill to reflect those
specific amounts that carry over from the 1999 appropriation into the
year 2000. Having done so, having brought $3.1 billion more into this
account, we then removed some of the moneys that we previously
allocated to the account into the nondefense area. The discretion to do
that gave us the ability to meet critical needs in the nondefense area.
We believe that we did address critical readiness problems in the
supplemental, and we specifically anticipated some of those needs which
could possibly have been incurred--the costs incurred--before September
30th of this year. Those now appear to be funds that will be required
in the year 2000, and we have met those demands by moving forward with
the money.
I know this has caused some anxiety to people within the Department
of Defense who believe that we have cut the bill. We have not cut the
bill. The bill is exactly the same amount of money originally under
consideration by the committee, but we have found the moneys to pay
those bills by carrying forward into the year 2000 some of the 1999
appropriations.

We believe we have met the needs of the military under this bill. The
amendment of the Senator from Arizona strikes from the bill $3.1
billion, rather than carry forward with the money from 1999. I think
that will have a detrimental impact on the priorities established by
the committee and the priorities that some Members have presented not
only in committee but on the floor.
For instance, the Senator's amendment would reduce nearly $270
million from the service operation and maintenance accounts, including
$53.5 million from the Army National Guard alone. In procurement, the
amendment pending would reduce or eliminate funding provided to replace
the aging UH-1, the Huey helicopters, built in the 1960s, with the
Army's modern standard, the UH-60 Blackhawk.
The amendment reduces funding for advance procurement of one of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps' top priorities, the LHD-8 amphibious
assault ship.
For the Air Force, funding for additional F-16, EC-130J and JStars
aircraft would be deleted.
In research and development, funds added for the SBIRS satellite,
national missile defense and the third arrow battery for Israel would
be reduced.
For the Defense Health Program, the additional amounts provided for
breast cancer research and prostate cancer research would be cut also
by the Senator's amendment.
In response to Members' requests that the committee provide
additional funds to fight the war on drugs, the committee did add
funding for the gulf states counterdrug initiative, the National Guard
counterdrug missions, and $50 million in response to the proposed Drug
Free Century Act. Senator McCain's amendment would delete $61.6 million
of the funds added to the bill for those efforts.
The Senator from Arizona and I have discussed on many occasions that
we do have different approaches to addressing the funding needs for the
Armed Forces. I know Senator McCain is a stalwart proponent of the men
and women of the armed services and their families, and I believe I am
also. We are just approaching the job from a different direction.
I believe that I must, on behalf of the committee, oppose the
amendment. I truly believe the flexibility provided by the committee to
the Department of Defense best accommodates the needs of the military,
and ensures that funds are available in the accounts where necessary to
accommodate readiness, quality of life, modernization and technology
priorities. I can state categorically the accounts that are here to
accommodate readiness, quality of life, modernization and technology
priorities of the Department of Defense have been met by our bill.

The Senator mentioned some of the items in this bill that affect my
State. The Point Barrow landfill was created by the Department of the
Navy. It operated in Point Barrow for many, many years. As that
installation was closed down, the Department of Navy did not remediate
the landfill. It is a terrible problem in the Arctic, particularly in
the summertime when that landfill becomes just a morass. The local
people have asked, using Defense Department funds, that the job be
completed. This bill does, in fact, provide moneys for that purpose.
The Senator mentioned the joint Federal telemedicine project that is
going on in my State. Again, this is an initiative by the Department of
Defense that has a substantial amount of

[[Page S6666]]

communications capability in our State to deal with Federal agencies'
needs and the needs of the services they provide throughout the State
of Alaska to coordinate a delivery system for medicine using
telemedicine techniques. We believe that is going to result in reducing
the cost of health care delivery to Alaska Native people and the Indian
Health Service to the military people throughout our State who serve on
military bases and those who receive the benefits of Federal programs.
It is not a general program for the population as a whole.
I say to the Senate, I understand the Senator's approach and I
respect it, but I believe and our committee believes that there are
instances where activities, which originated on military bases or
caused by military occupation of specific portions of land within the
individual States, do affect the local population and that those
obligations of the Federal Government should be met with defense funds.
The basic problem, though--I go back to the beginning--we did not cut
from other accounts in order to get the moneys to shift to other
appropriations bills. For instance, we have shifted a substantial
amount of money now through what we call the deficiency subcommittee--
which was a subcommittee created specifically for that purpose--moneys
from these accounts from the Department of Defense into the agriculture
appropriations bill, but the way it was done does not reduce the amount
of money that will be spent by the Department of Defense in the year
2000. A portion of the moneys really are carried over to be spent in
the year 2000 rather than being spent in 1999, and that is what we
intended when we asked the Congress to approve that supplemental
appropriations bill. I hope the Senate will agree with us and will
oppose this amendment and defeat it. It is a significant vote for us to
determine.
Members will note the reports in the papers and in the media
concerning the meetings that are taking place in the House of
Representatives. They are deciding on an approach quite similar to ours
to reduce the amount of money that will be spent through the fiscal
year 2000 process and carry over some of the funds from 1999 to meet
the obligations in the year 2000.
I think that is a legitimate way to use the money that is available
to us and will enable us hopefully to stay under the caps in treating
all of the bills that have to be passed by our committee. Thirteen
separate bills have to be brought to this floor, and ours is the only
committee which faces a point of order under the Budget Act if we
exceed the caps. We are trying our best to live with that Budget Act. I
think we will.

There is still a serious gap in money, but we will find that money
somewhere within the agencies, either by reducing carryover funds or by
eliminating funds that are now no longer high priority so we can meet
the obligations of the year 2000 with the funds that will be available
under the budget agreement. If we cannot do that, we will come to the
Senate in September, and we will have to work out a way to solve our
problem.
Right now, our goal--and I think it is a bipartisan goal--is to live
with the Budget Act, stay within the caps, yet meet our obligations.
What we have done in this bill is the initial key to opening up the
door down that long corridor to comply with the Budget Act. I urge the
Senate to disapprove the amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
I yield to my friend if he has any comments to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I join my chairman, Mr. Stevens, in
opposition to the McCain amendment. In the statement made by the
distinguished Senator from Arizona, he mentioned a brown tree snake, $1
million to either control or to rid the State of Hawaii of this menace.
The history of the brown tree snake is a rather simple one, and it
has been documented. It was found in Solomon Islands and during the
war, army transport vessels accidentally or otherwise carried several
brown tree snakes from the Solomon Islands to Guam.
Within 2 years, seven species of birds have been wiped out on Guam,
babies have been threatened, and there is a brownout almost once an
evening because of brown tree snakes.
The State of Hawaii has no snakes unless they are brought in. It has
been documented that the brown tree snake was brought in from Guam via
the Air Force aircraft. Therefore, the Department of Defense, assuming
some responsibility for this, has not disapproved this amount of $1
million to help the State of Hawaii rid itself of the brown tree
snakes.
Hawaii's environment is such that it is rather fragile. We have no
natural predators to control the snakes, and if it ever gets loose in
my State, then all the beautiful birds of paradise will disappear.
I think the amount we have put in this bill represents the position
on the part of the Department of Defense in assuming responsibility is
a rather small one.
I hope my colleagues will join us in opposing the McCain amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my hope the Senate will agree that
we can proceed on other amendments.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the Senator's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this
amendment be set aside and hopefully we will vote on it sometime
between 3:30 and 4. I request there be 2 minutes equally divided so the
Senator from Arizona can state to the Senate again the purpose of the
amendment before the final vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 549 And 550 Withdrawn

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have authority to withdraw Byrd
amendments Nos. 549 and 550. They were modified and accepted in the
managers' package to which we previously agreed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are withdrawn.
The amendments (Nos. 549 and 550) were withdrawn.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 581

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
581 be taken up at this moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment
numbered 581.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert:
Sec. . (a) The Department of Defense is authorized to
enter into agreements with the Veterans Administration and
Federally-funded health agencies providing services to Native
Hawaiians for the purpose of establishing a partnership
similar to the Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership, in
order to maximize Federal resources in the provision of
health care services by Federally-funded health agencies,
applying telemedicine technologies. For the purpose of this
partnership, Native Hawaiians shall have the same status as
other Native Americans who are eligible for the health care
services provided by the Indian Health Service.
(b) The Department of Defense is authorized to develop a
consultation policy, consistent with Executive Order 13084
(issued May 14, 1998), with Native Hawaiians for the purpose
of assuring maximum Native Hawaiian participation in the
direction and administration of government services so as to
render those services more responsive to the needs of the
Native Hawaiian community.

[[Page S6667]]

(c) For purposes of these sections, the term ``Native
Hawaiian'' means any individual who is a descendant of the
aboriginal people, who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised
sovereignty in the area that now comprises the State of
Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by both
sides and the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. I ask that it
be considered and passed.
With Chairman Stevens' agreement, included in the managers' package
of amendments is bill language that would provide authority to
replicate the Federal Health Care Partnership that is now operating in
the State of Alaska.
Pursuant to the Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership, the
Department of Defense (DoD), the Veterans' Administration (VA) and the
Indian Health Service (IHS) have entered into memoranda of
understanding in order to make the most efficient use of resources that
are made available to each of these Federally-funded health care
systems in the provision of health care services to their respective
eligible beneficiaries. Initiated in April of 1995, under this
partnership, health care services are being provided to eligible DoD,
VA and IHS beneficiaries without regard to the designation of the
health care service facility, and telemedicine technologies are being
employed to provide access to health care services in remote rural
areas.
The proposed bill language would provide authority for the Department
of Defense to establish a similar arrangement with the Veterans'
Administration and Federally-funded health care agencies providing
health care services to Native Hawaiians in the State of Hawaii. For
the purpose of this partnership, Native Hawaiians shall have the same
status as other Native Americans who are eligible for the health care
services provided by the Indian Health Service.
The proposed bill language also provides authority for the Department
of Defense to develop a consultation policy with regard to programs and
activities which affect the Native Hawaiian community in Hawaii.
On May 14, 1998, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13084,
directing every Federal agency to establish an effective process to
provide for meaningful and timely consultation and coordination with
Native Americans and Native American governments in the development of
policies and practices that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities. On October 20, 1998, the Secretary of the Department of
Defense announced the issuance of the Department's consultation policy
affecting two of the three constituent Native American groups--American
Indians and Alaska Natives. The proposed bill language authorizes the
Department of Defense to develop a similar consultation policy for the
third constituent group of Native Americans--Native Hawaiians--for the
purpose of assuring maximum Native Hawaiian participation in the
direction and administration of governmental services so as to render
those services more responsive to the needs of the Native Hawaiian
community, consistent with the following findings of the Congress----
The United States recognizes and affirms that American Indian, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian people, as the aboriginal, indigenous,
native people of the United States have a continuing right to autonomy
in their own affairs and an ongoing right of self-determination and
self-governance.
The Constitutional authority of the Congress to legislate in matters
affecting the aboriginal, indigenous, native people of the United
States includes the authority to legislate in matters affecting the
Native Hawaiian people, as aboriginal, indigenous, native people who
have a special relationship with the United States.
The Federal policy of self-determination and self-governance of the
aboriginal, indigenous, native people of the United States is intended
to maximize the participation of native people in the direction and
administration of governmental services to their communities in order
to make those services more responsive to the needs of the native
people and their communities. In accordance with that policy, the
Congress encourages Federal agency consultation with the aboriginal,
indigenous, native people of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians, with regard to
agency actions that uniquely or significantly affect them or their
communities.
For purposes of these sections in the proposed bill language, the
term ``Native Hawaiian'' means any individual who is a descendant of
the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, ``occupied and exercised
sovereignty in the area that now comprises the State of Hawaii.''
I thank the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
Senator Stevens, for his willingness to assure that the Department of
Defense has a consistent policy as it relates to all Native Americans.
Mr. STEVENS. We are in agreement, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 581) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Chair, and 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. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, though I see on the floor Mr. Inouye
and Mr. Stevens, two Senators for whom I have a tremendous amount of
respect, I rise to speak in opposition to the proposed increases in
military spending contained in this defense appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2000.
I have, I believe, been a strong supporter of our women and men in
uniform, especially our veterans. I think we should provide the best
possible training, equipment and preparations for our military forces.
I understand and know full well that our forces have been asked in
recent years to carry out a number of peacekeeping, humantarian and
other missions.
I voted to support the airstrikes in Kosovo. I have raised questions
throughout this conflict. I hope there will be a diplomatic solution,
and I hope the Kosovars will be able to go back home. I think we are at
the beginning of a huge challenge. In particular, I want us to remember
the Kosovars and continue especially with humanitarian assistance.
So I think we need to adequately support these activities, and I also
supported the supplemental budget for the cost of the campaign in
Kosovo. But I am troubled--and I think I am probably one of only a few
in the Senate, but I have the opportunity and the honor of being able
to speak as a Senator from Minnesota, and so I will--by what I see as a
stampede in this Congress toward even greater increases in Pentagon
spending. I think the increase in spending in this legislation goes way
beyond what we need to spend in the conflict in Kosovo and way beyond
what I think a post-cold war defense budget should reflect.
This appropriations bill totals $264 billion, and we also
appropriated a considerable amount more in the supplemental bill, the
emergency bill. If you look at the cost of Kosovo, it will be a
relatively small percentage of this overall budget. In terms of
manpower or womanpower, even if we participate--and I believe we will--
in the KFOR peace enforcement process, we will be contributing about
7,000 troops. The total armed force of the United States is roughly 1.5
million. So this is not a question of whether or not we go on and live
up to our commitment in Kosovo. I think we can support that mission
without this Pentagon budget at the level called for.
I fear that using Kosovo and also some vaguely defined set of
``threats'' will end up--and I want to talk about some of the doctrines
that undergird this budget--giving a blank check to the Pentagon this
year and in the years ahead. This budget accounts for a little over
half of the discretionary spending in the annual budget. That is what
troubles me. If you look at the peak of the cold war, currently we are
spending, roughly speaking, just thinking about real dollar terms,
close to 90 percent--about 86--of the cold war budget, and that is
during the height of the cold war.

[[Page S6668]]

Now, most of the funds in this budget go to maintaining a force
structure that is shaped by the requirement to fight two simultaneous,
major conflicts and to counter what defense analysts refer to as
``uncertainty scenarios.''
I recognize that the United States faces a number of threats around
the world and that those threats have changed during the cold war
period--in particular, the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. If we look carefully at those threats, we
can see that in this budget too much of the spending is not directly
related to meeting those threats but, rather, continues with what I
define as cold war priorities.
We continue to pour billions of dollars into unnecessary cold war era
weapons programs. We continue to maintain a nuclear arsenal that is
completely disproportionate to the arsenals maintained by our potential
adversaries--an arsenal that could be substantially cut, resulting in
dramatic savings, still providing for as strong a defense as we could
ever need.
Congress has also skewed spending priorities by refusing to close
military bases that the Pentagon acknowledges are unneeded and obsolete
and which the Pentagon itself has pressed to close.
What is especially troubling about the spending in this budget is the
Strategic Concepts--the two major regional conflicts concept and other
uncertain scenarios--that are, I think, implausible and unlikely. I
want to draw here on some excellent work done by analyst Carl Conetta
and Charles Knight of the Project on Defense Alternatives in Cambridge,
MA.
Beginning in the 1980s, the focus of defense planners moved away from
``clear and present danger'' of the Soviet power to the intractable
problem of ``uncertainty.'' Along with the shift has come a new kind of
Pentagon partisan--the ``uncertainty hawk.'' The uncertainty hawks are
engaged in worst-case thinking. Among the sort of nonstandard
scenarios, worst-case scenarios that are, for example, talked about
with this kind of doctrine are defending the Ukraine or the Baltics
against Russia, civil wars in Russia and Algeria, a variety of wars in
China, contention with Germany, and wars aligning Iraq and Syria
against Turkey, and Iraq and Iran against Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon's
Quadrennial Defense Review, QDR, uses unnamed ``wild card'' scenarios
to help define these requirements.
Now, although both the 1993 and 1997 Defense Reviews link the two-war
requirements to the Korean and Persian Gulf scenarios, these were also
described merely as examples of possible wars. Officially, the two-war
requirement--that we have to be able to fight two wars simultaneously--
is generic. It is not tied directly to Korea or the gulf. As the
Quadrennial Defense Review puts it, ``We can never know with certainty
when or where the next major theater war will occur'' or ``who our next
adversary will be.''
It is important to recognize, as opposed to appropriating moneys
based upon this kind of strategic doctrine, that since 1945 the United
States has fought only three major regional conflicts--one every 15 or
20 years. The regional great powers and peer competitors that currently
enthrall planners are only hypothetical constructs, and the world
changes all of the time.
I will give an example of a little bit more of this doctrine. The
prime candidates, in addition to these uncertainty scenarios, worst-
case scenarios, for future peer rival status, given current doctrine,
are Russia and China. A dozen years of dedicated investment might
resuscitate a significant portion of the Russian Armed Forces, but that
certainly is not what we are looking at right now--a major military
competitor, Russia. The Chinese ``threat,'' even given all of the
developments we have been talking about over the last several weeks, is
even more iffy. If China's economy holds out, in 30 years it might be
able to mount a ``Soviet-style'' challenge.
Surveying the prospects worldwide, a Defense Intelligence Agency
analyst concludes that ``no military or technical peer competitor to
the United States is on the horizon for at least a couple of decades.''
As I have said, I believe we should maintain a strong defense. We
face a number of credible threats in the world, including terrorism and
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But let's make sure
we carefully identify the threats we face and tailor our defense
spending to meet them. Let's not continue to maintain military spending
based on hypothetical threats that may not arise for decades--if at
all.
I will argue as we look at this budget, which again makes up about
one-half of our discretionary spending, that we ought to consider this
vote in the context of where we are heading with these budget caps. I
say yes to a strong defense but no to some of the unnecessary spending
that is in this budget; no to some of the scenarios that are laid out
in this budget and some of the doctrines that undergird the spending in
this budget, especially when we are talking about over 50 percent of
discretionary spending going into this area.
Whatever happened to the discussions we once had about national
security at home? If we are going to spend 50 percent of our
discretionary budget on the Pentagon--and we are not going to do
anything about these budget caps, and we will have to, in my view, take
these caps off; there is no question about it. But on current course
within this context of the budget we now have before us, we are going
to spend over 50 percent of discretionary spending on the Pentagon.
And, as a result, what are we not doing? We are not looking at the
other part of our national defense. I argue that part of our real
national security is the security of our local communities.
Whatever happened to the idea that we were going to focus on early
childhood development? Whatever happened to the priority that we were
talking about as being so important to our country that we had to
invest in the health, skills, intellect, and character of our children?
Whatever happened to the importance of affordable child care? Whatever
happened to the importance of decent health care coverage for people?
In my State of Minnesota, 35 percent of senior citizens--that is it,
35 percent of senior citizens--have some prescription drug coverage.
The other 65 percent have no coverage at all. Many of them are spending
up to 40 percent of their budget just on these costs. Where is the
funding going to be for that? Where is the funding going to be for the
44 million people who have no health insurance at all?
Yesterday, we had a White House conference dealing with mental
health. I would add substance abuse. I have been doing work with
Senator Domenici--and proud to do so--on trying to deal with some
discrimination and making sure that people get decent mental health
coverage.
How are we going to move forward to make sure there is decent health
care coverage for people? How are we going to make sure there is
affordable child care? What about affordable housing? How are we going
to take the steps in our communities to reduce the violence and to be
able to get to the kids--I think of the juvenile justice bill that we
passed not more than a couple of weeks ago--before they get into
trouble in the first place? How are we going to make sure that higher
education is affordable? How are we going to make sure we have the best
education for every child?
I just simply want to say I am going to vote against this bill, and I
am going to vote against this bill for two reasons, neither of which
has anything to do with the two very distinguished Senators who are
managing this bill.
First of all, as I said, I think much of it goes beyond Kosovo. Much
of it goes beyond our real national defense. I think too much of it is
still based upon a cold war doctrine. I believe we can make cuts in the
Pentagon budget and still have a strong defense. I have tried to lay
out that case.
Second of all, I am going to vote against this bill--I don't think
too many Senators are--because I view the vote on this appropriations
bill in the context of the overall budget and where these
appropriations bills are going. I view some of the dollars spent on the
Pentagon as being dollars that we are not going to spend for affordable
child care, that we are not going to spend to make sure there is decent
education for our children, that we are not going to spend to make sure
there is affordable housing.

I argue that somewhere in the debate in the Senate we have to also
look at

[[Page S6669]]

real national security as not just being a strong defense as defined in
this budget, which I am for, although I think a strong defense doesn't
necessitate all of the money we are spending, but, in addition, we have
to think about real national security as the security of our local
communities where --one more time, and I will finish on this--there is
affordable child care--when are we going to get to that?--there is
affordable housing, there is decent education, there is decent health
care, where we don't have one out of every four children under the age
of 3 growing up poor in our country, where we don't have one out of
every two children of color under the age of 3 growing up poor in our
country, and make sure that every child, no matter color of skin, or
income, or rural, or urban, or boy or girl, can grow up dreaming to be
President of the United States of America.
I think that has to be part of the definition of our real national
security. I think we have to make more decisive investments in these
areas of public life in our Nation.
I believe this appropriations bill, in the context of the budget,
where these appropriations bills are going to, subtracts from that very
important agenda as well.
Let me finish one more time by being one of the Members of the
Senate--I don't know whether others will say--I think others will say
this eventually--who says that right now we are in a fiscal
straitjacket. We will not be able to live with these caps. We will be
making a huge mistake if we don't make some of the decisive investments
I am talking about on the floor today. This will be a very shortsighted
vision. We need to do much better as a nation going into the next
century. And it can't be just Pentagon spending; it always has to be to
make sure that there is a peaceful opportunity for every child in our
country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is about time to vote on the McCain
amendment. We thought we would have another amendment offered by this
time. But it has not been offered. I believe it is time we start voting
on these amendments.
I will state for the Chair that it is my intention to find some way
to call up these amendments in the order they were presented and
dispose of them now as quickly as we can. There is a vote on cloture
tomorrow on the Y2K proposition. I assume that will carry. We certainly
do not want to have this defense bill waiting around for the completion
of a long process that is related to cloture.
I urge Members to cooperate with us. I will inquire of Members as
they come to the floor now on this vote as to when they will be able to
present their amendments to see if we can find some way to get some
time limitations. It is possible, I believe, to finish this bill
tonight with the cooperation of Members of the Senate.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 589, As Modified

Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendment No. 589.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment. It will
modify this amendment in a way that is acceptable to both sides. I ask
that this amendment, as modified, be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 589), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the funds made available in Title IV of this
Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test And
Evaluation, Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may be made available to
continue research and development on polymer cased
ammunition.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 588 and 591, En Bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the
Senate amendments Nos. 588 and 591, and I ask they be considered en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments (Nos. 588 and 591) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to table the motion.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 584

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the chairman and ranking member spoke
eloquently about the merits of several projects in this bill that
affect their States. As I have said before, I don't pretend to judge
the merit of each and every project on the list of objectionable
materials. I do, however, object to the process by which these projects
were added to this bill, the process that circumvented the normal and
appropriate merit-based review for determining the highest priority not
only in defense but across all appropriations bills.
I want to clarify something the chairman said: In this list, it does
not--repeat, does not--include funding for the SBIRS program on the
Israeli arrow missile defense program. There is no reduction in funding
for those programs.
Finally, my colleagues know the military service chiefs testified to
Congress earlier this year that they need more than $17 billion every
year in order to redress several readiness shortfalls. This bill falls
about $6 billion short of that goal. This amendment would restore $13
billion in high-priority readiness and modernization funds to help meet
the services' needs, offsetting every time with low-priority spending
cuts.
I emphasize they came over and said they needed $17 billion. We are
not meeting that minimal request.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I must oppose the Senator's amendment. I
think it will change the direction we are going in terms of how to meet
the pressing needs of the Department of Defense and, at the same time,
balance those needs against the rest of the needs of the country.
I urge that this amendment be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is
absent due to a death in the family.
The result was announced--yeas 16, nays 81, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

YEAS--16

Allard
Bayh
Brownback
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Hagel
Kerry
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
Robb
Torricelli
Wellstone

NAYS--81

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux

[[Page S6670]]

Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Biden
Crapo
Gregg
The amendment (No. 584) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Adkins,
a legislative fellow on Senator Abraham's staff, be granted privileges
of the floor during the Senate's consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are so many fellows being admitted
that I am going to ask on the next one that comes up that all fellows
that are working with Senators be limited to not more than 1 hour each
on the floor during the consideration of this bill. Those chairs in the
back of the Senate are for people who are working with us on this bill.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 541

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take a little time to explain this
amendment and to say that the primary coauthor of it is Senator Harkin
from Iowa. A cosponsor is Senator Wyden.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold also be added as a
cosponsor of the amendment and that his statement be placed in the
Record at the appropriate place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am happy to listen to the comments of
the Senator. On the second page, it says, ``. . .and the relevancy of
the missions of aircraft to warfighting requirements.''
It is the position of the committee that the aircraft we are talking
about are for basically multimission functions and are really not
designed for warfighting requirements. They are designed for
transportation, basically to meet normal needs. If the Senator would
delete that last clause, we will be happy to accept the amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. I just want a moment, if I may confer with my friend.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been told there is an objection to
my suggestion, so I withdraw it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I will look at this because I
have not asked for the yeas and nays at this time. We may well delete
that particular part of the amendment. As a matter of fact, we will
probably take care of that problem.

Mr. President, this amendment is a very important amendment. We
basically say that the provision in the bill for leasing six luxury
executive jets for military generals will be essentially deleted. These
are the same kinds of executive jets that are used by, frankly,
billionaires, CEOs of the biggest multinational corporations. I think
providing additional executive jets to the military's fleet of over 100
Gulfstream, Lear, and Cessna jets sends the wrong signal to our young
men and women in the military and reflects misguided spending
priorities by this Congress.
I want to tell you--and I know the Senator from Iowa would agree--it
wasn't easy to find this gold-plated pork. To say it was buried in this
bill is an understatement. It was like finding a needle in a haystack.
It is so disguised, there is no direct mention of the Gulfstream
aircraft anywhere in the bill. They are being leased for the first
time, I think, because it disguises the cost, which is enormous--when I
get into it, I will tell you. It is about $39 million for one of these
executive jets, compared to the executive jet that is in the fleet now
that costs $5.4 million, which is very fancy, and that one is the
Cessna Citation Ultra. This one is the Gulfstream; this is the gold-
plated version.
The New York Times points out that leasing these jets costs taxpayers
about $145 million more than buying these jets. But I have to tell you,
if you lease them, it is hard to find them in the bill.
In order to find out what is going to be leased, we had to call the
Air Force and get a fact sheet that clearly says the jets will be
leased, and they will be top-of-the-line Gulfstream V jets. Again,
nowhere in this bill do you see Gulfstream V or a description of these
jets. If you read page 142--that is where the authority comes from--
this is what it says. This is literally the last page of this bill,
page 142:

Aircraft leasing. Inserts a provision to provide the Air
Force the necessary authority to negotiate leases for support
aircraft.

That is it. Support aircraft. No one would know that these were the
Gulfstream jets that were stripped out of the emergency supplemental
bill. You could not tell. But the Air Force told us right upfront and
very honestly. They sent us over a fact sheet and we found out that is
what these were about.
Many of us here in the Senate--myself included--have said we are
willing to provide additional funds for the Defense Department to
improve recruitment and retention to fix shortfalls in training and
spare parts and address quality of life issues, including family
housing and health care for our military personnel. I think the Senate
has done a commendable job in addressing many of these shortfalls: A
4.8-percent pay increase, improving the retirement system, increasing
retention benefits.
I strongly supported each and every one of those initiatives.
However, we have more to do. It is shocking to some people to know that
we have military people on food stamps. The Senator from Iowa led the
fight in the authorization bill to point out that our personnel
overseas needed to be part of the WIC Program--the Women, Infants and
Children Program--to give their children cheese and milk to survive. So
how do we now come up with almost, I might say, $\1/2\ million over the
10-year period to lease the fanciest executive jets that you can find?
Until we are totally convinced--and from my point of view not even
then--should we even consider this kind of an expenditure?
What is it for? So four-star generals can travel throughout the world
in the greatest of comfort. I love to fly in comfort. I fly across the
country almost every week. It is hard. I fly commercial and sometimes I
sit in coach and sometimes I use my upgrades and sit in business class.
It is wearing and hard, but it is fine. You don't need to spend $39
million on a plane, or lease it at even a higher cost to do the
business the military requires you to do. It is really a question of
priorities. We have done a lot for our enlisted personnel, but still we
need to do more. Yet, we are doing this in this bill. I am very hopeful
that the chairman--if we remove that one part from our amendment--will
be able to join us in support of this amendment.
There may be some objection. But I hope we can agree to drop this.
Our military personnel often live in family housing that needs
replacement or repair. This is a priority.
I was looking at the amendment offered by the Senate from Arizona. I
almost supported it until the chairman explained to me exactly what was
happening. Sometimes Members understand these things. We look in our
own areas. We see the deficiencies. I think that if Members want to put
something in to improve the quality of life of the people they
represent in the military, it is appropriate. But I don't think this is
appropriate.
Let me quote from the May 24 issue of Defense Week. This is talking
about the emergency supplemental.

The New York Times has exposed the bills' buried aircraft
language . . . this raised lawmakers' concerns that
appropriators would appear even softer on pork than they
already seemed.

[[Page S6671]]

If the committee thought this was pork and did not belong in this
emergency appropriations bill, then I say it is still pork now. It is
just in another vehicle. But pork is pork.
What is especially troubling is that this leasing authority could
cost more than buying the six aircraft outright. Again, the New York
times says that leasing the jets costs $476 million --that is almost
$.5 billion over 10 years--while buying them would cost $333 million. I
do my subtraction. That is a $143 million difference.
Here is how the Gulfstream company described these particular jets.
This is the company that would get the sale of these jets:

The Gulfstream V includes an evolution in cabin design that
minimizes the inherent strain of long-range travel. From the
100-percent fresh air control system, to the comfortably
maintained 6,000-foot cabin altitude at 51,000 feet, to cabin
size--the longest in the industry--the Gulfstream V provides
an interior environment unmatched in transoceanic business
travel.

Make no mistake, this is the top of the line in executive jets--$37
million per plane. For $30 million less per plane--for example, a
Cessna Citation Ultra at $5.4 million--we could save a tremendous
amount of money.
My amendment replaces this authority to lease executive jets with the
request that the DOD provide some basic information about these
aircraft. I will be happy to work with the chairman if he wants me to
change some of that language. But we basically called for, in essence,
a study to tell us why we would need these planes and what other planes
could do the job that these planes do.
By the way, in Defense Week, they called this the ``Go to Meetings
Plane.'' These planes are used to go to meetings. It is described that
way in Defense Week.
We want to ask these questions:
How many of the missions require a top-of-the-line executive jet?
What wartime requirements make the number of jets needed so high?
We will be glad to drop that, if the chairman doesn't like that
language, but a GAO study looked at the gulf war and found very few
were used in that theater.
What is the cost comparison if we lease less expensive jets?

Are there existing aircraft in the fleet that can meet these mission
requirements or that can be modified to meet these requirements?
On another level, and without having to bring it to the Senate, I am
going to personally send GAO a letter to look at this as well.
I think we need to step back and reexamine our priorities. The 106th
Congress is increasing defense at a fast rate. There are many people
who make the case as to why that should be so. But I think since we are
increasing the defense budget while we are decreasing the domestic
budget, it really falls on us to make sure that what we spend is
necessary.
I don't have to tell Chairman Stevens, because he has to deal with
the aggravation of these nondefense discretionary program cuts overall
of $21 billion. I serve on the Budget Committee. I know how hard it is
going to be when you get to the civilian side of the budget. Right now,
a 9-percent decrease in domestic spending is going to be facing the
appropriators. What does that 9-percent cut mean? It means devastating
cuts in many programs. The Labor-HHS bill is cut 13 percent. This could
hurt programs. We don't know where they are going to cut. But it could
hurt programs like Head Start; the Centers for Disease Control; Job
Corps; summer jobs, which helps keeps kids out of trouble in the summer
months; and dislocated worker assistance.
The point is that we are cutting in other areas. We shouldn't be
expending this kind of money--$.5 billion--over 10 years, on these
jets.
The transportation bill already reported cripples the Federal
Aviation Administration's program to increase safety and capacity. The
bill cuts the modernization program by $273 million from the
President's request, meaning that automation in radar systems will be
delayed, at best, and perhaps will never happen at our civilian
airports.
In addition, the Transportation Subcommittee rescinded $300 million
from prior year funding for FAA modernization.
What am I saying?
On the civilian side, we are seeing America fail. We are not going to
be providing the highest level of safety for our airports. But what do
we do? We spend this kind of money.
I see my friend from Iowa is on his feet. I am going to finish in 60
seconds.
What do our veterans tell us? Our veterans tell us that they need
more national cemeteries. The VA-HUD bill is cut by 15 percent.
I will tell you right now, I think it would be a wise thing if we cut
these leased aircraft out and looked at these needs on the civilian
side of Federal aviation and if we looked at the need to build new
veterans cemeteries. It is actually reaching a crisis point. We note
the D-Day invasion. We commemorate that anniversary. Yet, we don't do
all we should in that area.
I think we should get real with this budget. I commend my colleagues
on the committee. I am very fond of them. They do a good job. But I
think this is one area where we could really save some large dollars,
and I think we can do better things with those dollars.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am joining with Senator Boxer in
offering this amendment to strike the provision that allows the
Pentagon to lease six of these executive aircraft. The military
designation is C-37A. We know them as Gulfstreams in the civilian
world. They are very lavish and very nice aircraft. In fact, I will
show you what we are talking about.
This is a Gulfstream V. It is a very nice airplane. I am sure that
millionaires who have made a lot of money in the stock market probably
have those. Billionaires have them. I am sure they fly them around. It
is a very nice, luxurious aircraft. All of the statistics are very good
on that aircraft. It is quiet. It flies high. It goes long distances
nonstop. It is quite luxurious on the inside.
As you can see, this is a very nice business executive jet. I
wouldn't deny that it is a good tool for a lot of businesses to use in
fact. I am not here to say that Gulfstream V is a bad aircraft, or that
it shouldn't be built, or that there is no reason to have this in
anybody's inventory--not in the least. This aircraft serves a very
valuable purpose for a lot of businesses here and around the world. In
fact, the Gulfstream corporation has to be a good corporation, for all
I know, and builds a pretty darned good airplane. That is not our
point.
Our point is--the more I have looked into this the more it has become
apparent to me--that all branches of the military have become top-
heavy, not only top-heavy in terms of the command structure itself but
top-heavy in the number of executive jets they have to ferry them
around from place to place. I am beginning to wonder if these are
really all that necessary. Are they really for wartime use, or are they
really more for just convenience?
For example--I will get more into this in detail later--we are told
that a lot of these executive jets such as this can go 4,000 or 5,000
miles without refueling, as necessary to get to theaters of operation
around the world. But the fact is, during the gulf war operations very
few of these were used. We have to ask the question: Is it really for
the benefit of generals to use for rapid movement during war, or is it
more for convenience in peacetime?
As the Senator from California said, we have a lot of budget problems
here at the military. I, for one, have been trying to do something
about getting WIC programs, as the Senator said, for our military
personnel overseas. It is a blot on our national character and on our
military that we have military personnel on food stamps. That is not
right. It is not right that we have enlisted personnel who need the
Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Feeding Program.
Last year, the Senator from California and I tried to offer an
amendment here that would say at least when they go overseas they get
the same WIC Program as they got here. If I am not mistaken, I think it
came to the grand total of right around $5 to $20 million. The military
said they couldn't afford to do it, but they can afford $40 million for
six of these aircraft. Something is wrong when the military says they
can't afford it, that the Department of Agriculture has to

[[Page S6672]]

pay for it; the Defense Department can't, but they can afford a
business jet such as this. That got me when I saw that. Something has
to be done about this.
I understand they want to lease several of these Gulfstream V
aircraft. I would like to have one to go back and forth to Iowa. I
wouldn't have to go through Chicago anymore--probably nonstop right to
Iowa. The Senator from California could use one, get on the jet right
here and go to any airport in California nonstop.

Let me show you the interior of the aircraft: A nice, luxurious
interior. Lean back, have your own personal TV set, a glass of wine.
That is pretty nice travel.
Again, I am not saying that we have to strip down everything, that a
general has to ride in a harness on a side bucket strapped onto a C-
130. That is not what I am saying. There probably is a need for some of
these aircraft to transport these people rapidly. My question has to do
with the number of aircraft.
For example, I note that there are now over 300 aircraft in
inventory, over 150 jets. I can't quite get an accurate count. Last
time I counted, there were 154 jets, 70 Learjets. Regarding the C-9,
the same as a Douglas DC-9, the Navy has 27, the Marines have 2, and
the Air Force has 5. Gulfstreams, we have 16 already. We have some
Gulfstream IIIs and IVs, the predecessor to the Gulfstream V. They are
about as nice, but they can't go as far. They are a good airplane. We
have 70 Learjets total; 727s, we have 3. I am reading just the jets.
And I didn't realize we already have two Gulfstream Vs in our
inventory. Cessna Citation 560, which is pictured here, is a pretty
nice jet, not quite as big as the Gulfstream V and doesn't go as far,
but we have 14 of those. The old Saberliners, we have three still in
existence. We have seven 707s in our inventory.
There are quite a lot of jets to be flying around. Again, I am
wondering, with the inventory that we have, why do we have to lease
seven more? Or are we cutting back on some of the aircraft? Again, they
may serve a legitimate purpose, but I am wondering, and I go back to a
GAO report that the Senator referred to from 1995, ``Travel by Senior
Officials,'' dated June 1995. One of the their recommendations in that
report was to develop the appropriate mechanisms to ensure the
availability of each service's aircraft to help fulfill the OSA,
operation support needs, of other services. The third recommendation,
reassign or otherwise dispose of excess OSA aircraft.
Now, the chairman and ranking member may know better than I, but it
seems to me that a lot of the services have the aircraft and they just
don't go from one service to the other. It seems to me what we really
need is an effective structure in DOD that puts these business jets and
other aircraft under one operational command that really works. If a
senior officer in the Navy needed one for something, they should go to
this command to get it; Marines the same, Air Force--all this would be
the same. The Navy/Marine should go to one central structure to get the
aircraft and have them assigned from that structure. That is how it
should work.
It looks as though we are in the same old military gamesmanship: Air
Force, ``I got mine''; Navy, ``I got mine.'' The Navy has Navy markings
and the Air Force has Air Force markings and the Army has Army markings
and never the twain shall meet.
I am curious as to how much money we waste and how much operational
support aircraft we waste because we don't have that one effective
integrated command structure working as it should. That was the
suggestion made by GAO in 1995. If nothing else comes out of this, I
hope we might move ahead in some way to provide an effective overall
operational structure.
I said earlier that there is a DOD Directive 4500.43 that requires
that OSA aircraft inventories must be based on wartime needs. However,
few OSA aircraft were used in theater during the Persian Gulf war.

From the GAO report:

Actual use of OSA aircraft during the Persian gulf war
suggests that the primary role of OSA is not wartime support
but peacetime support.

Again, I quoted that from the GAO report of June of 1995.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield for a question.
Mrs. BOXER. I know the Senator was a pilot in the military and I know
he understands aircraft.
Mr. HARKIN. I think I do.
Mrs. BOXER. And I know he understands that these jets we are talking
about are not fighting machines; they are go-to-meetings machines.
Mr. HARKIN. If I might interrupt, these are what in common
nomenclature would be called executive business jets, converted. For
example, in military terms, they call it a C-37 but it is really a
Gulfstream V.
Mrs. BOXER. My friend showed a couple of photos of the Gulfstream and
then a photo of the Cessna Citation.
Mr. HARKIN. Cessna Citation Ultra. By the way, it is a very good
plane.
Mrs. BOXER. It is my understanding that the Cessna Citation Ultra
costs $5.4 million a copy, according to the Appropriations Committee,
and that the cost on the Gulfstream V is about $39 million.
This is transportation for the highest level of military officers. My
friend pointed out that we have a gap growing here between those at the
bottom of the economic ladder in the military and those at the top. We
know that will always be the case, but it seems to me it is exacerbated
with this kind of situation.
I want to ask my friend if he believes that a top general could fly
comfortably in a $5.4 million plane as opposed to a $39 million plane?
What we are doing is simply asking for a study to see if we can
accommodate the needs of the generals in a cheaper way.
Mr. HARKIN. The basic answer to that is, yes--depending on the
mission, of course.
Now, if a general or a four-star wanted to fly from here nonstop to
Europe, they couldn't take this airplane which only has about a 2,000-
mile leg. However, I might add, it could fly to Reykjavik and
refuel. It can fly to Shannon and refuel. It will take an hour and a
half or more; you have to land, refuel, and get out of there. But it is
perfectly capable of doing that. A lot of businesses fly these overseas
all the time. You just have to stop and refuel in one place, that is
all. It even has a bathroom on board.

Mrs. BOXER. If I may ask my friend, isn't it possible to base some of
these planes in Europe, base them in different places, which is what
they do anyway, so it is more convenient to make the switch?
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senator asking that question because I
think it points up--first of all, I am not saying we do not need any of
this; I am saying we do need some of these planes. I was talking with
the chairman about this. Let's say a four-star officer has to go from
Washington to Florida to Texas to Chicago for a series of meetings. He
possibly cannot do it with a civilian plane. I understand that, if one
has to go overseas for a certain meeting and get back. There are times
when you cannot use civilian airplanes. But this type of a jet could be
used for any kind of domestic travel in the continental United States.
You might have to land and refuel. That does not bother me a whole heck
of a lot.
I am saying with the Gulfstream Vs that we have now--which I said we
have two or so right now in inventory, plus we have a number of
Gulfstream IVs and Gulfstream IIIs--let's say a general needed to get
from the Pentagon to someplace overseas in a big hurry for something.
OK, requisition one of them and use it for that. But if they have to go
to Florida and then to Texas and then to California and make all these
meetings, use one of these smaller aircraft because they are going to
land anyway, while they are at the meeting, they can refuel, take off
and go. It is a much cheaper way of operating.
I seriously question whether we need six Gulfstream Vs for whatever
purpose they are asking--I really question that--and I question whether
or not other versions of aircraft like this or others can be used more
for domestic travel.
I have a letter to Chairman Stevens dated March 8, 1999, from the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Hamre, and General Ralston, U.S. Air
Force. I was reading it over and was struck by a paragraph. It is an
assessment of CINC support aircraft. This was required by the Senate
Appropriations Committee

[[Page S6673]]

report last year. I was struck by this paragraph which says:

This study evaluated all military and representative
commercial aircraft to determine which aircraft would both be
configurable and available for CINC support airlift.

It goes on. This is the paragraph:

The study revealed that when CINC--

Commanders in Chief--

requirements, combined long, unrefueled range--4,200 to 6,000
nautical miles--more than 18 passengers and short runway
capabilities--5,000 to 7,000 feet--a modern commercial
aircraft was needed.

I find it interesting. If you go to the CINCs and ask, ``What are
your requirements?'' and they define their requirements, guess what.
They meet the requirements of the Gulfstream V. If you ask me what my
requirements are to fly around the United States, I bet I can come up
with a set of determinants that I need a Gulfstream V: I travel a lot;
I go to the coast once in a while; I am always in Iowa; sometimes I
have to be in one place for a meeting and then another place for a
meeting. I would love to have a Gulfstream V. And I have short runways,
too, sometimes.

It is not surprising that we ask the CINCs, ``What do you need?'' and
they then define their needs and come up with Gulfstream Vs. It seems
to me we ought to have someone else defining the needs rather than the
commanders in chief, because they are the ones who use the aircraft.
They said:

Based on historical CINC support aircraft usage and future
requirements, and discounting the probable need of backup
aircraft inventory, seven C-37A aircraft--

that is the Gulfstream V--

should minimally satisfy the existing CINC requirements.

What I cannot figure out--does the Senator from California know?--is,
how many CINCs are there? Do we know how many CINCs there are?
Mrs. BOXER. Nine.
Mr. HARKIN. There are nine CINCs, so we are getting seven Gulfstream
Vs for nine CINCs.
Mrs. BOXER. Plus all the other aircraft that are in the inventory.
Mr. STEVENS. Regular order, Mr. President, regular order.
Mr. HARKIN. I asked the Senator to answer a question. I asked the
Senator to respond to a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor, and he
can only yield to the Senator from California for a question.
Mr. HARKIN. I can ask a question of the Senator from California, I
believe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That requires the Senator from Iowa to yield
the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask a question of my friend, since that is the rule and
that is being strictly enforced today, and I appreciate that. Does the
Senator not agree that adding six more of these luxury planes, which
would give us a total of nine Gulfstream Vs--we would have nine
Gulfstream Vs; that is, one for each of the commanders, plus an
inventory of other planes that include Learjets and Cessnas--does he
not believe that this is going overboard in terms of the priorities we
should have?
I agree with my friend, and I ask him this question as well: We are
saying that we are very willing to give the generals what they need,
but it is a matter of whether you get the gold-plated version or a very
solid version, and isn't that what we are really talking about?
Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator has put her finger on it: We are
willing to give the generals what they need but not what they want.
Mrs. BOXER. Interesting.
Mr. HARKIN. They may want to travel in this kind of luxury, but I am
not certain we ought to just give it to them. There are nine CINCs.
Each one now would have their own Gulfstream V. Do we know what the
per-hour operating cost is of a Gulfstream V? As best I can determine,
the per-hour operating cost is over $2,000. I think it is actually
higher than that, because I do not think that takes into account
depreciation; I think that is just fuel and other requirements.
Let's just say it is $2,000 an hour. A four-star officer gets on one
of those Gulfstream Vs and flies 2 hours someplace for a meeting and 2
hours back; that is 4 hours, $8,000 just to go to a meeting someplace
and come back. That is a good use of taxpayers' dollars?

I will lay you odds that 7 times out of 10 that four-star officer
could go right out here to National Airport or Dulles, get on an
airplane, and get a first-class ticket--How much is a first-class
ticket?--fly to that meeting, and fly back for less than $1,000.
I ask you: When is the last time you ever got on a commercial
aircraft in the United States flying anywhere and saw a general or
admiral on that plane? I cannot remember when. I see a lot of
lieutenants and commanders and captains, but I never see an admiral or
general. Then again, why would you? They are on their Gulfstream Vs,
jetting around.
I am not saying there is never a purpose--there may be--but I think
this is just a little bit too much. There are about 36 four-star
officers in the U.S. military, I am told--about 36 four-star officers--
and for that, we have over 154 jets in inventory to fly people around.
What is going on here?
In fact, I know our proposal only deals with the Gulfstreams, but if
I am not mistaken, the bill also provides for the purchase of five
additional C-35s.
Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Those are the Cessnas. We are already going to buy five
of these, and we are going to lease six more of the Gulfstream Vs. So
it is not just the Gulfstream Vs. The Navy already has six Gulfstreams,
the Air Force already has Gulfstreams, and, as I said, 70 Learjets, C-
21s.
I remember one time when I went on a congressional trip--was I still
in the House or the Senate? I can't remember. I may have been in the
Senate. We went to Central America. It was during that war in Central
America.
We flew from here to Florida, to MacDill, refueled, and we were in a
little Lear. There were about six or seven of us crammed into that
thing with no bathroom. But obviously, because of my Senate duties, I
had to get down there to go on a trip that could not be done
commercially. So we went from here to MacDill, refueled, then went to
Guatemala and Honduras; and then I think we went to El Salvador; then
we went to Panama City, had to refuel again, fly to MacDill, refuel
again, and then fly home.
I tell you, it was not that comfortable a flight if you are one of
those in a little Lear, six or seven people crammed in there. For a
Senator, that is fine. I bet you a general or admiral would never do
that. But we had staff. We had committee staff along with us.
I am just saying, sometimes if you are going to do these things,
sometimes you have to put up with that. There is no way I could have
done it commercially, so I had to take a military aircraft. You do not
have to go in elaborate luxury every single time.
That is my point. I do not think there is a critical shortage of
these executive jets that should take precedence over the immediate
needs of our military.
Besides the sheer numbers of aircraft in each of the armed services
indicating there is no shortfall, again, I repeat from the 1995 GAO
report that said the armed services should ``develop the appropriate
mechanisms to ensure the availability of each service's aircraft to
help fulfill the OSA needs of the other services.'' In other words, the
GAO concluded the armed services needed to learn to share. This is a
simple concept that should be used to relieve any conceivable strain on
the number of executive aircraft.
The Pentagon counters this sensible solution by claiming that
existing aircraft are being fully used. However, the GAO also found
that DOD's operational support aircraft fleet ``far exceeds any
possible wartime requirement.''
The Defense Week article that the Senator from California referred to
of May 24, 1999, had some interesting things in it. They said:

In particular, the article said, ``There are about 600 to
800 users in the DC area authorized to request SAM [VIP
Special Air Mission] support for missions'' which meet
prescribed criteria.

As I understand, that does not include Senators and Congressmen. At
least that is what I am told. When I first read there are 600 to 800
authorized users for VIP special air missions, I thought that must
include the 435 Members of the House and the 100 Senators. I am told
that is not so.
I am wondering, who are these 600 to 800 people? I am wondering if
some of

[[Page S6674]]

these jets are being used for less than really vital needs and perhaps
could be used to meet the needs of the military CINCs.
Again, quoting from the Defense Week article of May 24:

Brig. Gen. Arthur Lichte, the Air Force's director of
global-reach programs, says these support aircraft are all
meeting other requirements [all these other aircraft that we
have in inventory] so [they] could not be used by the
commanders.

Again, I am wondering, why not? What are these other requirements? If
the commanders cannot use them, who is using them?

Hamre says most of these support aircraft are too small for
commanders' staffs. Plus, the four-stars need to be able to
fly non-stop intercontinental trips while staying in contact
with the president.

I am not so certain about that. I am not certain that a refueling
stop in Shannon is all that burdensome.
The article goes on to say:

Some on Capitol Hill respond that the CINCs could get by
with smaller staffs on board and could live with refueling
stops, but Hamre and Lichte don't agree.

I do not know why not. I know a lot of times we go on congressional
factfinding trips. We stop and refuel different places. I don't know
why generals can't. They can still be in contact. That does not stop
your contact with the White House, simply because you land and refuel--
not at all.

What about the existing support fleet?
``No,'' Hamre said, ``we don't have aircraft that can fly
from here to the Persian Gulf. I suppose you could go on a C-
12. You could island-hop like you did in World War II, but I
mean that doesn't make any sense. This big inventory of 500
[operational support aircraft]--most of them are tiny
airplanes, four-passenger, six-passenger kind of airplanes.''

That is just not so. These are not four-passenger airplanes.
Mrs. BOXER. Isn't it eight?
Mr. HARKIN. These are eight right here. How much staff does a general
have to take with him when he goes to a meeting? I would like to find
that out.
He said, ``The CINCs aren't [even] happy they have to live with a 12
passenger aircraft.''
Again I ask, how much staff do they need to take to these meetings
they go to?

So, again, the Senator from California and I have this amendment that
says basically: We ought to put this lease aside. Let's take a look at
this. Let's get a good report in. Do these really meet the warmaking
needs of the Pentagon?
Plus, I do not know where the facts lie on this one, but I will just
say that, according to the New York Times, the lease will cost the
taxpayers more than $475 million over 10 years. Purchasing the planes
may prove cheaper. Some say purchasing is going to cost more; some say
it will cost less. But we do know that for these aircraft, for the cost
of the aircraft, plus the operation of them over the next 10 years, it
is going to come in at somewhere----
Mrs. BOXER. Over $400 million.
Mr. HARKIN. I think the lease is going to cost over $475 million. And
then there are operational costs. Now you are up to $600 or $700
million over the next 10 years just for these aircraft. That may be
small change to the Pentagon, which is used to operating with $270
billion budgets, but that is a lot of money for our taxpayers. I just
do not know where the facts lie in whether or not leasing is better
than purchasing.
We have seen very little information as to the cost tradeoffs of
leasing versus purchasing. We have not seen a full report from the
Pentagon covering all possible options to cover these CINCs' needs, nor
do we have much information as to the needs of the military for all of
these such aircraft. That is why our amendment requires a report
detailing the requirements and options for such aircraft as an
important first step. We do not have that.
Quite frankly, regardless of how our amendment fares, I say to the
chairman, and others, I plan to come back to this issue, along with my
colleague from California, year after year, until we get a clearer
picture. How many flights do senior officers take with senior executive
aircraft? We do not even know that. What are the costs? What are the
per-hour costs? What are the costs for that trip? Could that trip have
been utilized with an alternative such as commercial aircraft? At what
cost savings? Could some of these aircraft be sold off as excess
aircraft if we better managed the total number of executive aircraft
that we have?
For example, we know that senior officials and officers fly from base
to base and facility to facility. They fly from Andrews Air Force Base
to NAS Jacksonville or to MacDill or to other air bases around the
country. Could you utilize commercial aircraft for that? Sometimes yes;
sometimes no. But we need to ensure that the DOD is looking for cheaper
alternatives, including commercial airline alternatives. It may be
slightly less convenient, but it sure would be a lot less costly, and
it would free up existing DOD aircraft we have now for the unique
missions for which they say they are needed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am somewhat surprised by the length and
specificity of the argument against this amendment. This amendment, on
page 104 of the bill, would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to
obtain transportation for the commanders in chief, the regional
commanders, to lease aircraft. It does not mandate any leasing. It
authorizes leasing.
Currently these commanders in chief, regional commanders, are already
flying 707 aircraft built 30, 35 years ago. Commercially, those
airlines had 250 seats. They have 45 seats on those aircraft now. They
are big. They are old. They are costly to maintain. It is possible to
have modern replacements now.
The Senators would have us replace one a year. We will keep operating
these old dumbos at enormous cost for repair and replacement of
engines, instead of moving out and accepting the fact that there are
planes there now, American-built planes, and the Department estimates
it will cost $750 million to operate and maintain the current support
fleet over the next 10 years. We would reduce that cost and put our
people immediately in more cost-effective, quiet, efficient planes.
Yes, they are small compared to what they have now. Today a commander
in chief takes along with him up to 45 people. This will reduce that
size; there is no question about that. Further, we reduce the number of
aircraft from nine to seven. They didn't mention that. This has nothing
to say about all those other aircraft.
I would like to have a study of the flights of these airplanes that
are owned by the Federal Government, particularly those owned and flown
by the White House. We tried to get that and couldn't get it. We would
like to find out who flies in the State Department airplane. We
couldn't get that.
Now, be my guest and go get those, but these are commanders of our
military who are serving as regional commanders of forces. I wonder if
the Senate knows there are forces of the American people in 91
different countries today. We are operating at about one-third the
staff we had just 5 years ago. We are trying to carry out missions that
are almost impossible. Our reenlistment rate of pilots is down to less
than one-third of what it was just a year ago. The deployment of our
forces is overwhelming. The degree of fatigue on our managers is
overwhelming.
I really never expected this kind of argument about replacing the
707s. I do not think anyone wants to continue to fly on the 707s. If
nothing else, they are just old.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
Mr. STEVENS. No. I am going to table this, follow this bill through,
and get it done. I can't understand that an amendment like this would
delay this bill, because it is only an authorization to lease. All we
have heard today, talking about the number of aircraft, is immaterial.
Those aircraft are out there. They are not going to be affected by this
amendment at all.
What we are trying to do is say that these commanders who stand in
for the President as regional commanders in chief should have the state
of the art of American industry in terms of their transportation. That
is what this is. What we are doing is trying to get them to lease them,
because if we started replacing them, I have to tell you, there is not
money in this bill to allow us to buy seven new aircraft for these
commanders. We can give them

[[Page S6675]]

the authority to lease them and replace them, and those leases can be
options to buy later. We can fill that if we want to buy the planes
later. We can't do it now, but these planes they are flying now are
expensive, and they are too large. They are not what these commanders
need.
A DOD report promised us a savings of $250 million over this 10-year
period if they had this authority. It doesn't mandate them leasing it.
It authorizes them to lease some, buy some, lease with an option to
buy, whatever it might be, to get the best deal possible to replace
these aircraft.
Now, in terms of maintenance alone, this option would save us a lot
of money. I think the problem of having dedicated aircraft is something
we ought to look at.
The Senator says he hasn't seen many four-star admirals or four-star
generals on airplanes. I see them. They do not wear their uniforms on
airplanes. Why should they? They would automatically be a target. It is
not what we want anyway. These people are known throughout the world. I
think if anyone in the world needs protection, it is the commanders in
chief of the regions. We do not provide that, but we can provide them
the capability for security and safety as they move around the areas
over which they have command.
Talk to the people in industry. Why do you think the big industries
are leasing fleets of cars now? Because after the end of a year or so,
they turn them back, get a new model--no maintenance, no replacement of
parts. The vehicles are out on the civilian market with a good value,
because they have only been used for a short while.
We could do the same thing with these aircraft if people would wake
up and use the leasing operation. We are not talking about leasing
combat aircraft; we are talking about leasing transportation that is
vital to the regional commanders.

Again, our section only deals with transportation for the regional
commanders, not for all the 684 people. If you want to know who they
are, they are people in the State Department. We will be glad to give
you a list. State Department, commanders of bases overseas, they are
eligible for flight on these aircraft.
But above all, I am sort of taken aback by the fact that we are
giving the Department of Defense the right to think about taxpayers'
money as they provide this vital transportation link for these regional
commanders.
This saves money. The study shows they save money. Before they can
complete the lease, they have to come back and get the money to lease.
There is no money in this bill to lease. As a practical matter, I
really don't understand. Here we are trying to save money. We are
trying to replace these antiquated airplanes. These places these people
go, most of them have no commercial connections. They just do not.
I took a trip this last week to California and down to the desert in
Arizona and back here on business, down at the border to look at some
problems there. I will tell the Senate about that later. There were no
connections to Douglas, AZ, commercially. I thought I would get down
there and see that problem to determine whether we ought to spend
taxpayers' money. They have the same problem. How can they tell us what
they need in these remote places of the world under their command?
And how can they come to meetings and listen to the Commander in
Chief or to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? These planes are
needed by these people. I think one of the great things brought about
by the Goldwater-Nichols Act was, in fact, regional commanders. It gave
us the kind of command and control we needed to maintain a very
efficient military, with fewer people, and utilizing the talent of some
very distinguished people. I have to tell you, the longer I am here,
the greater respect I have for people who get four stars on their
shoulders. That is what we are talking about--the people who have come
through the services and have reached the point of ultimate command--
and I mean ultimate. They can make decisions in lieu of the Commander
in Chief in a time of crisis; I am talking about in lieu of the
President. They have the power under that act to act in a crisis.
Now, what do you want to do--let them ride commercial planes? I
challenge anybody who has been out in the Pacific and has gone from
place to place, from island to island, where we have our military, to
figure out how to do it commercially. Even in my State, if you want to
go out to Adak, you can go out and come back 2 days later.
As a practical matter, this is transportation for the 21st century.
If nothing else, this Senator doesn't want to see representatives of
the Nation that leads the world in building aircraft to be traveling in
1960 airplanes in the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. That is what we are
talking about. There is a lot here in terms of advertising America to
the world. I want these people to be flying in the best we have,
because they are demonstrating this country's ability to maintain its
position in the world.
I cannot believe there would be this kind of dialog about giving the
authority to use a system that American business has now used very
efficiently for 40 years--the leasing of equipment as opposed to buying
it. I hope to God they use this authority and save us some money and
put our people in safe, modern, efficient transportation.
Does the Senator want to speak before I make a motion to table?
Mr. INOUYE. For just 2 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Hawaii for 2 minutes.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, most respectfully, I have been trying to--
--
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object--and I will not--I wonder
if the Senator from Iowa and I may have a chance to ask a question of
the Senator from Alaska so that we can make our point again, because I
think he misconstrued what we were saying. I think it is important to
set the record straight. May we have 4 minutes between us to simply ask
a question?
Mr. STEVENS. I will be pleased to enter into that kind of agreement,
following the remarks of the Senator from Hawaii.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have been trying to follow this debate
as closely as possible. The explanation the Senator from California has
given is that this amendment would strike provisions in the bill which
allow the Secretary of the Air Force to lease six Gulfstream V jets to
transport the highest ranking military officials.
There is nothing in Section 8106 that speaks of six Gulfstream V
jets, nor does it speak of the highest ranking military officials. I
have no idea where that came from.
What this section says is:

The Secretary of the Air Force may obtain transportation
for operational support purposes, including transportation
for combatant Commanders in Chief, by lease of aircraft, on
such terms and conditions as the Secretary may deem
appropriate, consistent with this section, through an
operating lease consistent with OMB Circular A-11.

There is nothing about Gulfstreams. There is nothing about the
highest ranking military officials. But even if we did say six
Gulfstream V jets for the highest military officials, I join my
chairman in objecting to this amendment. We should keep in mind that
fewer than 1 percent of the population of these United States have
stood up and said to the rest of the world they are willing to stand in
harm's way in our defense and, if necessary, give their lives. Fewer
than 1 percent of us have taken that oath. The least we can do is to
give them the cutting edge, and this is the cutting edge that is
necessary to differentiate between defeat and victory.
So, Mr. President, I will support a motion to table this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me again say what we are trying to
do. We believe under this amendment, by giving the authority to lease
aircraft, we will be able to get at least six aircraft in less than 2
years to replace these aircraft that are now well over 30, 40 years
old. We believe the savings in retiring these aging, expensive-to-
maintain 707 aircraft will be cost effective. But what is more, this
move will be very good for the Department, because by pooling these
aircraft they will be able to use them efficiently. Nobody will have a
dedicated aircraft that is underutilized. They will be able to be used
by others when not being utilized under this plan.
We adopted a similar plan last year at my suggestion, and that is
when we were going to have aircraft for FEMA,

[[Page S6676]]

CIA, and the FBI. We formed a special unit, and they have pooled the
aircraft and they are available to them. They will have them available
for one or all of them, depending on the needs of the people involved.
This is a cost-effective utilization of air transportation to meet the
needs of our National Government. I hope we can defeat this amendment.
I am going to make a motion to table. I will be happy to consider
time for the Senators to speak. They have spoken almost an hour and a
half. I will honor their suggestion if they want some time before I
make that motion.
Mr. HARKIN. I would be glad to do 10 minutes and wrap it up.
Mrs. BOXER. I would like to complete it with 3 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Iowa have not more than 10 minutes and the Senator from California
not more than 5 minutes and I be recognized again to make a motion to
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska has made a good
point that the military should consider leasing and not consider
purchasing. That is what our amendment does. Read our amendment. It
says:

Not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on the inventory and status
of operational support aircraft, Commander-in-Chief support
aircraft, and command support aircraft of the Department of
Defense. The report shall include a detailed discussion of
the requirements for such aircraft, the foreseeable future
requirements for such aircraft, the cost of leasing such
aircraft, commercial alternatives to use of such aircraft,
the cost of maintaining the aircraft, the capability and
appropriateness of the aircraft to fulfill mission
requirements, and the relevancy of the missions of the
aircraft to warfighting requirements.

That is exactly what our amendment does. But we want to know, should
we even lease them?
Mr. STEVENS. I have one question. The first sentence says to strike
the provision on page 104.
Mr. HARKIN. Strike the provision----
Mr. STEVENS. To lease for another year.
Mr. HARKIN. It strikes the provision which allows the Department of
Department to go ahead and lease. It says: Let's do a study before next
March 1. What are our requirements? What are our alternatives? And
let's examine the leasing versus the purchasing. We don't even have
that documentation yet.
So I don't think there is such a need that we have to rush ahead and
allow them to go ahead and enter these long-term leasing agreements
before March 1 of next year. There is not that requirement there. They
tried to put this into the supplemental appropriations bill, and that
was knocked out because it wasn't an emergency. Now they have come back
on the regular appropriations bill.
So all our amendment is saying, fine, leasing may be the best way to
proceed, but we haven't gotten to that point yet. Do we even need these
aircraft? We haven't gotten to that point yet. I make the point that I
am not certain we need this. Let's take it one step at a time and see
if these are really operational requirements.
The Senator also said that it would be costly; we have these old
aircraft in inventory we have to repair and keep them up and put new
engines in them and all that stuff. It is sort of like my old car. I
have an old car, and it needs a new engine. I can put a new engine in
that car, and it is going to cost me about $1,300. The car runs fine.
In fact, it is a pretty darned nice car. It is just a little old and
has a lot of miles on it. If I go out and buy a new car, it will cost
me about $20,000. I ask you, which is the better alternative, if I am
looking at it costwise? It is a lot cheaper for me to put a new engine
in that old car.

These are 30-year-old, well-maintained aircraft. They are the best
maintained aircraft in the world. They go through their periodic
inspections, their 100-hour inspections, their annual inspections, and
they have all kinds of new engines on them and everything. It is much
cheaper to keep those flying, to repair them, and to keep them up than
it is to go out and pay $40 million for one of these, I can assure you.
Second, my last point: The chairman says that this will not affect
the number of aircraft that we have out there now. I beg to differ. It
will affect the number of aircraft we have out there now, because if in
fact the amendment of the Senator from California and myself is
adopted, it is going to require them to take a really hard look at what
they have in their inventory, at what their needs are, and at how they
can better utilize them. That may affect the other aircraft out there.
We may be able to meet the mission requirements of the CINCs with all
of the Gulfstreams, the Learjets, the Citation jets, the 707s, the
757s, the 727s, and the DC-9s that we have out there if they are better
utilized. That is the missing ingredient. We don't have that kind of an
accounting. That is what our amendment calls for.
If it turns out that they really need these aircraft to meet the
warmaking capabilities, and it proves that it is cheaper to do it this
way than to repair and fix up the older aircraft--if that can be
shown--I will be first in line to vote to make sure they get the
aircraft.
But I am telling you, this Senator does not have adequate information
right now to vote to spend probably upwards of $600 million to $700
million over the next 10 years to lease these Gulfstream Vs and operate
them for that period of time.
That is why we need to just step back, take a deep breath, and have
them to report back. One year is not going to be a big loss to them, if
they have to wait one year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for the time
that he has spent on working on this amendment with me and for his
experience. His being in the military, I think, brings tremendous
credibility to this discussion.
I thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for their
patience. I know that this is an amendment that they do not agree with.
I know they are not thrilled that we have offered it, but they have
shown great respect and have given us the time that we need to explain
it.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the
more than 300 planes in the inventory. These are aircraft available for
military administrative travel. I ask unanimous consent to have that
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Military Planes--Civilian Equivalent Names and Specs

C-9--military equivalent of McDonnell Douglas DC-9--twin-
engine, T-tailed, medium-range, swept-wing jet aircraft.
Used primarily for aeromedical evacuation missions.
Capacity: 40 litter patients, 40 ambulatory and four litter
patients, or various combinations.
Number in the military: Total=34--Navy, 27; Marines, 2; Air
Force, 5.

C-12 Huron--Beech Aircraft King Air, a twin turboprop
passenger and cargo aircraft.
Built: Wichita, KS--Beech Aircraft Corp. (Raytheon).
Capacity: up to 8 passengers.
Number in the military Total=178--Army, 104; Navy, 51;
Marines, 18; Air Force, 5.

C-20 series--Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream Series, these
are jets.
Built: Savannah, GA--Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
Capacity: maximum of 19.
Number in the military: Total=16--Navy, 6; Marines, 1; Air
Force, 9.

C-20A--Gulfstream III.
C-20B--Gulfstream III.
C-20H--Gulfstream IV.

C-21--Learjet Series, cargo and passenger plane with turbofan
jet engines.
Built: Wichita, KS--Learjet Corporation.
Capacity: 8 passengers.
Number in the military: Total=70--Air Force, 70.

C-22B--Boeing 727-100, primary medium-range aircraft used by
the Air National Guard and National Guard Bureau to
airlift personnel.
Number in the military: Total=3--Air National Guard, 3.

C-23--an all-freight version of the Shorts 330 regional
airliner.
Built: Northern Ireland, UK--Short Brothers plc.
Number in the military: Total=32--Army, 32.

C-26--Fairchild Merlin/Metro, operated exclusively by the Air
and Army National

[[Page S6677]]

Guard, it is a propeller plane with quick change
passenger, medivac, and cargo interiors.
Built: San Antonio, TX--Fairchild Aircraft Corp.
Number in the military: Total=10--Army, 10.

C-32A--Boeing 757-200, equipped with two wing-mounted Pratt &
Whitney 2040 engines.
Capacity: 45 passengers and 16 crew.
Number in the military: Total=4; Air Force, 4.

C-37A--Gulfstream V.
Capacity: up to 12 passengers.
Number in the military: Total=2--Air Force, 2.

C-38A--IAI Astra SPX, primarily for operational support and
distinguished visitor transport and can be configured for
medical evacuation and general cargo duties.
Capacity: 11 passengers and crew.
Number in the military: Total=2--Air Force, 2.

C-137C--Boeing 707-300, provides transportation for the vice
president, cabinet and congressional members, and other
high-ranking U.S. and foreign officials. It also serves
as a backup for Air Force One.
Capacity: 40-50 passengers.
Number in the military: Total=2--Air Force, 2.

UC-35--Cessna Citation 560 Ultra V twin, medium range
executive and priority cargo jet aircraft.
Capacity: up to 8 passengers.
Number in the military: Total=14--Army, 14.

CT-39G--Rockwell International, twin-jet engine, pressurized,
fixed wing, monoplane.
Capacity: 8 passengers.
Number in the military: Total=3--Marines, 3.

VC-25--Boeing 757-200.
Capacity: 102.
Number in the Military: Total=2.
C-135--Boeing 707, jet airliner that has performed numerous
transport and special-duty functions.
Number in the military: Total=5--Air Force, 5.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if we go through this list, you will see
all of them: The C-20 series, the C-12 series, the C-21 series, the C-
22B series, and it goes on and on with over 300 planes.
I thank Senator Harkin's staff for their work in putting that
together.
I want to make a point. We have an argument on the floor of the
Senate. It is a very fair argument. One side says it is cheaper to
lease these Gulfstreams, and others say that it may well be cheaper to
buy them--forgetting about the fact that some of us think we don't need
them at all. This is almost $\1/2\ billion over 10 years at a time when
we are cutting virtually everything else but the military right now.
Let's face it. The FAA is almost being crippled with $300 million in
rescinded funds to make our civilian skies safer. This is serious. This
isn't a small piece of change.
If, as my friend says, the study comes back and shows we save money
by buying these things, we will take a look at that.
I agree with the Senator from Alaska. I think there are times when of
course--I know the Senator from Iowa agrees--we want to have certain
planes set aside for the convenience and use of our top brass. That is
not the question here. There are 300 planes in the military that they
can use now. In this very bill, we are purchasing more of the Cessna
Citation Ultras, which are beautiful planes that the Senator from Iowa
has spoken about, to carry them around in luxury. Yes. They may have to
stop to refuel, but they can keep in contact with the President of the
United States. I have traveled with very impressive delegations where
we have had to stop in the middle of very tenuous circumstances.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, as an old military pilot
myself, I must say that if the generals want to get someplace in a real
hurry--it may be necessary--and if it is part of our warmaking
capabilities, they can get in the back seat of an F-16, get inflight
fueling, and they can be there a lot faster than any commercial
aircraft or a Gulfstream or anything else. That is the fastest way to
get there.
Mrs. BOXER. I reclaim my time. I have a brief amount of time left.
This isn't about hurting anyone in the military. My goodness. No one
could respect the military more than the Senator from Iowa. I have to
say that is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about a
very hard-nosed money question. Can we move these generals around in
style but not in the Gulfstream version? Can we look to see what the
best way to go is--leasing or purchasing? Then maybe we can save some
money that we need desperately.
Our veterans need veterans cemeteries. They are being told that they
have to have a 15-percent cut in the VA allocation. This includes VA
hospitals. We could go on. We have military people. You want to talk
about the military who have to go on food stamps or the WIC Program.
The Senator from Iowa has led that charge. Maybe that is why we feel so
strongly about this, that it is a matter of priorities. Respect for the
generals? Absolutely. Respect for the enlisted people? Absolutely.
Let's do the right thing.
All we are saying is a year's pause, have a good study done, come
back together, see what the study shows, and then make the decision
that is based more on fact than fiction.
Yes. The New York Times did a study. They said it is costing about
$140 million more to go the leasing route. Let's see if they are right.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to stand in strong support
for this amendment. This straightforward amendment to strike tens of
million of dollars for luxury aircraft for military commanders, brought
to the floor by Senators Boxer and Harkin is about our men and women in
uniform.
It is about the men and women that we have heard so much about over
the past years, the central players in the services' readiness crisis.
It is about the men and women whose lives are on the line in operations
around the world. There is no question, Mr. President, that we must
provide them with the necessary resources to defend themselves and the
United States.
Just last year, there was a virtual consensus that the armed services
were facing a readiness crisis. Last September, the Joint Chiefs
testified that there was a dangerous readiness shortfall. General Henry
Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, claimed that ``without relief,
we will see a continuation of the downward trends in readiness . . .
and shortfalls in critical skills.'' Army Chief of Staff General Dennis
Reimer stated that the military faces a ``hollow force'' without
increased readiness spending. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay
Johnson asserted that the Navy has a $6 billion readiness deficit. So
it went for all the services.
To address the readiness shortfall, the Congress passed on emergency
supplemental appropriations bill. The bill was well-intentioned in its
support for the efforts of our men and women in uniform. Unfortunately,
something happened on the way to the front lines. The bill spent close
to $9 billion, but just $1 billion of it went to address the readiness
shortfall.
We added $1 billion for ballistic missile defense. The Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization still has not spent all that money, yet we
have added another $3.5 billion for the BMDO in this bill. Last year's
supplemental also added billions to what has become an expected
emergency, that being our operations in Bosnia. That other unexpected
emergency, the year 2000, received a billion dollars. And so it went.
What happened to readiness?
It is with wonderment that the appropriations bill before us today
would spend upwards of $40 million in the next fiscal year, and perhaps
as much as half a billion dollars over the next ten years on luxury
jets for four-star generals. Am I missing something or is this absurd?
We actually have troops that qualify for food stamps and DOD can
justify spending tens of millions of dollars next year for luxury jets.

This bill will allow the Air Force to lease executive business
Gulfstream V jets for the military's unified and regional commanders in
chief. This bill also spends $27 million for five UC-35 corporate
aircraft that the Pentagon did not even ask for this year. How can this
be?
According to John Hamre, the assistant secretary of defense, DOD has
an inventory of almost 500 operational support airlift, or OSA,
aircraft, including 70 Learjets. The Army owns 160 OSA aircraft, the
Air Force 111 OSA aircraft, the Navy 89 OSA aircraft; and the Marines
24. The General Accounting Office found that DOD's operational support
fleet ``far exceeded any possible wartime requirement.'' Yet, the Air
Force and certain members of

[[Page S6678]]

Congress believe this to be a high military priority.
Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to close their eyes for a
few minutes while I describe the jet that has become such a military
priority. I take this directly from Gulfstream's website:

From the 100 percent fresh air control system, to the
comfortably maintained 6,000 foot cabin altitude at 51,000
feet, to cabin size--a generous 1,669-cubic-feet and the
longest in the industry--the Gulfstream V provides an
interior environment unmatched in transoceanic business
travel. The jet also offers a substantial outfitting
allowance of 6,700 pounds--more than 12 percent greater than
any other business aircraft current or planned--which affords
owners and operators the freedom to select furnishings and
equipment with minimum tradeoffs. Space-age titanium mufflers
and vibration isolators eliminate hydraulic system noise.
Plentiful insulation in the side panels reduces sound
further, and we've even reengineered Gulfstream's trademark
expansive, oval windows to lessen noise levels. The total
effect is library-like science conducive to a productive
trip.

Now I ask my colleagues to open their eyes and face reality.
Supporting the Defense Department's misguided spending priorities is
not synonymous with supporting the military. I urge my colleagues to
look themselves in the mirror and credibly ask themselves if they can
support corporate jets for generals while front-line troops muddle by
on food stamps. Which is the higher priority?
I cannot vote to increase the defense budget by tens of billions of
dollars, including tens of millions for corporate jets, which the
budgets for veterans' health care, education, agriculture and other
programs are facing deep cuts.
Throwing good money after bad is not tolerated at other Departments
and agencies. Why is it tolerated with DOD? Defense Week reported just
yesterday that the Navy has lost track of almost 1 billion dollars'
worth of ammunition, arms and explosives. Additionally, DOD has yet to
pass an audit. A 1998 GAO audit couldn't match more than $22 billion in
DOD expenditures with obligations; it could not find over $9 billion in
inventory; and it documented millions in overpayments to contractors.
GAO concluded that ``no major part of DOD has been able to pass the
test of an independent audit.''
Mr. President, we need some accountability in the Defense Department.
Voting for the Boxer-Harkin amendment shows that the Senate supports
our men and women in uniform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think it would be interesting for the
Senator to know that the plane of our commander in Europe, General
Clark, who we all see on the news--and we have met with him
respectively, and our committee has twice--the C-9A, cannot land at
half of the airfields in Europe because of environmental restrictions.
I don't understand why we can't move to make available the process
that has been pioneered and developed by American industry and even
States and cities. They lease their aircraft. They lease their fleets
of cars. It is cost effective. We are giving them the authority to do
this. We are not mandating them to do it by the provision of the bill.
But if people want this substitute amendment--the Senator from
California would require a study for more than a year--we would be back
here again.
But we faced this. People forget. In the current year appropriations
bill, we required an assessment of consolidated CINC support aircraft.
It was required to be submitted, and it was submitted by March 1. Here
it is. It led to this provision. We have had a year. We had the study.
They have told us what they need.
I hope the Senate will support the need as outlined, but the needs
can be met by exercising the authority. We are not mandating anything
in this bill.
I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 541. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is
absent due to a death in the family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

YEAS--66

Akaka
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--31

Abraham
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Harkin
Johnson
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Biden
Crapo
McCain
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to state to the Senate what we are
going to do here. We have resolved, I tell the Senate, all outstanding
issues now. I will offer here a package for myself and the
distinguished Senator from Hawaii and a series of colloquies, and then
we will have final passage on the bill.
All of the remaining amendments--some that we thought would be
controversial--have now been resolved. I do thank the Senators for
their cooperation. I am waiting for just one item.

Amendment No. 578

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 578, the Roberts
amendment.

Amendment No. 602 to Amendment No. 578

(Purpose: To provide for the suspension of certain sanctions against
India and Pakistan)

Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk for Senator Brownback
and ask unanimous consent it be considered an amendment to this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Brownback,
proposes an amendment numbered 602 to amendment No. 578.

The amendment is as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment, insert the following:

TITLE---SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS AGAINST INDIA AND PAKISTAN

SEC. __1. SUSPENSION OF SANCTIONS.

(a) In General.--Effective for the period of five years
commencing on the date of enactment of this Act, the
sanctions contained in the following provisions of law shall
not apply to India and Pakistan with respect to any grounds
for the imposition of sanctions under those provisions
arising prior to that date:
(1) Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2799aa).
(2) Section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2799aa-1) other than subsection (b)(2)(B), (C), or (G).
(3) Section 2(b)(4) of the Export Import Bank Act of 1945
(12 U.S.C. 635(b)(4)).
(b) Special Rule for Commercial Exports of Dual-Use
Articles and Technology.--The sanction contained in section
102(b)(2)(G) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2799aa-1(b)(2)(G)) shall not apply to India or Pakistan with
respect to any grounds for the imposition of that sanction
arising prior to the date of enactment of this Act if
imposition of the sanction (but for this paragraph) would
deny any license for the export of any dual-use article, or
related dual-use technology (including software), listed on
the Commerce Control List of the

[[Page S6679]]

Export Administration Regulations that would not contribute
directly to missile development or to a nuclear weapons
program. For purposes of this subsection, an article or
technology that is not primarily used for missile development
or nuclear weapons programs.
(c) National Security Interests Waiver of Sanctions.--
(1) In general.--The restriction on assistance in section
102(b)(2)(B), (C), or (G) of the Arms Export Control Act
shall not apply if the President determines, and so certifies
to Congress, that the application of the restriction would
not be in the national security interests of the United
States.
(2) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(A) no waiver under paragraph (1) should be invoked for
section 102(b)(2)(B) or (C) of the Arms Export Control Act
with respect to any party that initiates or supports
activities that jeopardize peace and security in Jammu and
Kashmir;
(B) the broad application of export controls to nearly 300
Indian and Pakistani entities is inconsistent with the
specific national security interest of the United States and
that this control list requires refinement.
(C) export controls should be applied only to those Indian
and Pakistani entities that make direct and material
contributions to weapons of mass destruction and missile
programs and only to those items that can contribute such
programs.
(d) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit
a report to the appropriate congressional committees listing
those Indian and Pakistani entities whose activities
contribute directly and materially to missile programs or
weapons of mass destruction programs.
(e) Congressional Notification.--A license for the export
of a defense article, defense service, or technology is
subject to the same requirements as are applicable to the
export of items described in section 36(c) of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)), including the transmittal of
information and the application of congressional review
procedures described in that section.
(f) Renewal of Suspension.--Upon the expiration of the
initial five-year period of suspension of the sanctions
contained in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the
President may renew the suspension with respect to India,
Pakistan, or both for additional periods of five years each
if, not less than 30 days prior to each renewal of
suspension, the President certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that it is in the national interest
of the United States to do so.
(g) Restriction.--The authority of subsection (a) may not
be used to provide assistance under chapter 4 of part II of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.;
relating to economic support fund assistance) except for--
(1) assistance that supports the activities of
nongovernmental organizations;
(2) assistance that supports democracy or the establishment
of democratic institutions; or
(3) humanitarian assistance.
(h) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this Act prohibits
the imposition of sanctions by the President under any
provision of law specified in subsection (a) or (b) by reason
of any grounds for the imposition of sanctions under that
provision of law arising on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. __2. REPEALS.

The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2375(e)).
(2) The India-Pakistan Relief Act (title IX of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as contained
in section 101(a) of Public Law 105-277).

SEC. __3. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

In this title, the term ``appropriate congressional
committees'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives.

Mr. STEVENS. These amendments pertain to the Pakistan issue that has
been discussed. They have been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous
consent the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 602) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the underlying amendment itself,
as amended, be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as amended,
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 578), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 547

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 547.

Amendment No. 603 to Amendment No. 547

Mr. STEVENS. I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Biden to that
amendment and ask unanimous consent it be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Biden,
proposes an amendment numbered 603 to amendment No. 547.

The amendment is as follows:

In amendment No. 547, on page 1, line 5, strike ``shall''
and insert ``nay.''

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment to the amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the second-degree amendment
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 603) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the underlying amendment itself,
as amended, be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as amended,
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 547), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 551

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up Senator Nickles' amendment No.
551. The amendment is acceptable to both sides. I ask for a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The question is on agreeing to
the amendment.
The amendment (No. 551) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 575, 580, 586, and 590, As Modified

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk modifications to four
amendments. These are modifications to amendments currently pending on
the list. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be modified and
that the amendments be agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments are modified and
agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 575, 580, 586, and 590) were modified and agreed
to, as follows:

amendment no. 575, as modified

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the
heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Army'', up to $4,000,000 may be made available for the
Advanced Helmet System Program.
____

amendment no. 580, as modified

At the end of the general provisions, add the following:
Sec. 8109. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Congress recognizes and supports, as being fundamental
to the national defense, the ability of the Armed Forces to
test weapons and weapon systems thoroughly, and to train
members of the Armed Forces in the use of weapons and weapon
systems before the forces enter hostile military engagements.
(2) It is the policy of the United States that the Armed
Forces at all times exercise the utmost degree of caution in
the training with weapons and weapon systems in order to
avoid endangering civilian populations and the environment.
(3) In the adherence to these policies, it is essential to
the public safety that the Armed Forces not test weapons or
weapon systems, or engage in training exercises with live
ammunition, in close proximity to civilian populations unless
there is no reasonable alternative available.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) there should be a thorough investigation of the
circumstances that led to the accidental death of a civilian
employee of the Navy installation in Vieques, Puerto Rico,
and the wounding of four other civilians during a live-
ammunition weapons test at Vieques, including a reexamination
of the adequacy of the measures that are in place to protect
the civilian population during such training;
(2) the Secretary of Defense should not authorize the Navy
to resume live ammunition training on the Island of Vieques,
Puerto Rico, unless and until he has advised the
Congressional Defense Committees of the Senate and the House
of Representatives that--

[[Page S6680]]

(A) there is not available an alternative training site
with no civilian population located in close proximity;
(B) the national security of the United States requires
that the training be carried out;
(C) measures to provide the utmost level of safety to the
civilian population are to be in place and maintained
throughout the training; and
(D) training with ammunition containing radioactive
materials that could cause environmental degradation should
not be authorized.
(3) in addition to advising committees of Congress of the
findings as described in paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Defense should advise the Governor of Puerto Rico of those
findings and, if the Secretary of Defense decides to resume
live-ammunition weapons training on the Island of Vieques,
consult with the Governor on a regular basis regarding the
measures being taken from time to time to protect civilians
from harm from the training.
____

amendment no. 586, as modified

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
Sec. . Of the funds appropriated in Title IV for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation Army, up to $10,000,000 may
be utilized for Army Space Control Technology.
____

amendment no. 590, as modified

At the end of the general provisions, add the following:
Sec. 8109. (a) Of the funds appropriated in title II under
the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'' (other
than the funds appropriated for space launch facilities), up
to $7,300,000 may be available, in addition to other funds
appropriated under that heading for space launch facilities,
for a second team of personnel for space launch facilities
for range reconfiguration to accommodate launch schedules.
(b) The funds set aside under subsection (a) may not be
obligated for any purpose other than the purpose specified in
subsection (a).

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 604

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by the
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and ask unanimous consent for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Domenici,
proposes an amendment numbered 604.

The amendment is as follows:
On page 106, line 4, strike ``The Communications Act'' and
insert ``(a) The Communications Act of 1934''.
On page 107, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
(b)(1) Not later than 15 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget and the Federal Communications
Commission shall each submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report which shall--
(A) set forth the anticipated schedule (including specific
dates) for--
(i) preparing and conducting the competitive bidding
process required by subsection (a); and
(ii) depositing the receipts of the competitive bidding
process;
(B) set forth each significant milestone in the rulemaking
process with respect to the competitive bidding process;
(C) include an explanation of the effect of each
requirement in subsection (a) on the schedule for the
competitive bidding process and any post-bidding activities
(including the deposit of receipts) when compared with the
schedule for the competitive bidding and any post-bidding
activities (including the deposit of receipts) that would
otherwise have occurred under section 337(b)(2) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 337(b)(2)) if not for
the enactment of subsection (a);
(D) set forth for each spectrum auction held by the Federal
Communications Commission since 1993 information on--
(i) the time required for each stage of preparation for the
auction;
(ii) the date of the commencement and of the completion of
the auction;
(iii) the time which elapsed between the date of the
completion of the auction and the date of the first deposit
of receipts from the auction in the Treasury; and
(iv) the dates of all subsequent deposits of receipts from
the auction in the Treasury; and
(E) include an assessment of how the stages of the
competitive bidding process required by subsection (a),
including preparation, commencement and completion, and
deposit of receipts, will differ from similar stages in the
auctions referred to in subparagraph (D).
(2) Not later than October 5, 2000, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget and the Federal
Communications Commission shall each submit to the
appropriate congressional committees the report which shall--
(A) describe the course of the competitive bidding process
required by subsection (a) through September 30, 2000,
including the amount of any receipts from the competitive
bidding process deposited in the Treasury as of September 30,
2000; and
(B) if the course of the competitive bidding process has
included any deviations from the schedule set forth under
paragraph (1)(A), an explanation for such deviations from the
schedule.
(3) The Federal Communications Commission may not consult
with the Director in the preparation and submittal of the
reports required of the Commission by this subsection.
(4) In this subsection, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means the following:
(A) The Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and
Commerce of the Senate.
(B) The Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and
Commerce of the House of Representatives.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 604) was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 576 and 585

Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendments Nos. 576 and 585 and ask unanimous
consent they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent amendments Nos. 576 and 585 be
agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments (Nos. 576 and 585) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is just one remaining item.

Amendment No. 574

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up Senator Hutchison's amendment
No. 574, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 574) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 582

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up Senator Kennedy's amendment No.
582.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lott's name be added as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 582) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Smith of New Hampshire be added as a cosponsor of the Kennedy
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. That is amendment No. 582, which we just adopted.

Amendment No. 548

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, have I called up amendment No. 548?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has not called up that
amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. The amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr.
Gregg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I urge the adoption of that amendment. It has been
cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 548) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 579 Withdrawn

Mr. STEVENS. The amendment No. 579 by Mr. Durbin, has that been
agreed to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that that be withdrawn.

[[Page S6681]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 579) was withdrawn.

Amendment No. 583 Withdrawn

Mr. STEVENS. Amendment No. 583 by Mr. Levin, I ask unanimous consent
that that amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 583) was withdrawn.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Edwards be added as a cosponsor of Biden amendment No. 547.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 587 And 605 Through 607, En Bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now send to the desk the amendment we
had listed as No. 587, which is the remainder of the managers' package.
There is the amendment of Senator Coverdell, a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution; an amendment by myself for Senator Bond concerning
procurement; an amendment pertaining to the McGregor Range Withdrawal
Act in New Mexico for Senator Domenici; an amendment regarding military
land withdrawals for myself. I ask that they be considered en bloc as
the remainder of the managers' package. They should be separately
numbered at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and on
behalf of other Senators, proposes amendments en bloc
numbered 587 and 605 through 607.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 587

(Purpose: To provide funds for the purchase of four (4) F-15E aircraft)

In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
``Sec. . In addition to funds appropriated elsewhere in
this Act, the amount appropriated in Title III of this Act
under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'' is
hereby increased by $220,000,000 only to procure four (4) F-
15E aircraft; Provided, that the amount provided in Title IV
of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' is hereby reduced by
$50,000,000 to reduce the total amount available for National
Missile Defense; Provided further, that the amount provided
in Title III of this Act under the heading ``National Guard
and Reserve Equipment'' is hereby reduced by $50,000,000 on a
pro-rata basis; Provided further, that the amount provided in
Title III of this Act under the heading ``Aircraft
procurement, Air Force'' is hereby reduced by $70,000,000 to
reduce the total amount available for Spares and Repair
Parts; Provided further, that the amount provided in Title
III of this Act under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement,
Navy'' is hereby reduced by $50,000,000 to reduce the total
amount available for Spares and Repair Parts.
____

amendment no. 605

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the
investigation into the June 25, 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers)

At the appropriate place, insert:
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On June 25, 1996, a bomb detonated not more than 80
feet from the Air Force housing complex known as Khobar
Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 members of the
Air Force, and injuring hundreds more;
(2) An FBI investigation of the bombing, soon to enter its
fourth year, has not yet determined who was responsible for
the attack; and
(3) The Senate in S. Res. 273 in the 104th Congress
condemned this terrorist attack in the strongest terms and
urged the United States Government to use all reasonable
means available to the Government of the United States to
punish the parties responsible for the bombings.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that:
(1) The United States Government must continue its
investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing until every
terrorist involved is identified, held accountable, and
punished;
(2) The FBI, together with the Department of State, should
report to Congress no later than December 31, 1999, on the
status of its investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing;
and
(3) Once responsibility for the attack has been established
the United States Government must take steps to punish the
parties involved.

(The text of the amendments (Nos. 606 and 607) is printed in today's
Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments (Nos. 587 and 605 through 607) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Now, are there any further amendments that need to be
disposed of that would qualify?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is none.

strategic airlift

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the question of
strategic airlift. In this bill, the Managers have attempted to
accelerate and increase funding for new modern programs, specifically
the C-17, in lieu of investing scarce resources in older aircraft.
Mr. President, currently C-17s are only assigned to a few bases. We
recognize some members are concerned that by focusing on the C-17,
those strategic airlift bases without C-17s will suffer. I recognize
this legitimate concern and want to ask the Chairman his views on the
basing of C-17 aircraft. Would the Senator agree with me that C-17s
should be assigned to additional bases to replace aging C-141 and C-5
aircraft?
Mr. STEVENS. I fully agree with the Senator's statement. I believe
that C-17s should be used to replace many other strategic aircraft and
that the basing strategy of the Air Force needs to take this into
account.
Mr. INOUYE. Would the Chairman agree that one of the bases that
should have top priority for C-17s is Dover Air Force Base in Delaware?
Mr. STEVENS. I strongly agree. Dover is one of the key supply bases
for all of our operations in Europe and the Middle East. I think it
requires the C-17 as soon as possible. The bill before the Senate adds
multi-year authority to purchase more C-17s and I think both our
Pacific based forces and forces designated to supply Europe need C-17s
to stay modern and ready.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator for his comments. He and I have both
expressed support in the past for getting C-17s assigned to the
Pacific. I am glad to hear him say that Dover Air Force Base is also a
very high priority for C-17s.
I stand ready to work with the Senator on ensuring that our Pacific
bases and Dover Air Force Base receive the C-17s as expeditiously as
possible.

Marshall Foundation and Junior ROTC

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I commend the Chairman for recognizing the
importance of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, JROTC, for
our nation's high schools through his support of the program in this
bill.
I ask if the Chairman is familiar with the George C. Marshall
Foundation, which assists in the training of ROTC cadets nationwide.
This foundation has worked for over 20 years to develop the Marshall
ROTC award and seminar. The Marshall Foundation now wishes to adapt
this leadership program for the JROTC.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my good friend from Hawaii asks an
important question. I am familiar with the Marshall Foundation and am
interested in the prospect of adapting this program to the Junior ROTC.
The committee would be interested in any support the Department of
Defense could provide to this important mission. The Marshall
Foundation has helped to promote ethical leadership for ROTC cadets and
midshipmen, and we all know that any effort to improve citizenship in
the nation's youth should be supported. The Department of Defense
should support the Marshall Foundation.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Chairman.

joint computer-aided acquisition and logistics support program

Mr. BYRD. Will my friend, the distinguished Chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations, who also ably serves as the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Defense, the Senator from Alaska, yield for a colloquy?
Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe the Joint Computer-Aided
Acquisition and Logistics Support, JCALS, program is one of the most
successful joint defense programs in the information technology area.
It was begun in 1991 to automate the acquisition and logistics
processes that support the Defense Department's weapon systems--

[[Page S6682]]

to provide a paperless acquisition and procurement process across all
major defense agencies and commands. For example, at the Defense
Logistics Agency, the Electronic Folderization Contract used to require
126 tons of paper and 100 days for an acquisition cycle. As a direct
result of JCALS, the process is now paperless and the acquisition cycle
takes just 15 days. The DOD estimates that JCALS will save $2.3 billion
through 2014 just by digitizing documents that now are prepared in
paper form.
Is my understanding correct that the FY 2000 Defense Appropriations
bill now before the Senate contains the President's budget request of
$154.1 million for JCALS, with $121.8 million in the Army Operations
and Maintenance account and $32.3 million in the Army Other Procurement
account?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman for his assurances. If I may inquire
further, is it also my understanding that it is the committee's intent
that all of these JCALS funds, including those in the Operations and
Maintenance account allocated for defense information infrastructure
(DII) purposes, are to be spent exclusively on activities directly
related to JCALS?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct that it is our strong intention
that all JCALS funds, including those allocated for so-called defense
information infrastructure, be used exclusively for direct JCALS work,
as provided in the budget request.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman. If he would yield for a final
question, am I correct in my understanding that it is the Committee's
further intent that all JCALS defense information infrastructure funds
provided in the Army Operations & Maintenance account, approximately
$20 million, are to be allocated to the JCALS southeast regional
technical center currently located in Fairmont, West Virginia? I am
advised that to the maximum extent practicable, the contractor plans to
use these funds in Hinton, West Virginia, to further develop JCALS
capabilities to support weapons systems.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from West Virginia is correct.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for his clarification and assistance
with this most important issue.

improved materials powertrain architectures for 21st century trucks

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my request for $8 million for
``Improved HMMWV Research'' under Army RDT&E, ``Combat Vehicle and
Automotive Advanced Technology'' was incorporated in this year's
defense appropriations bill. These funds are intended to initiate a
third phase of the design, demonstration and validation of ultra-light,
steel-based structures and advanced powertrain architectures on high
volume truck platforms.
This research effort, competitively selected by the Army in fiscal
year 1999 subsequent to the submittal of the President's Budget is
titled ``Improved Materials Powertrain Architectures for 21st Century
Trucks,'' IMPACT. The full program will cover light/medium military
payloads up to five tons, including applications with an open or closed
bed configuration currently serviced by several of the Army's HMMWV
variants.
Kentucky is a large commercial producer and Army base user of such
vehicles, and now, through the University of Louisville's involvement
in this effort, it will also play an important research role in their
design and testing. The military should realize significant procurement
and O&M cost savings as a result.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for
correctly clarifying the intent of these funds.

south carolina-new york cancer prevention and telehealth program

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President I would like the attention of my
colleagues to point out a fine program worthy of funding in the Defense
Appropriations bill. the South Carolina-New York Cancer Prevention and
Telehealth Program design will build on the successful prostate cancer
prevention, research, and telemedicine protocol which has already been
established at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) through
the support of the Department of Defense. The current protocol will be
expanded to employ real-time, state-of-the-art telemedicine training
and technology to prevent, detect, and diagnose prostate cancer in our
men in uniform. The program will utilize expertise of leading medical
institutions such as MUSC and Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center to
provide our military servicemen with treatment at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center, Keller Army Community Hospital at the US Military
Academy at West Point, and the Beaufort Naval Hospital.
Mr. INOUYE. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate the distinguished Senator bringing this
program to the Senate's attention. Last Year, I supported including the
MUSC telehealth program in the Department of Defense Appropriations
bill. I agree with the Senator from South Carolina that the continued
expansion of this program should be included in this FY 2000 bill.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. STEVENS. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished Chairman.
Mr. STEVENS. I, too, supported this program, and as you know I am
committed to promoting the best health care possible for the men and
women who serve our country. Briefly Senator, would you explain who the
primary beneficiaries of this program would be?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the Chairman's support and would point out
that past and present cancer research demonstrate that these
telemedicine techniques would be beneficial to military populations.
this telehealth program will replicate the success of the South
Carolina model in New York. Once validation of this has been
accomplished, a much broader application can be made to other types of
cancers at military sites throughout the nation.
Mr. STEVENS. I assure my colleague that we will continue to work
together as this bill moves forward.

Sensor network demonstration

Mr. COVERDELL . Mr. President, as the Chairman knows, the threat of
chemical and biological warfare agent incidents due to accidents or
acts of terrorism is real. I applaud the attention and support provided
by the Committee in S. 1122 to research activities on detection and
response technologies to these threats. It has come to my attention
that interferometric sensors are one of the most promising technologies
for creating relatively inexpensive, small, adaptable, highly sensitive
chemical detectors. Such sensors are ideally suited for deployment in
domestic emergency warning networks when integrated with technologies
such as geographic information systems. Is it the committee's intention
that all promising detection technologies, including interferometric
sensors, be part of the Department's chemical and biological defense
research program?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, the committee directs the Department of Defense to
explore all promising detector technologies including interferometric
sensors.
Mr. COVERDELL. As the committee noted in its report on S. 1122, the
Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force, also known
as CBIRF, has an important responsibility in responding to chemical/
biological threats and that their activities should be fully integrated
with the Department's chemical-biological defense program. It is my
understanding that the Marine Corps is prepared to conduct a
coordinated civilian and military chemical incident demonstration that
would integrate sophisticated sensor technology like that
interferometric sensors I just mentioned, into a detection network. My
area of the country would make an ideal place for such a demonstration
because of the presence of chemical agents and demilitarization
facilities in the region and because the region has been the target of
terrorist activities in the past. Does the committee agree that such a
joint civilian and military exercise is an appropriate part of
developing chemical and biological detection technologies and can be
funded out of the additional funds made available by the committee
under Marine Corps Program Wide Support?

[[Page S6683]]

Mr. STEVENS. The committee agrees that such a demonstration by the
Marine Corps CBIRF unit is an appropriate activity and should be
considered through funding currently available in the bill.

fuel cell power systems

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as you know, fuel and power logistics
support are mission critical elements for the success of the Air Force
``Air Expeditionary Force Deployment'' concept. The Defense Department
has long recognized that fuel cell power systems can reduce the
logistics requirements for batteries and liquid fuels, and improve
operational effectiveness of various military systems. The Air Force
Research Laboratory is the original developer of a polymer membrane
material that can improve performance and significantly lower the cost
of fuel cells. Unfortunately, reductions in the FY 2000 Air Force
Science and Technology budget threaten to terminate Air Force
investments in fuel cell development.
I commend my good friend Chairman Stevens and my good friend and
colleague in the Senate, Senator Inouye, the Ranking Member of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, for the Committee's efforts to
adequately fund the Air Force's Science and Technology programs.
I believe that the Air Force should continue to pursue improvements
to polymer processing technique and to transition the membrane material
for fuel cell production. There are several specific missions and
applications that will benefit from fuel cell technology including Air
Expeditionary Force Deployment (AEFD), Aerospace Ground Equipment
(AGE), Rapid Global Mobility (RGM) and battlefield computers that need
to operate 16 to 32 times longer than heavy battery powered systems. In
addition, future Air Force mission plans are based on space missions at
or above the edge of the earth's stratosphere. In these missions fuel
cells can play a major role in meeting the energy requirements and
improving mission efficiency and effectiveness.
The commercial and military fuel cell market projections are
significant--greater than $100 billion per year by the year 2006.
Seldom is the opportunity for across the board dual use benefit for the
government and commercial sector as vivid as it is for fuel cells.
Chairman Stevens, I'm sure that you will agree that the Air Force
should pursue the prototype scale-up, optimization and full-scale
demonstration of an advanced solid polymer electrolyte fuel cell that
uses PBO based membranes.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy,
for his kind remarks regarding this Committee's work on the FY 2000
Defense Appropriations Bill. I recognize the importance of investing in
logistics technologies that can extend our military capabilities and
can lower the logistics burden for the Air Expeditionary Force
Deployment concept.
I agree with my colleague that development of the PBO fuel cell
membrane material is important. The membrane is a critical component of
the fuel cell, in terms of its performance and cost. Improvements to
the fuel cell membrane will result in direct benefits to our military
readiness.
Mr. STEVENS. I also wish to thank the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts for his kind remarks about this important Defense
spending bill. I share the Senator's concern about levels of investment
by the Air Force in Science and Technology. In the past, wise
investments in Science and Technology resulted in many of the military
systems on which our men and women in the military depend today.
The Air Force Air Expeditionary Force Deployment concept is of great
interest to the Committee. Fuel Cells can reduce the logistics burden
for many military systems used in peace keeping and humanitarian relief
operations, as well as for combat operations. I agree that the Air
Force should consider the development of fuel cell membrane materials.

high security lock program

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that
is both important and timely--the security of our nation's secrets and
classified material.
Two days ago a bipartisan committee released a report detailing a
level of espionage that few Americans expected. American's most vital
nuclear information was stolen from the very places that were supposed
to be the most secure. I am not here to cast blame but, rather, wish to
discuss a program designed to help reduce the risk of this type of
travesty.
The Department of Defense has in place a Federal Specification, FF-L-
2740, which sets the minimum requirements for locks to be used on any
container storing classified materials. The Department, to its credit,
is near completion of a program to retro-fit all containers which do
not currently meet that specification.
However, there remains an area where our classified materials are
vulnerable. As Senator Stevens knows, contractors also store classified
documents throughout the country. Unfortunately, they often do so in
containers bearing locks which do not meet Federal Specification FF-L-
2740. So, I would ask my colleague, Senator Stevens, does he believe
that our nation's classified documents should be properly stored,
whether housed at a governmental agency or contractor's office?
Mr. STEVENS. I respond to the Senator from Kentucky that I absolutely
support the safe storage of all classified documents. For this reason,
I was happy to accommodate your request to include an additional $10
million dollars for the specific purpose of retrofitting security
containers managed by contractors with locks which meet or exceed
federal specification FF-L-2740.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator and applaud his leadership on this
national security issue.
I also want to make the entire Senate aware of a letter written by
the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Senators Shelby and Kerrey wrote to the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence and pointed out
that ``It appears the outdated, non-compliant locks still employed by
Defense contractors cannot adequately prevent surreptitious entry.''
They go on to state that ``FF-L-2740 compliant locks are more cost-
effective than the devices currently in use.'' Finally, they close by
stating that they ``believe DOD should consider directing the retrofit
of Defense contractors' equipment.''
I thank the Senator from Alaska for his support of the $10 million
appropriation for this retrofit program. His leadership will help
prevent the type of espionage that has dominated the news in recent
days.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his comments.

Troops to teachers program

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have been concerned that the extension
and improvement of the Troops-to-Teachers program recently authorized
in the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization bill, S. 1059, Section
579, might not be funded this year. As my colleagues are well aware,
this program will provide excellent assistance to retired military
personnel in obtaining teaching credentials to enable them to make the
transition from the military to the classroom in an expedited way.
Retired military personnel are highly trained professionals,
particularly in scientific and technical fields--an area in which the
nation's school systems are in dire need of trained professionals.
Troops-to-teachers offer stipends to personnel retiring from the
military to obtain teaching credentials or vocational instruction
certificates needed for primary through secondary schools. It's program
by which everyone wins.
I am advised that the President's budget requests $18 million in
funding for FY 2000 under the jurisdiction of the Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations
Committee. Since the Defense Authorization bill would extend Department
of Defense management over the program until it transfers
responsibility to the Department of Education at a date not later than
October 1, 2001, it is essential that the funding be maintained during
this period of transition.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his support for
this initiative which I sponsored in this year's Defense Authorization
bill. I agree that it is a critical program benefiting our nation's
children and

[[Page S6684]]

schools. While I recognize the Senator from New Mexico's concerns, I
believe it is important to remember that the intent of this initiative
is to transfer the Troops to Teachers program to the Department of
Education. Funding to increase and strengthen this important program is
meant to come from the Department of Education, not the Department of
Defense. Furthermore, we agreed to delay transfer of this program from
DOD to DOE until 2001 in order to ensure a smooth transition which
affords minimal disruption to the current program and infrastructure.
Our legislation clearly stipulates that expansion of this program
through an infusion of funds is meant to be done at the Department of
Education with Department of Education funds and not while the program
is being transferred from the DOD. I am committed to working with my
colleagues, including the Senator from New Mexico who is an original
cosponsor of this measure, to ensure that the appropriate funds are
allocated for the Department of Education allowing this agency to
reform and strengthen the program as authorized by the Senate.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I fully support that view and appreciate his leadership
on this important initiative. The Nation's schools and the Nation's
students will be the better for it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

ddg-51 advance procurement funding

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I draw the attention of the distinguished
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee to a funding provision of the
FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill that passed after the Appropriations
Committee had completed its military budget mark-up last month. Title X
of the Authorization Bill allows the Secretary of the Navy to expend no
more than $190 million for the advance procurement of components to
support the planned construction of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class
destroyers in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. The Navy, as the Chairman
knows, has already written to Congress that it will need $371 million
for this purpose by FY 2001, but the obligation of some of this amount
next fiscal year may reduce programmatic risks.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Seapower
Subcommittee for highlighting the DDG-51 advance procurement provision
of the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill. I am aware of this
initiative and strongly support it as a means of providing the
Secretary of the Navy with the flexibility to release up to 50% of the
DDG-51 advance procurement budget in FY 2000 should he determine that
vendor and supplier base stability warrants such expenditures.
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for
his understanding and support of this critical shipbuilding amendment.

procurement of a 20th large, medium speed roll on/roll off vessel

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Marine Corps has an unfunded requirement for one
additional sealift ship to complete their Maritime Prepositioning Force
Enhancement [MPF (E)] program. In recent testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee, Lieutenant General Martin Steele concluded
that ``obtaining a 20th Large, Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off vessel
(LMSR) and converting an LMSR to meet all MPF (E) requirements is the
best solution to our third ship requirement.'' General Steele also
notes that the situation in Kosovo has highlighted the need for the
additional ship. In light of these comments, I believe that it is
essential that Congress fund the procurement of the 20th LMSR.
Mr. INOUYE. The Army has agreed to release an LMSR to the Marine
Corps as long as Congress provides funding in the Fiscal Year 2000
defense budget for the construction of a new ship to replace the one
given to the Marines. This presents us with an excellent opportunity to
fulfill both requirements.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree. Funding the vessel will be a win, win, win
proposition for the military. The Marine Corps will get their third MPF
(E) in a timely manner and at minimal cost, the Army could reach an end
state with all eight ships for prepositioning being identical, and the
new ship would fill a current sealift shortage of 70,000 square feet of
RO/RO in surge sealift. The previous LMSRs have been delivered ahead of
schedule and under budget. Funding the 20th ship at this time will save
taxpayer dollars in the long run, by keeping the production lien open.
Mr. STEVENS. There is a clear military requirement for the
procurement of this ship. Unfortunately, we are working under tight
budget restrictions. Should funds become available, I believe that
Congress should give careful consideration to procuring a 20th LMSR to
meet the Marine Corps' prepositioning needs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their
willingness to work with me on this issue.

Innovative readiness training

Mr. DORGAN. I understand that the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense
Appropriations bill contains $20 million for innovative readiness
training. Under this program, the Department of Defense trains Active
Duty, Guard and Reserve personnel by providing ``real world''
experience here in the US which is similar to what might be encountered
in Overseas Humanitarian and Civic Assistance Programs. Under the
Innovative Readiness Program, the Walking Shield American Indian
Society has provided such training opportunities on American Indian
reservations especially those located in the states of North and South
Dakota and Montana. Without the support and cooperation of the Walking
Shield American Indian Society, many of the engineering and medical
projects conducted by the Department of Defense would not have been
possible. This type of civilian-military program has a very positive
impact on recruiting and retention and should be continued in FY 2000.
I understand that the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2000
Appropriations bill for the Department of Defense notes that the
Committee believes that the Department should expand the scope of
readiness initiatives to include Native American groups, when
appropriate and compatible with mission requirements. Is that correct?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, it is.
Mr. DORGAN. Are you familiar with the work of Project Walking Shield
and the Walking Shield American Indian Society which conduct health,
housing, road construction and other projects suitable for military
training on Indian Reservations?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I am familiar with the work of this excellent group
and the benefits it provides not only to the military but to the tribes
served by its activities.
Mr. DORGAN. Would you agree that this group provides the kinds of
training opportunities envisioned for the Innovative Readiness Program
and it should continue its partnership with the Department and its
support and cooperation in Fiscal Year 2000?
Mr. STEVENS. This type of partnership is one we are trying to
encourage.
Mr. INOUYE. I share my colleague's enthusiasm for this excellent
program.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I agree that the Society's work is what we want to
encourage in this account.

jrotc

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished
Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Defense
Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, in a brief colloquy regarding the Junior
Reserve Officer Training Corps program (JROTC).
As Chairman Stevens may know, the Chicago Public Schools have
developed and implemented a very successful JROTC program. Since the
program began, it has served over 7,500 cadets from all four branches
of the armed services and helped these students achieve better grades,
attendance, conduct, and higher graduation rates. The Chicago Public
Schools are now in need of expanding the successful JROTC program to an
additional 10 high schools, including the Chicago Military Academy at
Bronzeville. And, they are attempting to enter partnerships with all of
the branches of the armed services in order to better serve interested
students.
The Senate bill includes an increase for JROTC of $3.5 million. Is it
the understanding of Chairman Stevens that successful programs like the
one in Chicago should be able to work with the Department of Defense
and the various branches to receive funding?
Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of the fine work being done by the Chicago
Public Schools in the area of JROTC. It is an example of a program that
works. It is

[[Page S6685]]

my understanding that a number of Chicago high schools would like to
include JROTC as part of their curriculum. I believe that the level of
funding for JROTC in the Senate bill would give programs like the one
in the Chicago Public Schools an opportunity to work with the branches
of the armed services in order to expand.

banking services on domestic bases

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Department of Defense is currently
drafting proposed regulations to establish a procedure on how military
bases are to solicit and select bids from financial institutions to
provide banking services on domestic military bases. The regulations
are likely to be issued in June of this year. I understand that the
regulations may establish a presumption in favor of bids received from
local banks over the bids received from any other bank.
It is important that these new regulations not prevent base
commanders from approving a bid from a financial institution that
specializes in providing banking services to military personnel, if its
bid would provide lower cost and more convenient banking services than
a bid submitted by a local bank. There are several financial
institutions in this country that have made it their business to
provide banking services to our armed forces. Their ability to provide
affordable and convenient banking services to our military personnel is
evident from the bids they have won to establish branches at bases
across the country. The Department of Defense should hold an open and
competitive bidding process for the establishment of bank branches on
military installations and should not shut out these specialized banks
from the process.
I do not suggest that the location of a bank not be a consideration
in the selection process. However, it should not be the primary
criterion. The cost and convenience of banking services for our
military personnel should be the overriding factor in determining the
bid that is selected, regardless of whether it is a bid from a local
bank or a specialized military bank. I intend to follow this regulation
closely as it is developed. If it is not written in a manager that best
serves the interests of our military personnel, I may seek a
legislative change of this policy.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague from Missouri for bringing this
issue to the attention of this body. I agree that it is an issue of
concern, and I intend to work with my colleague should a legislative
solution be necessary.

bioenvironmental hazards research

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Defense Department needs the
capability to assess and prevent both the adverse impacts of its
operations and training activities on the environment, as well as the
adverse health effects of contaminated environments on its troops and
employees. One particular area of interest is in bioenvironmental
hazards research, which focuses on the development of biosensors and
biomarkers of exposure for human and ecological system.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Naval Oceanographic Office
(NAVOCEANO) are currently expanding existing research capabilities in
basic and applied environmental sciences of aquatic systems. The
purpose of this research is both to understand the processes of
riverine and gulf systems and to understand the impacts of human
development on estuaries and harbor systems throughout the world. This
work complements other ``brown water'' research initiatives in ONR,
particularly the STRATAFORM program which is looking at issues of sea
level change, climate variability, and riverine runoff.
The joint technology development of the biosensors can be used in
autonomous underwater vehicles, which have direct application in
support of NAVOCEANO military surveys in the Littoral Zones and the
pre-invasion mission to detect mines and obstacles for clearance/
avoidance in the Very Shallow Water (VSW) and Surf Zone (SZ) approaches
to the amphibious landing areas.
Specifically, the biosensor's role during military surveys conducted
by NAVOCEANO will be to collect the natural ``background''
environmental harmful agents to personnel that work in the waters of
the littoral zones. Development of this definitive database will
support the intelligence requirements of the SEAL, EOD, and amphibious
assault teams. Moreover, biosensors will improve the probability of
mission success, endurance and survivability of SEAL swimmers through
detection of harmful agents during the initial environmental surveys.
This health-risk assessment will involve the prediction and monitoring
of waters polluted (either naturally or by intention or both by the
opposing forces) with heavy metals, microbial hazards, chemical
hazards, environmental chemicals, toxic organisms, and areas of outflow
from waste treatment plants prior to the hunt for mines and obstacles.
Congress should encourage the Defense Department and the Navy to
pursue research and development of technologies and methods for better
measuring and understanding the full range of impacts of biological
hazards, including biological warfare, to humans (both military and
civilian) and other living organisms. This will improve our ability to
develop suitable preparations or responses to such hazards.
I would like to ask my colleague from Alaska, would he be willing to
look at this need and, if appropriate, provide additional support for
this research effort before we are asked to give final approval to the
Defense Appropriations bill later this year?
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the senator from Louisiana for raising this
issue. I understand why the Navy has a need to better understand the
aquatic environment into which it will send its personnel and
equipment. I am willing to look at the need to support additional
research in this area and to recommend an appropriate response if one
is indicated.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague and I look forward to working with
him to provide for a strong integrated bioenvironmental hazards
research capability for the Navy.

distance learning

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished
Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Defense
Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, in a brief colloquy regarding distance
learning.
As Chairman Stevens may know, the City Colleges of Chicago Europe has
been providing college degree and certificate programs to the U.S.
military service members and their families in Europe since 1969. In
fact, the City Colleges of Chicago was one of the early pioneers in
distance learning. Today, the program offers over 70 courses on the
Internet and provides interactive television courses via satellite to
U.S. peacekeeping forces stationed in the Sinai Desert, Bosnia, and
Hungary.
The Senate bill includes an increase for distance learning of $45
million. Is it the understanding of Chairman Stevens that successful
programs like the City Colleges of Chicago Europe should be able to
work with the Department of Defense to receive funding?
Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of the Center for Opening Learning at the
City Colleges of Chicago--Harold Washington College. I believe that the
level of funding for distance learning in the Senate bill would give
programs like the Center for Opening Learning an opportunity to work
with the Department of Defense in order to develop additional courses
and enhance new learning technologies that will ultimately help
military students stationed overseas.

electric drive

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to inform the Senate of recent
engineering breakthroughs in the area of naval propulsion. In the past
few years, industry has been working hard to develop electric drive
technology that could be used in a naval vessel. Electric drive would
replace the traditional mechanical drive system, that turns the ship's
propellers through a system of reduction gears, with a system that uses
electricity directly to turn the engines and power the rest of the
ship's systems.
Electric drive offers major benefits over mechanical drive. It is
more efficient in terms of reduced fuel consumption and requires fewer
crew to maintain. It can also generate more power than mechanical
systems. Electric drive is also quieter, making it an attractive option
for submarines, or any vessel concerned with stealth. Industry analysts
believe electric drive could save the Navy $4.3 billion over the life
of the new destroyer program, the DD-21, alone.

[[Page S6686]]

Last year the appropriations committee included a provision in the
Department of Defense Appropriations bill asking the Navy to produce a
report on the potential for electric drive. The Secretary of the Navy
released the study in March, a study that was a powerful endorsement of
the electric drive technology. This report points to electric drive as
a technology that will no doubt have major implications for the future
of naval ship design and engineering. I hope the Navy will continue its
research efforts, and make every effort to include this technology in
the next generation of destroyers, the DD-21. I also hope the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee will maintain its interest in the program
and continue its support.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank Senator Kohl. I agree that the Navy should
continue its research efforts into electric drive, and it should
strongly consider the benefits it could bring to the DD-21 Class of
destroyers. In addition, I am aware that this technology will also
provide important benefits to other future Navy ships such as improved
stealth for future submarines. By developing a modular, common
integrated system, where major system elements can be used on all new
Navy ship designs without any design changes, the Navy can also realize
the multiple benefits of reduced training and logistics costs, as well
as significant production cost savings.
Mr. INOUYE. I concur with the opinions of the chairman and of Senator
Kohl. I consider it essential that our Navy be equipped with the most
advanced technology in their future ships. Since electric drive not
only offers significant operational benefits, but also significant
savings, I most strongly urge the Navy to continue its research work
and make every effort to ensure that this technology is deployed on DD-
21.
Mr. KOHL. As I am sure the chairman and ranking member are aware,
much of the research into this technology has been privately funded.
General Dynamics and Eaton Corporation, among others, have been leaders
in the field of electric drive and their efforts have been crucial to
moving the development along. Their investment has presented the Navy
and Congress with an excellent opportunity to take advantage of
developments financed in the private sector. As the Navy continues to
evaluate electric drive and the DD-21 program I hope the committee will
be ready to capitalize on that investment.
Mr. INOUYE. I agree that this presents us with an excellent
opportunity. The committee will certainly give the Navy consideration
should it make an additional request for funding for electric drive
research.
Mr. STEVENS. The potential of electric drive is certainly worth
exploring, and the committee would be willing to consider a request
from the Navy if they believe it is critical to the DD-21 design
effort.
Mr. KOHL. I thank both Senators for their support of continuing
research and evaluation of electric drive. Senators Stevens and Inouye
have long been known for their clear vision when it comes to supporting
cutting edge military technology, and that reputation is well deserved.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bill
before us today. I would like to sincerely thank Senators Stevens and
Inouye for their strong leadership on the Defense Subcommittee. I also
would like to recognize the hard work and diligence of the staff on
this Committee.
Every year this Committee goes through the exercise of trying to
allocate sufficient funds for the foremost priorities of providing for
our nation's defense. Every year under the current funding constraints
the difficulty of this task increases. This year is no exception.
I would like to briefly mention some of the most important aspects of
our defense addressed in this spending package.
The bill provides $264.7 billion in new spending authority for the
Department of Defense for FY 2000. This is $1.4 billion above the
President's request. This recommendation meets the budget authority and
outlay limits established in the 302(b) allocation.
In parallel with the Defense Authorization bill, the bill funds
almost 1.4 million active duty military personnel. This bill fully
funds a 4.8-percent pay raise for FY2000 and includes more than $1.838
billion in supplemental spending for military pay.
This legislation provides approximately $2.1 billion for overseas
contingency operations in Southwest Asia and Bosnia. I and many others
suspect we'll be forced to pass an additional emergency supplemental
for peacekeeping operations in Kosovo. As Chairman Stevens has already
indicated, it would be premature to speculate about those possible
appropriations at this time.
The bill includes appropriations totaling $92 billion for operation
and maintenance (O&M). This is $626.1 million above the
Administration's request.
The bill supports the establishment of 17 Rapid Assessment and
Initial Detection (RAID) teams. And it provides $1.3 billion for
combating terrorism. Within the funds for combating terrorism, the bill
makes $79.6 million available to provide Army and Air National Guard
full-time personnel to facilitate successful achievement of this
mission.
I fully support the decision to appropriate $475.5 million for Former
Soviet Union Threat Reduction programs. These are important programs
that address one of the most significant proliferation threats we face
today. I also would like to voice my strong support for the decision
that $25 million be used only to support Russian nuclear submarine
dismantlement and disposal activities.
I also sincerely appreciate the Committee's effort to restore some of
the funding required for research, development, test, and evaluation.
The increase of $2.1 billion to the budget request will help prevent
the loss of scientific and technical expertise within our defense
infrastructure. Moreover, this will help ensure that the U.S. maintains
its technological lead in its defense capabilities.
The Committee also funded several items that will ensure that New
Mexico based defense installations and programs remain robust. I would
like to briefly highlight some of the items that received funding in
the appropriations bill.
Directed energy weapons provide the potential of low cost per kill
ratios sought for our missile defense capabilities. In the area of
directed energy, $14 million will go for the High Energy Laser Test
Facility at White Sands, the Army's premier facility for directed
energy programs. There is an additional $15 million for the Tactical
High Energy Laser program. This joint program with Israel is very
important to proving the concept of using lasers to achieve defenses
against short and medium range missiles. After significant cuts and
changes to its development plan last year, the Airborne Laser program
is fully funded at $309 million.
The Committee added $40 million to the Warfighter Information Network
program. Based at Laguna Industries, this program manufactures mobile
command and control headquarters for a digital Army.
An additional $7.5 million was appropriated for modernization of
testing equipment at White Sands Missile Range. Also, $6 million will
be made available for much needed perimeter fencing to prevent further
accidents from unexploded ordnances at the range.
$10 million is included for the Scorpius Low Cost Launch program. A
significant portion of the research and development for this program is
based at Phillips, and testing of the engines and the rocket itself is
conducted at New Mexico Tech and White Sands. This is an important
program both because of the implications to our national security that
arise from exorbitant launch costs and due to potential cost savings to
taxpayers by lower costs for getting payloads into orbit for U.S.
defense programs.
Several other Phillips based programs also received additional
support, including: $5 million for further research and development on
radio frequency weapons, $25 million for military spaceplane efforts,
$5 million for advanced countermeasures using solid state laser
technologies.
At my and other member's request, an additional $10 million of
funding will be made available for research and development of new
technologies to counter chemical and biological

[[Page S6687]]

threats. $4 million in support was included for the blast mitigation
research of both military and nonmilitary explosives at New Mexico
Tech.
Lastly, $10 million in additional funding was added for the Theater
Air Command and Control Simulation Facility (TACCSF) at Kirtland Air
Force Base. This will help a great deal in making this facility the
world class training facility necessary to maintain combat readiness of
our Air Force in the coming years.
I believe this bill demonstrates the balance required to best fund
our armed forces under current fiscal constraints. Again, I am pleased
by the hard work of my colleagues on this Committee and express, once
again, my admiration for the hard work of Chairman Stevens and Senator
Inouye in achieving an appropriate spending package for our military
men and women.

ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ASSESSMENT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to address the issue of
Chemical Weapons Demilitarization. I do so in order to point out that
the Department of Defense has consistently ignored Congressional
directive and intent.
In 1996, I offered and the Senate accepted an amendment which
directed the Army to identify and demonstrate technologies other than
baseline incineration which could be utilized in the destruction of
America's chemical weapons stockpile. This program, which came to be
known as the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment, or ACWA, enjoyed
tremendous inititial success. Through the involvement of the DoD, the
Army, technology providers and citizens advocacy groups--disparate
interests, indeed--agreement was reached on how the process should
proceed as well as the criteria for success. It is also critical to
point out that one area of consensus was that the timely destruction of
the stockpiles remained a top priority. Nobody involved in this process
advocates unnecessary delay in efforts to comply with the Chemical
Weapons Convention 2007 deadline. Certainly, I never viewed my efforts
as anything other than a safeguard to ensure that once the destruction
of the stockpile located in Kentucky began, only the safest method
available was utilized.
Unfortunately, this is where the good news ends.
After rigorous evaluation and discussions, the decision was announced
that six separate methods met the technological criteria necessary in
order to be tested as alternatives to baseline incineration. These six
were the only proposals of the almost 20 originally submitted for
consideration which were deemed capable of producing safer methods.
Unfortunately the Army and the Department of Defense made the decision
to move forward and evaluate only three of the qualified technologies,
leaving three untested. Further, this decision was made not on the
basis of what was technologically feasible, but solely on the basis on
what was cost-efficient. Not in the interests of finding the safest
manner available to destroy the weapons, but on satisfying the minimum
requirements so that the incineration could continue regardless of the
results of the testing.
To help ease this budget difficulty, I offered and the Senate
accepted, an amendment to the FY99 Department of Defense Appropriations
Bill which gave the Secretary of Defense the Authority to reprogram up
to $25 million in order to fully test each of the technologies which
met the criteria for selection as potential alternatives to
incineration. This provision was included in the final version of the
Defense bill, and was eventually signed into law.
Mr. President, despite this clear expression of Congressional intent,
the Army, the Department and the Administration have consistently
refused to allocate sufficient funds to complete the testing. As a
result, the ACWA program is in danger of losing its credibility--the
very quality that led to its initial successes. If the testing of the
three technologies does not produce a viable alternative to
incineration, then the legitimate question will be posed, ``What about
the additional proposals which were viewed to have merit as
alternatives to incineration?''
Not wishing to answer that question, I worked to encourage the
administration to agree that further testing was cost effective and in
the best interests of the country. Their responses, which I will submit
for the Record, professed their strong support for the goals of the
ACWA program, but claimed that the budget was simply too tight for the
Department to reprogram funds for additional testing.
With all due respect, that contention is simply false. The truth is
that the Department of Defense and the Army made a decision years ago
that they would eliminate chemical weapons using incineration and have
resisted considering other options since that time.
This year's report, Senate Report 105-53, states that ``the Committee
is concerned with the lack of oversight afforded the Chemical
Demilitarization Program within the executive branch.''
Further the Report states:

In a review of the program's funding, the Committee
discovered that funds had systematically been obligated
without being expended and in some instances funds were
unobligated. Rather than facing a shortfall in funding, the
program had over $200,000,000 of Operation and Maintenance
funds unexpended at the end of fiscal year 1998. In light of
the unobligated and unexpended balances available to the
Department, the program growth in the budget request is not
justified.

Mr. President, this language is a stinging indictment of the
Department's mismanagement of the Chemical Demilitarization program.
Further it demonstrates clearly that there is no truth to the assertion
that there were not sufficient funds available to allow for the
demonstration of all viable alternatives to baseline incineration.
I intend to continue to press the Army to test all six technologies
so that the citizens who live near our stockpiles may be assured that
only the safest methods available are employed to destroy chemical
weapons.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Deputy Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, December 22, 1998.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: This responds to your interest in
the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) Program. I
regret any misunderstanding we may have had about responding
to your concerns on this matter.
As you know, Congress has directed the Department to
demonstrate and evaluate at least two alternatives to
baseline incineration for the disposal of assembled chemical
munitions. The ACWA Program actually identified six
technologies, exceeding the original requirement, but was
able to fund only three--the three that were ranked as the
best value to the U.S. Government. We would like to go
further, but the entire amount appropriated for support of
ACWA in the Fiscal year 1999 Defense Appropriations Act will
be required to complete demonstration testing and conduct a
non-government independent evaluation of cost and schedule
with regard to implementing an alternative technology.
The Act also provided authority to use up to an additional
$25 million of the funds appropriated for the Chemical
Demilitarization program in order to complete ACWA
demonstrations. This language, however, addressed authority
only; no additional funds were appropriated. While we will
vigorously press for savings in the Chemical Demilitarization
program, at this point, we are unable to exercise
reprogramming authority without jeopardizing our ability to
meet the Chemical Weapons Convention mandate of April 2007
for destruction of our chemical weapons stockpile. If,
however, additional funding becomes available in the coming
fiscal year to support the ACWA Program, we plan to expand
the scope of demonstration testing beyond the three
technologies already programmed.
Successful disposal of the chemical munitions stockpile and
compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention are among our
highest national security priorities. The ACWA Program is a
critical component of this effort. I want to thank you for
your support of this important program. Again, I regret any
misunderstanding concerning my response to your interest in
this matter.
Sincerely,
John Hamre.
____

Under Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, September 18, 1998.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: This is in reply to your letter to
Secretary Cohen regarding the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment (ACWA) program. In that letter you asked about the
Department's plans for testing of alternative technologies.

[[Page S6688]]

As you may be aware, the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997 mandated that we
identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to
the baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of
assembled chemical munitions. In selecting three technologies
to proceed to final demonstration testing we have exceeded
that requirement. We recognize the intent of the Senate as
evidenced in Sec. 8143 of the Senate passed FY 1999 DoD
Appropriation Bill. If additional funding becomes available
in the coming fiscal year to support the ACWA program, we
plan to reexamine the scope of demonstration testing.
A similar letter has been sent to your colleagues who
joined you in writing to Secretary Cohen regarding this
issue.
Sincerely,
William J. Lynn.
____

Executive Office of the President

Washington DC, March 22, 1999.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: Thank you for your letter about the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program. The
President requested that I respond directly to your letter.
The Administration shares your goals of safely disposing of
our chemical weapons stockpile and has been supportive of
your efforts to find environmentally sound alternatives to
the baseline incineration system for destroying these
chemical weapons.
As you know, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997 created
the ACWA program and provided $40 million ``to identify and
demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the baseline
incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled
chemical munitions.'' In time, the ACWA program identified
six alternatives. Due to limitations of funds, only three
alternative technologies were selected for further
development and testing, one more than required by the 1977
Act. To fund the third alternative, funds had to be
reprogrammed from the baseline Chemical Demilitarization
program, which supports a safe and effective disposal process
in order to fund research into an additional system that may
or may not be selected at a future date for implementation.
As you pointed out in your letter, the FY 1999 Defense
Appropriations Act provides authority to reprogram up to $25
million from the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense account to fund the demonstration of alternatives to
baseline incineration. Unfortunately, the Act also reduced
the President's request for the account by $78 million. This
reduction will severely challenge the Army's ability to
successfully destroy this Nation's chemical stockpile by
April 29, 2007, as required by the Chemical Weapons
Convention. As a result of the $78 million reduction, to date
we have been unable to identify available funds in the
Chemical Demilitarization program to reprogram to ACWA for
additional demonstration projects.
The Administration's policy is to proceed as quickly as
possible with the safe destruction of the Nation's chemical
stockpile, while at the same time seeking even safer and more
effective methods. The National Academy of Sciences concluded
in its 1994 study that the baseline incineration system is a
safe and effective disposal process for the stockpile. The
Administration will continue to seek even safer methods. We
look forward to working with you to that end.
Sincerely,
Jacob J. Lew,
Director.

The Gallo Research Center at the University of California, San
Francisco

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to see language in the
Department of Defense Appropriations report which recommends $300
million for medical research and development efforts to be used for
life-saving medical projects, including breast cancer and prostate
cancer research.
Of the $300 million, the Committee recommends that $50 million is to
be made available for peer reviewed medical research grants and
activities. Further, the Committee directs that the Secretary of
Defense, in conjunction with the service of the Surgeons General,
establish a process to select medical research projects of clear
scientific merit and direct relevance to military health. One of the
projects listed as having scientific merit and direct relevance to
military health is that of alcohol abuse and prevention research.
I believe that alcohol abuse and prevention efforts must be supported
by Congress. We have all been witness to broken families, broken lives
and lost opportunities attributed to alcoholism. To that end, I would
like to share with my colleagues the promising research being conducted
to combat alcoholism at the Gallo Center in San Francisco, California.
The mission of the Gallo Center is to identify genes that control
brain responses to alcohol and other addicting agents and then develop
new drugs to treat addiction. It is the only alcoholism research
program in the country that is based with a department of neurology.
The Gallo Center is fully equipped for research in cellular, molecular,
and behavioral neuroscience and also invertebrate and human genetics.
I join my colleague, Senator Feinstein, in her request for $11
million from the Medical Research activities budget in the Department
of Defense Appropriations bill to support alcoholism research at the
Gallo Center located at the University of California, San Francisco
Medical School. I believe that the important work conducted at the
Gallo Center qualifies under the medical research project directive as
recommended by the Committee, and that it should be funded from the $50
million already made available for peer reviewed medical research
grants and activities.
The Department of Defense Health Program has appropriately identified
alcoholism research as a priority area. I believe that providing $11
million from the Medical Research activities budget in the Department
of Defense Appropriations bill for the Gallo Research Center at the
University of California, San Francisco would prove to be a worthwhile
investment in our efforts to learn more about alcoholism, it causes,
and what we can do to fight it.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, page 95 of the report accompanying S.
1122 contains language that encourages the Army to include Rock Island
Arsenal in all aspects of the development, design and production of the
Lightweight 155mm Towed Howitzer Program. This directive is problematic
for many reasons. If followed, it would undermine industrial
competition and conflict with the fair and competitive process that has
occurred to date. It would preclude further competition for the 155mm
Towed Howitzer and all future towed artillery programs. And the report
language would potentially contradict several statutes, including the
Army Industrial Facilities Act, the Working Capital Funds Act, and the
Arsenal Act.
The contract for this program has already been awarded on a
competitive basis. Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering LTD developed
the original design and owns background intellectual property in the
current Lightweight 155mm system. Attempting now to direct the work to
Rock Island would potentially detract from work done at Picatinny
Arsenal in my home state of New Jersey, as well as potentially create
all sorts of legal fights. While Rock Island should be encouraged to
compete for a subcontract, all future awards should be made on a
``best-value'' basis. Any legislative micromanagement that compromises
the competitive bidding process is inconsistent with legal and economic
prudence. I urge such ill-advised acquisition guidance to be dropped
when the Senate convenes with the House to conference this bill.

Mc Gregor Range Withdrawal

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my amendment to the Defense
Appropriations bill would renew the withdrawal of the McGregor Range
for use by the U.S. Army.
McGregor Range is one of six military parcels withdrawn from public
domain in 1986. These parcels comprise nearly 30 percent of the
Department of Defense's 25 million acres. The lands will revert to the
public domain in 2001 unless Congress passes new legislation.
This amendment is specific to the 608,000 acres utilized by Fort
Bliss and does not address any of the other renewals for other military
installations.
McGregor Range comprises nearly 700,000 of Fort Bliss's 1.12 million
acres. The Fort Bliss garrison is adjacent to El Paso, Texas, but the
McGregor Range is located entirely in New Mexico.
Sections of McGregor are used for cattle grazing and other
nonmilitary purposes such as hunting and recreation. The Bureau of Land
Management manages the cattle-grazing program through close
coordination with the Army. These cooperative efforts provide for
efficient use of the lands as well as effective stewardship of the
natural resources located there.
Recent studies of this issue provides a succinct summary of the most
relevant policy issues surrounding the renewal of withdrawal for
military purposes. Mr. President, allow me to briefly list the major
findings of this study:
Fort Bliss has a critical role as a national center for air defense
and

[[Page S6689]]

McGregor Range is essential for fulfilling that role;
McGregor Range is the only range in the United States capable of
training America's air and missile defense forces. Because all CONUS
Patriot forces are stationed at Ft. Bliss they depend on McGregor for
the training needed to ensure their full readiness prior to deployment.
Successive BRAC rounds have reduced the capability of the DOD to
support both current and future training and testing requirements with
the available infrastructure. Range complexes such as McGregor and
White Sands Missile Range are critical now and will become more
critical in the future as weapons systems and doctrine evolve which
allow greater stand-off distances and mobility in the future. These
capabilities are wasted if we fail to train our forces to the maximum
extent of their capabilities.
McGregor Range supports the U.S. Air Force in the training activities
at Holloman Air Force Base.
The combined space of McGregor Range and White Sands can be leveraged
to accommodate the needs of a more modern Army. Currently, the range
supports specialized test operations by White Sands Missile Range which
require additional safety buffer zones to ensure public safety.
Military training and testing requirements for McGregor Range are
foreseen for at least the next 50 years based on weapons systems that
are either currently fielded, such as Patriot, or are planned for
fielding in the near future. Additionally, emerging doctrine and weapon
systems part of the Army-After-Next will require large areas to fully
train soldiers in the employment of these weapons systems. If the
requirement is known for the next fifty years, then it is unclear why a
shorter withdrawal period is reasonable.
The BLM's 1986 Wilderness Study made a ``No Wilderness''
recommendation regarding the Culp Canyon WSA. This recommendation was
``based on the low-quality wilderness value of the WSA and the
potential conflicts with associated military use of the area.'' Without
this portion of the range, the Army's ability to conduct Patriot and
related air and missile defense training will be reduced by
approximately one-third.
There is strong regional support for this renewal. 176 public
comments expressed support for the Army's preferred alternative. An
additional 26 expressed support for one of the other alternatives.
The Army's proposal will continue historic non-military uses of the
range which include livestock grazing and hunting for 50 years.
The Army has already met its obligations with respect to performing
an Environmental Impact Statement, holding public hearings, and
submission of request for renewal to the Administration.
In sum, all of the legal requirements set forth by Congress have been
met. Congressional action is now required to ensure that the Army
retains its ability to test, simulate, and train for missions at Fort
Bliss. Allowing the Army's continued access to these lands is critical
to adequate training and readiness now and in the future.
One of the fundamental duties of Congress is the maintenance of the
national defense. Nothing is more fundamental than the provision of
training ranges, such as McGregor, in maintaining a trained and
prepared military.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do not object to my colleague's
amendment to renew the public land withdrawal for the McGregor Range in
New Mexico, however, I believe the preferable course of action is to
follow the process the Senate agreed to just last month, and allow the
Defense and Interior Departments the opportunity to jointly develop a
legislative proposal.
The McGregor Range in southern New Mexico was one of several military
ranges that was last withdrawn for military purposes in 1986 under
Public Law 99-606. The withdrawal period for McGregor and the other
ranges is for 15 years, and does not expire until November, 2001.
Last month, language was included in the Committee-reported version
of S. 1059, the DOD Authorization bill, that would have extended public
land withdrawals at four of the six military installations covered by
Public Law 99-606: the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in Arizona,
the McGregor Range in New Mexico, and Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely
in Alaska. During the consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, I
offered an amendment which replaced the withdrawal language with a
``sense of the Senate'' statement urging the Administration to submit
legislative proposals for these four military withdrawals by July 1. I
understand that both the Defense and Interior Departments are currently
working on such a legislative proposal and that we still anticipate
being able to incorporate legislative language in the conference report
for the DOD Authorization bill.
With respect to the proposed amendment for the McGregor Range, I want
to be clear that I recognize the critical role the range serves for our
national defense training needs and I support their continued use for
these purposes. In my opinion, however, I think it makes much more
sense, and will result in less controversy in the long run, if we allow
the normal process for the renewal of the public land withdrawals to be
completed. In short, this means allowing the Interior Department the
opportunity to review the Army's environmental impact statement, which
I understand has only just been completed, and that following that
review, the Administration has the opportunity to submit its
legislative proposal for our consideration.
The McGregor withdrawal encompasses approximately 608,000 acres of
land in New Mexico. The renewal of the withdrawal and future uses of
the range are of interest not only to the Army, but also to area
residents and other public land users. Although the amendment is not
clear, I am concerned that it materially changes some of the withdrawal
terms from the 1986 Act.
For example, the 1986 Act authorized a withdrawal period of 15 years.
This amendment provides for a 50-year withdrawal. I understand that the
military desires a longer withdrawal period than the current 15 years,
and I am not opposed to considering a longer term. But meaningful
periodic reviews and environmental analyses serve an important purpose.
They provide local communities with an opportunity to raise issues
about the way these lands are managed, and they allow us to consider
new land management issues which may not have been present when the
original withdrawals were made. I think it is a mistake to
significantly change this policy without at least the opportunity for
public hearings.
Another aspect of the amendment that seems to be a significant
departure from past management practices is a requirement that the
Secretary of the Army manage the withdrawn lands. Under current law,
the lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management for a variety of
multiple use purposes, subject to the limitations of the military uses.
For example, the 1986 Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
manage the lands in a manner permitting the continuation of grazing,
the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat, the control of
predators, recreation, and the suppression of brush fires.
This amendment now provides for management by the Army, under the
terms of a new agreement to be developed between the Army and the
Interior Department, which is to provide for the proper management and
protection of natural and cultural resources. It may very well be that
such an agreement will adequately provide for other non-military uses
and protect sensitive natural and cultural resources. However, there is
no requirement that the lands be managed under existing law, including
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The amendment also appears
to leave very important land management questions unanswered. For
example, the BLM currently manages the Culp Canyon Wilderness Study
Area within the McGregor Range, as well as an ``Area of Critical
Environmental Concern.'' Under this amendment, is the Army required to
manage those areas to the same degree of protection as required of the
Secretary of the Interior? Again, at the very least, I think it is
important that all interested parties should be heard on these issues
before we decide how to proceed.
Mr. President, I would like to conclude by again urging the
Administration to expeditiously complete its legislative proposal by
the end of this month. Although I would prefer to hear

[[Page S6690]]

the Administration's proposal, I am committed to seeing that the
McGregor range renewal is enacted this year. If, however, a timely
proposal is submitted by the Administration, I hope that we will be
able to include appropriate legislative language to renew the
withdrawal for McGregor and the other affected ranges as part of the
conference report for the DOD Authorization bill.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
FY 2000 appropriations bill. This legislation demonstrates a strong
commitment to America's defense and to our ability to meet future
military challenges. I especially thank and acknowledge the efforts of
the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the
Defense Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, the distinguished ranking member
of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and the ranking member
of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, for their work and support
of this legislation.
I am particularly pleased that the committee included $1 million for
exciting new technology designed to make landmine detection safer and
more effective. This technology, known as nonlinear technique for
landmine detection, has been developed by engineers at the Davidson
Laboratory of the Stevens Institute in my home State of New Jersey.
This new method for detection of mines and other buried man-made
objects has been devised in such a way as to differentiate between
rocks, other solids and actual landmines through acoustics. This
technology will increase our ability to meet our international
obligations and dramatically improve the safety and security of our
armed forces.
I also express my support for the committee's inclusion of an
additional $121 million for the production of 11 new Black Hawk
helicopters. A coalition of eight companies in my state manufacture
critical components for the Black Hawk, which is the Army's premier
tactical transport helicopter. First produced in 1977, it is used for
combat assault, combat re-supply, battlefield command and control,
electronic warfare and medical evacuation. Currently, the Black Hawk is
providing critical support functions for our armed services in Kosovo.
This funding will ensure that our military has the ability to continue
its current operations and sustain readiness for future dangers.
I am also extremely pleased that this legislation represents a
significant increase in our commitment to the Defense Health Program.
The inclusion of $175 million for the breast cancer program, and the
$75 million for the prostate cancer research programs, has special
significance for the constituents I represent. New Jersey's breast
cancer incidence rate is among the highest in the Nation; and, more
than 1,400 of the 6,900 New Jersey men diagnosed with prostate cancer
die each year. I am confident that these funding initiatives will bring
us much closer to finding answers for the men and women of New Jersey
and nationwide, who suffer from these devastating diseases.
Additionally, the pay raise of almost 5 percent for all members of
the military included in this bill deals with serious concerns I have
had regarding quality of life and morale of our soldiers. By addressing
the inequities between military pay and civilian wages, this pay raise
will go a long way toward reaching our goals of retaining highly
trained personnel and assist in our ability to achieve recruiting
goals.
Finally, while I am supportive of these important components of this
legislation, I am extremely concerned with the committee's
recommendation that the Army and the Marine Corps develop a plan to
include the Rock Island Arsenal in all aspects of howitzer development,
design, and production for the Lightweight 155mm.
Currently, critical research and development functions for the
howitzer take place under the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments
Command, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. The howitzer, as well as other important
military systems, require sophisticated software which may only be
fielded by Picatinny Arsenal. If the committee's proposal is
implemented, I fear that Rock Island Arsenal will ultimately assume
important research and development responsibilities for the howitzer
for which they have never before played a role and may be unqualified
to preform. I encourage the committee to strongly consider these
concerns which have similarly been expressed by the Army and Marine
Corps.
Mr. President, I again thank Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Byrd,
and Ranking Member Inouye for their commitment and attention to these
important issues.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong
opposition to the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations
Act.
Mr. President, it is almost painful to witness the way in which this
Senate is abdicating its responsibility to scrutinize the Department of
Defense. During debate on the fiscal year 2000 DoD authorization bill,
we had exactly two amendments that called a multi-billion dollars
weapons system into question. On this appropriations bill, we had
exactly two amendments worthy of extensive debate. Two amendments, Mr.
President. Here we have a defense policy that perpetuates a Cold War
mentality into the 21st century, and the Senate has no questions.
Mr. President, on the heels of an authorization bill that exemplifies
the Pentagon's utter failure to adapt its priorities to the post-Cold
War era, the American taxpayer is left holding the bag paying for the
mess. There are a number of theories that attempt to explain the
difficulties faced by the armed services. There is a dearth of
thoughtful solutions. The general consensus is that if we pour enough
money into the Defense Department, the problems will go away.
Unfortunately, effective problem-solving doesn't work that way.
The DoD has a weapons modernization strategy that makes it impossible
to buy enough new weapons to replace all the old weapons on a timely
basis, even though forces are much smaller than they were during the
Cold War and modernization budgets are projected to return to Cold War
levels. Consequently, the ratio of old weapons to new weapons in our
active inventories will grow to unprecedented levels over the next
decade.
Subsequently, that modernization strategy is driving up the operating
budgets needed to maintain adequate readiness, even though the size of
our forces is now smaller than it was during the Cold War. Each new
generation of high complexity weapons costs much more to operate than
its predecessor, and the low rate of replacement forces the longer
retention and use of older weapons. Thus, as weapons get older, they
become more expensive to operate, maintain, and supply.
Couple this with an accounting system that has failed each and every
GAO audit since enactment of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,
and you have a poorly managed, misguided strategy inviting disaster.
Instead of thoughtfully addressing these shortcomings, Mr. President,
we proceed to spend the American taxpayers' money as we have in the
past. No change. We continue to promote bigger and more expensive
weapons systems at the expense of our men and women in uniform. No
matter how much money we throw at this problem, we won't find a
solution if we stay on this track.
For the past year, Mr. President, we've heard the call to address our
military's readiness crisis from virtually all quarters. We were told
that foremost among the readiness shortfalls were operations and
maintenance as well as pay and allowances accounts.
Just last year, there was a virtual consensus that the armed services
were facing a readiness crisis. Last September, the Joint Chiefs
testified that there was a dangerous readiness shortfall. General Henry
Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, claimed that ``without relief,
we will see a continuation of the downward trends in readiness . . .
and shortfalls in critical skills.'' Army Chief of Staff General Dennis
Reimer stated that the military faces a ``hollow force'' without
increased readiness spending. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay
Johnson asserted that the Navy has a $6 billion readiness deficit. So
it went for all the services.
To address the readiness shortfall, Mr. President, the Congress
passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The bill was
well-intentioned in its support for the efforts of our men

[[Page S6691]]

and women in uniform. Unfortunately, something happened on the way to
the front lines. The bill spent close to $9 billion, but just $1
billion of it went to address the readiness shortfall.
We added $1 billion for ballistic missile defense. The Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization still hasn't spent all that money, yet
we've added another $3.5 billion for the BMDO in this bill. Last year's
supplemental also added billions to what has become an expected
emergency, that being our operations in Bosnia. That other unexpected
emergency, the year 2000, received a billion dollars. And so it went.
What happened to readiness?
One provision in this bill casts a pall over the readiness needs of
our service members and highlights, in microcosm, the Defense
Department's misguided priorities. This appropriations bill will spend
upwards of $40 million in the next fiscal year, and perhaps as much as
half a billion dollars over the next ten years on luxury jets for four-
star generals. Am I missing something or is this absurd? We actually
have more than 11,000 troops that qualify for food stamps and DoD can
justify spending tens of millions of dollars next year for luxury jets.
How can this be?
Mr. President, one concern goes to the heart of the entire debate on
our national defense. The underlying question is this: Why should the
Pentagon receive billions dollars more in funding when it has failed
utterly to manage its budget? Throwing good money after bad isn't
tolerated at other departments and agencies. Why is it tolerated with
DoD?
Defense Week reported just yesterday that the Navy has lost track of
almost $1 billion worth of ammunition, arms and explosives.
Additionally, DoD has yet to pass an audit. A 1998 GAO audit couldn't
match more than $22 billion in DoD expenditures with obligations; it
could not find over $9 billion in inventory; and it documented millions
in overpayments to contractors. GAO concluded that ``no major part of
DoD has been able to pass the test of an independent audit.''
Mr. President, this bill also has some painful implications for other
federal programs. Essentially, we are spending tax dollars on a
wasteful and misguided defense strategy while domestic programs face
steep spending cuts in the upcoming fiscal year.
The bill exceeds the Pentagon's request by $1.4 billion. It spends
$1.4 billion more than the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe is sufficient
to meet our national defense needs. And that additional money is coming
out of vital domestic programs that were already facing spending cuts.
Mr. President, I cannot vote to increase the defense budget by tens
of billions of dollars, including tens of millions for corporate jets,
while the budgets for veterans health care, education, agriculture and
other programs are facing deep cuts. Supporting the Defense
Department's misguided spending priorities is not synonymous with
supporting the military.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 1122, the Defense
appropriations bill for FY 2000. As scored with adjustments, the
pending bill provides $264.9 billion in total budget authority and
$176.9 billion in new outlays for the Department of Defense and related
activities. When adjusted for outlays from prior years and other
actions, the bill totals $263.9 billion in BA and $254.6 billion in
outlays.
There are some major elements to this bill that are important for the
Senate for review.
The bill is consistent with the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement
and the discretionary spending cap. In fact, in both budget authority
and outlays the bill is below the amount that the Congressional Budget
Resolution for fiscal year 2000 would contemplate for the Defense
Subcommittee's allocation. This is in recognition of the fact that
readiness items originally planned for fiscal year 2000 were
accelerated into fiscal year 1999 in the 1999 Emergency Kosovo
Supplemental, which the President has signed into law.
As a result, for budget authority, this bill is $3.1 billion below
the allocation originally contemplated for it; for outlays it is $2.2
billion below. Because of this situation, the allocation approved by
the Senate Appropriations Committee for defense has been reduced and
held for subsequent reallocation.
In addition, this year the defense budget is once again confronted
with a serious mismatch between the DOD/OMB and the CBO estimates of
the outlays needed to execute the programs in the budget request. CBO's
estimate of outlays was $10.5 billion higher than OMB and DOD's
estimate.
Because the President's proposed budget was over the discretionary
cap by such a larch amount, compensating for the OMB and DOD undercount
of outlays would require very large reductions in manpower,
procurement, or readiness, or all three. Cuts like that are simply not
acceptable, especially in view of the conflict in the Balkans. To
enable this bill to be considered on a basis commensurate with the
President's request, an outlay adjustment of that size is included in
the scoring of this bill.
The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has assured me that this
action reduces the 2000 outlays shortage to manageable dimensions and
avoids the negative effect on readiness or modernization that would
otherwise be necessary.
I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption. I want to
compliment the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on his very
skillful handling of this important legislation and for his
statesmanlike approach to some serious and troubling issues in this
year's defense budget.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee
table displaying the budget impact of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1122, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 2000 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Crime Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............. 263,722 ...... 209 263,931
Outlays...................... 254,409 ...... 209 254,618
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............. 263,722 ...... 209 263,931
Outlays...................... 254,409 ...... 209 254,618
1999 level:
Budget authority............. 250,330 ...... 197 250,527
Outlays...................... 248,310 ...... 197 248,507
President's request:
Budget authority............. 264,896 ...... 209 265,105
Outlays...................... 258,610 ...... 209 258,819
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............. ......... ...... ......... .........
Outlays...................... ......... ...... ......... .........
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
TO:

Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............. ......... ...... ......... .........
Outlays...................... ......... ...... ......... .........
1999 level:
Budget authority............. 13,392 ...... 12 13,404
Outlays...................... 6,099 ...... 12 6,111
President's request:
Budget authority............. (1,174) ...... ......... (1,174)
Outlays...................... (4,201) ...... ......... (4,201)
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 263,722 ...... 209 263,931
Outlays...................... 254,409 ...... 209 254,618
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the able managers of this bill,
Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, for producing a balanced and
comprehensive bill that addresses some of the most pressing needs of
the U.S. military.
Together with the emergency supplemental spending bill that Congress
sent to the President last month, and the Defense authorization bill
that the Senate passed prior to Memorial Day, this Defense
appropriations bill marks a major commitment to our men and women in
uniform by funding a wide array of vital defense programs. In acting
quickly and decisively on these three bills, the Senate has sent a
strong message of support to the military, particularly to those forces
currently engaged in the air war over Yugoslavia. That support is
richly deserved. Once again, America's military forces have
demonstrated their superior skills and leadership in the Balkan
conflict. We are indebted to them for their service and dedication to
their country.
This appropriations bill represents a strong effort on the part of
the managers to balance the very real needs of the Defense Department
against the pressing needs of other domestic programs in the budget.
This is a tough year for the appropriators. We are working under very
tight budget caps to meet a whole host of escalating infrastructure
needs--both physical and human--in this nation. Senator Stevens was
able to trim slightly more than $3 billion from defense spending to
allocate to other programs without damaging the integrity of this bill.
Even so, it will be difficult to pass all 13 appropriations bills for
Fiscal Year

[[Page S6692]]

2000 within the constraints of the current budget caps. I do not know
what the resolution to this problem will be, but I commend Senator
Stevens for the steps he has taken so far, and I look forward to
working with him on the remaining appropriations bills.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, inadvertently, at my request, the Senate
adopted the Domenici amendment twice. I ask unanimous consent that it
be in order to vitiate the adoption of amendment No. 604. It is a
duplicate of amendment No. 577.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. The bill is ready to be advanced to third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be read for the third time.
The bill (S. 1122) was read the third time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I once again thank all Members of the
Senate for their cooperation with us in handling this very
controversial bill. I thank my constant companion and good friend, the
cochairman of our Defense Subcommittee. I yield to him for any comment
he might might make before I ask for the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I think you have once again established a new record.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), is
absent due to a death in the family.
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 4, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 158 Leg.]

YEAS--93

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--4

Boxer
Feingold
Kohl
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--3

Biden
Crapo
McCain
The bill (S. 1122), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I congratulate the bill managers. The
Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii always do a magnificent
job. This is not a world record for them, but it certainly is a very
fine accomplishment. I am very pleased that we have passed this
Department of Defense appropriations bill in such good order. I
congratulate the chairman for his leadership.
Mr. STEVENS. Once again, I thank all Members of the Senate and staff
for handling this defense appropriations bill. There is a war going on.
We thought it essential we act as expeditiously as possible. We thought
it was necessary for us to defend the Senate's position to the fullest
extent possible. That unanimous consent request is already in place.
Parliamentary inquiry: Is there anything else I need to do in order
to handle it according to the prior agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this time.

____________________