[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 139 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12565-S12575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to the 
consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2561, which 
the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 
     2561, have agreed to recommend and do

[[Page S12566]]

     recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a 
     majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 8, 1999.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 50 
minutes of debate equally divided, with an additional 10 minutes under 
the control of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, yesterday the House passed the conference 
report which is before the Senate which accompanies H.R. 2561, which is 
the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. It 
passed by a vote of 372-55. All 17 Senate conferees signed this 
conference report which Senator Inouye and I present to the Senate 
today.
  This conference report reflects nearly 4 weeks of discussions and 
negotiations with the House committee. The conference report before the 
Senate is consistent with the bill passed by the Senate in June and the 
armed services conference report passed recently and signed by the 
President.
  In most areas, we established a compromise figure between the House 
and Senate levels.
  The excellent work undertaken by the Armed Services Committee 
provided an essential roadmap and guide for the work of our conference 
on most major programs.
  The first priority of our conference was to ensure adequate funding 
for military personnel, including the 4.8-percent pay raise for the 
fiscal year 2000. Funding was also provided to implement the 
restoration of full retirement benefits for military personnel and new 
retention and enlistment bonuses to attract and retain military 
personnel.
  The conferees worked to increase needed spending for military 
readiness and quality of life priorities. More than $1 billion has been 
added to the President's request for operation and maintenance in the 
Department of Defense to make certain the Armed Forces are prepared to 
meet any challenge to our Nation's security.
  The conferees faced wide gaps between modernization programs 
advocated by the House and Senate. This is the first year of many years 
we have had such major disagreements.
  The Senate sustained the Department's request for several multiyear 
procurement initiatives which included the Apache, the Javelin, the F-
18, C-17, and the M-1 tank. I am pleased to report each of these are 
included in the conference report before the Senate today. Those 
multiyear contracts, in our opinion, do give us better procurement at a 
lower cost.
  The Senate included funds to meet the Marine Corps commandant's 
foremost priority, the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship. There is $375 
million provided for that vessel at the authorized level.
  Considerable media attention was focused on the action by the House 
to delete all procurement funding for the F-22. Consistent with the 
decision in the defense authorization bill, Senate conferees insisted 
that adequate funding be appropriated for the F-22.
  Also, legislative authority was provided to execute the existing 
fixed-price contract for the first eight preproduction aircraft.
  The conference outcome provides funds to sustain the F-22 program at 
the proposed production rates, with full advanced procurement for the 
10 aircraft planned for the fiscal year 2001.
  Legislative restrictions on those funds do mandate that during the 
fiscal year 2000, the Department meet its planned review thresholds. We 
are confident that will take place.
  Language concerning the fiscal year 2001 contract awards by necessity 
will have to be reconsidered as part of the fiscal year 2001 bill, as 
this act does not govern appropriations after September 30 of next 
year.
  The most important research and development program supported in this 
act is the national missile defense effort. The successful intercept 
test last week validates the work since 1983 to build and deploy an 
effective national missile defense system.
  This conference report before the Senate allocates an additional $117 
million from the 1999 omnibus bill to keep this program on track and to 
accelerate deployment as soon as practical.
  The bill also provides funding for the Third Arrow Battery to assist 
our ally, Israel, in meeting its security needs. When the committee 
reported the defense bill to the Senate in May, Congress had just 
passed an $11 billion supplemental bill to meet the costs of the 
conflict in Kosovo.
  As a result of the exceptional performance of our air and naval 
forces during that campaign, hostilities ended months earlier than 
projected in the supplemental bill. That effort afforded the Senate the 
option to apply those funds from the supplemental bill appropriated for 
Kosovo to meet the fiscal year 2000 defense needs. This bill utilized 
$3.1 billion in Kosovo carryover funds as it left the Senate. Based on 
extensive consultation with the Department of Defense, the conferees 
agreed to apply $1.6 billion of that sum to meet vital readiness and 
munitions needs for the fiscal year 2000.
  Finally, the bill includes two new general provisions that place new 
maximum averages on defense contract payments. These provisions do not 
reduce in any way the amount the Department will pay to meet its 
obligations but does change the maximum number of days by which such 
payments must be made.
  The Department must remain fully compliant with the Prompt Payment 
Act, and nothing was done in this act to extend payments beyond current 
legal limits.
  As I have observed over the past 5 years, the work of presenting this 
bill and the conference report now before the Senate reflects a total 
partnership between myself and my great friend, the distinguished 
Senator from Hawaii. His wisdom, perseverance, and steadfast 
determination to work for the welfare of the men and women of our Armed 
Forces and the military preparedness of our Nation assured the 
nonpartisan result of this conference.
  This bill also contains a provision to commence the formation of a 
commission to find a suitable national memorial to our former 
President, the distinguished general of the Army, President Eisenhower. 
I urge all Members become familiar with that process. It very much 
follows the commission that was established for a similar memorial to 
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
  Following the statement of my good friend from Hawaii, to whom I now 
yield, I shall urge adoption of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise this morning to add my support to 
H.R. 2561, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2000. I believe the conference report presents an agreement that is 
very much in keeping with the bill that passed the Senate and I would 
encourage all my colleagues to support it.
  This was a tough conference. That is an understatement. The 
recommendations of the House and the Senate were different in many 
areas. Both sides felt strongly about their respective views. As noted 
by my chairman, nowhere was this more evident than in the case of the 
F-22. For that reason, and because of the importance of this program, I 
would like to spend a few minutes discussing the situation facing the 
conferees and the final outcome.
  For 16 years, the Air Force has been researching and developing a new 
generation air superiority aircraft, called the F-22. The 
administration's budget request called for the aircraft to enter 
production in fiscal year 2000.
  The House was divided in its view on this matter. The Defense 
authorization bill, as passed by the House and the conference agreement 
which followed, supported the program without adjustment. The House 
Appropriations Committee took a different view.
  The committee recommended, and the House concurred in the Defense 
appropriations bill, that production should be ``paused'' for at least 
1 year to allow for additional testing. The House eliminated all 
production funding for the program--an amount in excess of $1.8 
billion--and reallocated these funds to other programs. Many of these 
were very meritorious, but they were lower priority in the view of the 
Defense Department.

[[Page S12567]]

  The Senate fully supported the F-22 as requested and authorized. In 
conference, the House was adamant that production should not begin this 
year. The Senate understood the House's desire for additional testing 
on the program, but pointed out repeatedly that there was nothing in 
the initial phases of this program that would warrant slowing it down 
to await additional testing. In addition, the Senate voted that a pause 
would be very costly. Contracts would have to be renegotiated. 
Subcontractors expecting to begin production would have to stop work on 
the project. Restarting it would be costly even if the pause were only 
to last 1 year.
  The F-22 is a highly sophisticated new aircraft with revolutionary 
capabilities. Those facts are not in dispute. But, these capabilities 
make it a very expensive program. The Senate conferees were concerned 
additional costs caused by delays would be so large as to force the 
Defense Department to cut or even cancel the program. It is ironic that 
after 16 years just when we are ready to begin production that some 
would now argue it was time to slow down the program. The differences 
between the two bodies were so strongly felt that it was extremely 
difficult to reach an agreement.
  Finally, our chairman, acting with the advice of the leadership of 
the Defense Department, crafted a compromise that all parties embraced. 
The compromise provides $1.3 billion for the F-22. I for one would like 
to have seen more provided for this program, but that was the maximum 
to which the House would agree.
  We have been told by the Air Force that this sum is sufficient to 
allow for the program to stay on track in the coming year. The 
conferees understand that the funds will be merged with other research 
and development funding to allow the Air Force to purchase another six 
F-22 aircraft as planned. It will also allow the Air Force to buy 
materials to produce 10 additional aircraft in fiscal year 2001.
  There is language in the agreement that requires the Air Force to get 
approval from the Defense Acquisition Board before proceeding to 
purchase these aircraft. There is also language that would require the 
Air Force to complete certain testing before it purchases aircraft in 
2001. However, that language, as noted by our chairman, would not have 
any effect until after the expiration of this act.
  The conferees believe the Air Force should conduct adequate testing 
of the aircraft before it goes into full rate production. The precise 
level of that testing is an issue to be reexamined at a later date.
  The Senate owes a debt of gratitude--a great debt of gratitude--to 
our chairman, Senator Stevens. This was a tough conference. Our 
chairman was up to the task of defending the positions of the Senate. 
At the same time, he was most respectful of the views of the House. He 
worked tirelessly to try to reach an accommodation on this, as well as 
hundreds of other items.
  A second matter that requires clarification is the overall spending 
in this bill. The Senate bill provided $264.7 billion in budget 
authority, with the estimated outlays of $255.4 billion. The House bill 
was nearly $4 billion higher.
  In conference, the Senate agreed to increase the spending by $3.1 
billion in budget authority and $200 million in outlays. The conferees 
also agreed to label $7.2 billion in budget authority as emergency 
spending. In so doing, the committee was able to reallocate $4.1 
billion more than the original Senate allocation and $8.1 billion more 
than the House allocation for other discretionary domestic programs.
  Many have stated that this bill is more than $17 billion above the 
amount recommended in fiscal year 1999. However, it should be noted 
that the Congress added $16.6 billion for Kosovo, Bosnia, and other 
emergency requirements in fiscal year 1999 that are not included in 
that calculation.
  In comparing ``apples to apples,'' this bill is a little over $1 
billion more than provided in fiscal year 1999. I, for one, would argue 
that this increase is very modest for the coming year. Especially when 
one realizes we have provided funding for an expanded pay raise, an 
enhanced retirement system, and additional target pay increases for 
many members of the military, this increase is very modest, indeed.
  This is a good conference report. While one can find one or two 
things one might not support, on balance I believe it is a good 
compromise package. So I most respectfully urge all my colleagues to 
support it.
  In closing, I would like to give a word of commendation for two 
members who are not Members of the Senate, but we think they are 
members of our family: Steve Cortese and, this man, Charlie Houy. So, 
Mr. President, with the help of these two special staff members, we 
were able to craft this agreement we present today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand under the unanimous-consent agreement I have 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I voted in support of the Defense 
authorization bill for the fiscal year that began earlier this month. I 
would have liked to have been able to similarly support the Defense 
appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the unconscionable and noncredible 
budgeting procedures that are used in this bill are too pervasive, the 
level of wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars is too irresponsible for 
me to acquiesce in passage of this legislation.
  I look at this bill that is larded with earmarks and set-asides for 
powerful defense contractors, influential local groups and officials, 
and with other parochial interests. One can understand the distrust 
with which the average citizen views the Federal government. The use of 
gimmicks and budgetary subterfuge simply deepens the gulf that exists 
between those of us who toil within the confines of the Beltway, and 
Americans across the Nation who see large portions of their paychecks 
diverted by Congress for purposes they often do not support.
  What kind of message are we sending American business men and women, 
especially the small businesses most affected by telling the Department 
of Defense to purposely delay paying its bills? When the Department of 
Defense fails to pay contractors on time, those contractors often have 
to tell their suppliers, subcontractors, and employees that they will 
have to wait for their check. The trickle-down effect is felt most by 
the employees and their families whose budgets often can't absorb a 
delay of a week in getting a paycheck, much less the 29-day delay 
mandated by this bill.
  This provision simply pushes off until the next fiscal year the bills 
that come due in the last month of this fiscal year. Does anyone in 
this body believe that it will be any easier next year to live within 
the budget caps? It will be more difficult because, by approving this 
gimmick, we are spending $2 billion of next year's available funding. 
In fact, we already pushed another $6 billion into the next fiscal year 
by ``forward funding'' programs in the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. 
In total, we will have already spent $8 billion out of next year's 
budget cap before taking up a single fiscal year 2001 appropriations 
bill.
  And how can we explain the categorization of $2.7 billion for normal, 
predictable operations, training, and maintenance funding as 
``emergency'' spending? Obviously, ongoing operations around the world 
cost money, as does necessary training as well as maintaining the 
admittedly bloated infrastructure of the Department of Defense. None of 
this should come as a surprise to the appropriators, and thus, in my 
view, cannot be justified as ``emergency'' spending, other than as a 
clear manifestation of an effort to evade budget caps.
  This $7.2 billion will come straight out of the budget surplus that 
the Congress promised just a few months ago to return to the American 
taxpayers. Together with the ever-increasing $8.7 billion in 
``emergency'' farm aid--some of which is admittedly justifiable--we 
will have already spent the entire non-Social Security surplus, and 
even a few billion of the Social Security Trust Fund. How can we vote--
not once but four times--to put a ``lockbox'' on the Social Security 
surplus and then turn right around and spend it without blinking an 
eye?
  At the same time, we are funding ships and aircraft and research 
programs that were not requested by the

[[Page S12568]]

military, and in fact do not even appear on the ever-expanding Unfunded 
Requirements Lists, the integrity of which have been thoroughly 
undermined by pressures from this body.
  Mr. President, this bill includes $6.4 billion in low-priority, 
wasteful spending not subject to the kind of deliberative, competitive 
process that we should demand of all items in spending bills. Six 
billion dollars--more than ever before in any defense bill in the 13 
years I have been in this body.
  Argue all you want about the merits of individual programs that were 
added at the request of interested Members. At the end of the day, 
there is over $6 billion worth of pork in a defense spending bill at 
the same time we are struggling with myriad readiness and modernization 
problems. No credible budget process can withstand such abuse 
indefinitely and still retain the level of legitimacy needed to 
properly represent the interests of the Nation as a whole.

  The ingenuity of the appropriators never ceases to amaze me. In this 
defense bill, we are spending money on unrequested research and 
development projects like the $3 million for advanced food service 
technology and on activities totally unrelated to national defense, 
such as the $8 million in the budget for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 
Resource Preservation.
  These items are representative of the bulk of the pork-barrel 
spending that is inserted into spending bills for parochial reasons: 
hundreds of small items or activities totaling hundreds of millions of 
dollars. Combine them with the big-ticket items in the bill--like the 
11 Blackhawk helicopters at a cost of over $100 million; the $375 
million in long-lead funding for another amphibious assault ship; and 
the $275 million for F-15 aircraft above the $263 million in the budget 
request--and you have a major investment in special interest goodwill 
at the expense of broader national security considerations. Two of 
these programs, the amphibious assault ship and the Blackhawk 
helicopters, are specifically mentioned in the Secretary of Defense's 
letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriations 
Committees as diverting funds from ``Much higher priority needs * * *''
  How long are we going to continue to acquiesce in the forced 
acquisition of security locks just because they are manufactured in the 
state that was represented by a very powerful former member of this 
body? Making a bad situation worse, we have extended the requirement 
that one particular company's product be purchased for government-owned 
facilities to also include the contractors that serve them, and 
earmarked another $10 million for that purpose. What's next? Are we 
going to mandate that these locks be used for the bicycles of children 
of defense contractors?
  Another distasteful budget sleight of hand was the addition of 15 
military construction projects totaling $92 million that were neither 
requested nor authorized. The Appropriations Conference took care of 
that, however. These projects are both authorized and fully funded in 
the Conference Report, calling into question the relevance of the 
defense authorizing committees in the House of Representatives and the 
Senate.

  As someone who is concerned that the Navy, by design, will lack the 
means of supporting ground forces ashore with high-volume, high-impact 
naval gunfire for at least another 10 years, I am more than a little 
taken aback that the California delegation has placed a higher priority 
on accumulating tourist dollars than on preserving one of the last two 
battleships in the fleet. The $3 million earmarked for relocating the 
U.S.S. Iowa represents a particularly pernicious episode of giving 
higher priority to bringing home the bacon than to national security 
interests. Simplistic platitudes regarding the age of these ships 
aside, no one can deny that they continue to represent one of the most 
capable non-nuclear platforms in the arsenal. But, yes, they do make 
fine museums.
  Also discouraging is the growing use of domestic source restrictions 
on the acquisition of defense items. The Defense Appropriations 
Conference Report is replete with so-called ``Buy American'' 
restrictions, every one of which serves solely to protect businesses 
from competition. The use of protectionist legislation to insulate 
domestic industry from competition not only deprives the American 
consumer of the best product at the lowest price, it deprives the 
American taxpayer of the best value for his or her tax dollar. It 
undermines alliance relations while we are encouraging friendly 
countries to ``buy American.'' As Secretary Cohen stated, such 
restrictions ``undermine DoD's ability to procure the best systems at 
the least cost and to advance highly beneficial armaments cooperation 
with our allies.''
  Mr. President, our military personnel will not fail to notice that, 
while we are spending inordinate amounts of money on programs and 
activities not requested by the armed forces, we rejected a proposal to 
get 12,000 military families off food stamps. That is not a message 
with which I wish to be associated. This bill appropriates $2.5 
million, at the insistence of the opposition of the House, not one 
penny to get the children of military personnel currently on food 
stamps off of them. The cost of the provision I sponsored in the 
defense authorization bill was $6 million per year to permanently 
remove 10,000 military families from the food stamp rolls. Yet those 
who fought hard to defeat that measure have no problem finding hundreds 
of millions of dollars to take care of businesses important to their 
districts and campaigns.
  This conference report represents everything those of us in the 
majority were supposed to be against. We weren't supposed to be the 
party that, when it came to power, would abuse the Congressional power 
of the purse because we couldn't restrain ourselves from bowing to the 
special interests that ask us to spend billions of dollars on projects 
that benefit them, not the nation as a whole.
  We were supposed to be the pro-defense party, the party that gave 
highest priority to ensuring our national security and the readiness of 
our Armed Forces. We weren't supposed to be the party that wastes $6.4 
billion on low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary spending of scarce 
defense resources.
  Our Armed Forces are the best in the world, but there is much that 
must be done to complete their restructuring, retraining, and re-
equipping to meet the challenges of the future. I support a larger 
defense budget but I know that, if we eliminate pork-barrel spending 
from the defense budget, we can modernize our military without adding 
to the overall budget. Every year, Congress earmarks about $4 to 6 
billion for wasteful, unnecessary, and low-priority projects that do 
little or nothing to support our military. Because Congress refuses to 
allow unneeded bases to be closed, the Pentagon wastes another $7 
billion per year to maintain this excess infrastructure. If we 
privatized or consolidated support and depot maintenance activities, we 
could save $2 billion every year. And if we eliminated the anti-
competitive ``Buy America'' provisions from law, we could save another 
$5.5 billion every year on defense contracts. Altogether, these common-
sense proposals would free up over $20 billion every year in the 
defense budget that could be used to provide adequate pay and ensure 
appropriate quality of life for our military personnel and their 
families; pay for needed training and modern equipment for our forces; 
and pay for other high-priority defense needs, like an effective 
national missile defense system.
  Instead, the Congress continues to squander scarce defense dollars, 
while nearly 12,000 of the men and women who protect our nation's 
security, and their families, must subsist on food stamps. It is a 
national disgrace.
  Moral indignation serves little practical purpose in the Halls of 
Congress. In the end, we are what we are: politicians more concerned 
with parochial matters than with broader considerations of national 
security and fiscal responsibility. I do not like voting against the 
bill that funds the Department of Defense, not while we have pilots 
patrolling the skies over Iraq and troops enforcing the peace on the 
Korean peninsula and in such places as Bosnia, Kosovo and even East 
Timor.
  However, I cannot support this defense bill. It is so full of 
wasteful spending and smoke and mirrors gimmickry that what good lies 
within is overwhelmed by the bad. It wastes billions of dollars on 
unnecessary programs, while revitalizing discredited budgeting 
practices. Those of us in the

[[Page S12569]]

majority correctly rejected the Administration's ill-considered attempt 
to incrementally fund military construction projects--but now we are 
proceeding to institutionalize budgeting practices that warrant even 
greater contempt.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. President, the list of add-ons, increases, and earmarks that 
total $6.4 billion, can be found on my web site.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know of nothing in this bill that deals 
with the food stamp issue. I don't understand the remarks of the 
Senator from Arizona. There is a 4.8 percent pay raise in this bill. We 
did exceed the President's request for the purpose of trying to make 
certain that all members of the armed services have sufficient funds 
with which to live. I know of no issue in this bill that deals with 
food stamps for service people. There are people in the service who are 
eligible for food stamps because of their own economic circumstances. 
That is very unfortunate. We are trying to work out a system whereby 
that will not happen. One of the ways to do that is to continue to 
increase the pay so they are comparable with people in the private 
sector and the jobs that they perform.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Florida, 
Mr. Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak, as I did yesterday, on the latest 
appropriations conference report. Yesterday I expressed my concern 
about the Agriculture conference report, which contained within it $8.7 
billion of designated emergency spending. Adding that $8.7 billion to 
$7 billion, which has previously been designated as an emergency, we 
have now spent almost $16 billion of the $21 billion that was 
originally estimated to be available as the non-Social Security 
surplus.
  We are clearly on the path of exhausting the non-Social Security 
surplus in a series of incremental decisions, without focusing on how 
we might use this opportunity of significant surplus for fundamental 
national policy issues. This legislation contains an additional 
expenditure of emergency funds in the amount of $7.2 billion. With the 
adoption of this conference report, we will have fully exhausted the 
non-Social Security surplus and probably will also begin to lap into 
the Social Security surplus.
  Mr. President, there was an interesting quotation in the press within 
the last 2 weeks by a leading figure in the German Government in 1991. 
He talked about missed opportunities and said that Germany, in 1991, as 
part of reunification, had a national opportunity to deal with some of 
their fundamental problems which would have built a stronger nation for 
the 21st century. But he went on to say: We promised the nation we 
could do reunification without pain; therefore, we were unable or 
unwilling to ask the country to take those steps that would have built 
a stronger Germany for the 21st century.
  I regretfully say that I believe we are ``in 1991''; we are not in 
Germany, we are in the United States of America, and we are missing a 
similar opportunity to take some important steps that will strengthen 
our Nation, for precisely the same reason: We are unwilling to tell the 
American people the truth of what we are about, what the consequences 
are in terms of missed opportunities, and we are attempting to hide all 
of this under a cascading number of gimmicks and unique accounting. In 
my judgment, this Defense appropriations conference report adds to that 
book another significant chapter which will make it more difficult for 
us to deal with Social Security solvency, Medicare reform, and debt 
reduction--three priority issues challenging America.
  What are some of the items in this Defense appropriations bill that 
raise those concerns? I have mentioned $7.2 billion listed as an 
emergency. What are the emergencies? Things such as routine operation 
and maintenance. Since the Bush administration, we have operated under 
a definition of what an emergency is which states that an emergency 
shall be ``spending which is necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and 
not permanent.'' Those five standards were developed by President Bush, 
not the current administration. Those are the five standards to which 
this Congress has adhered. How can anyone declare that operation and 
maintenance in the Department of Defense is not permanent, is 
unforeseen, and is a sudden and urgent condition?
  Beyond that, we are also slowing payments to contractors in order to 
move $1.2 billion of those costs out of the fiscal year in which we are 
currently operating into fiscal year 2001. We are advance appropriating 
$1.8 billion for the same purpose. We are offsetting $2.6 billion of 
this bill's cost by assuming the same level of proceeds from spectrum 
auction sales. This bill relies upon a direction that has been given to 
CBO to change the manner in which CBO estimates outlays so that $10.5 
billion will occur after fiscal year 2000.
  I am about to leave for a meeting of the Finance Committee, and there 
is going to be an effort made there to overturn a congressional statute 
by directing the administration, through the Department of Health and 
Human Services, to change the method by which Medicare providers are 
compensated in order to increase spending to those providers by an 
excess of $5 billion--a violation of congressional statute, a timidity 
of Congress to deal with changing that statute, with the consequence 
that we are going to take over $5 billion off budget but directly out 
of Social Security surplus.
  So I regret, as my colleague from Arizona did, I will have to vote 
``no'' on this legislation. But while recognizing the extreme 
importance of the national defense that is funded through this 
legislation, I believe it is also important that we exercise fiscal 
discipline and that we not commit ourselves to a pattern of accounting 
and budgetary devices which obscures the reality of what we are doing, 
which denies us the opportunity to use this rare opportunity of surplus 
to build a stronger America for the 21st century, and which I think 
fails to face the reality of what our long-term commitments are going 
to have to be to secure our national defense.
  So I regret my inability to support this legislation. I hope this 
will be a brief period in our American fiscal policy history and that 
before we complete the calendar year 1999, we will have an opportunity 
to revisit these issues with that higher standard of directness to the 
American people and a greater sense of importance of our protecting 
this rare period of fiscal strength and surplus, and we have to assure 
that America deals with its priorities as we enter the 21st century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. While the Senator from Florida is here, I want to point 
out that we did use the spectrum concept in this bill. It was the 
administration that recommended that approach to the Congress, and we 
decided to use it in this bill.
  Regarding the comments made both by the Senator from Florida and the 
Senator from Arizona about the payment schedule set forth in this bill, 
Congress had previously required the Department of Defense to pay 
sooner than required by the Prompt Payment Act. We have not reduced the 
amount of payments to be made to defense contractors; we have not 
changed, in any way, the contracts between those contractors and the 
United States. All we have said is the Department of Defense does not 
have to pay earlier than required by the Prompt Payment Act. It was the 
mandate to pay earlier that was causing a scoring problem, as far as 
the Department of Defense activities are concerned.
  As a practical matter, what this does is deal with the average number 
of days within which payments are required under defense contracts. 
There is no reduction in the amount of money that would be spent, and 
there is no acceleration or deceleration of the rate at which it is to 
be spent; there is just no mandate that they have to pay sooner than is 
required by the Prompt Payment Act. Under the circumstances, we have 
not varied the

[[Page S12570]]

amount of money that would be spent for these contracts within fiscal 
year 2000; we have just not mandated that they be spent sooner than 
would otherwise be required by normal, sound business practices.
  Having done so, we are dealing with the scoring mechanisms that apply 
to this bill, not how the payments are made to contractors. I do 
believe that the comments that have been made concerning the scoring 
mechanisms under this bill do not recognize the fact that it is 
extremely necessary for us to pursue ways in which we can assure the 
moneys are available to the Department of Defense, notwithstanding the 
extraordinary burdens we faced in this subcommittee on defense coming 
from the increased activities in South Korea, increased activities in 
the Persian Gulf, permanent personnel stationed in both Kuwait and 
Saudi Arabia, from the activities in Bosnia--and we still have forces 
in Bosnia, and now in Kosovo; we have permanent forces now in Kosovo. 
All of those forces and activities have required enormous funding. We 
still have forces in Haiti.
  Under the circumstances, all of these extraordinary burdens on the 
Department of Defense require us to find ways in which we can assure 
money is there for modernization, maintenance, for increased pay to our 
people, and for assuring that we will continue with the research and 
development necessary to assure that this Nation will have a viable 
Department of Defense in the next century.
  I do not deny that there are things in here with which people could 
disagree. I only wish they had tried to understand them. I would be 
perfectly willing to have any of them visit with us any time if they 
can show us that we have underfunded the Department of Defense. We have 
adequately funded the Department of Defense, and that was our 
intention. It was our intention to use every possible legal mechanism 
available to us to assure that there is more money available for the 
Department of Defense in the coming year in view of the strains that we 
have on the whole system because of these contingencies that we have 
financed in the past 3 to 4 years.
  This has been an extraordinary period for the Department of Defense. 
I can think of only one instance where we received a request from the 
administration to budget for those extraordinary expenses. We have had 
to find the money, we found the money, and we have kept the Department 
of Defense funded.
  I, for one, want to thank my good friend from Hawaii for his 
extraordinary friendship and capability in helping on that job. I say 
without any fear of being challenged on this, I would challenge any 
other two Members of the Senate to find ways to do this better than the 
two of us have done it.
  I, without any question, recommend this bill to the Senate. Those who 
wish to vote against it, of course, have the right to do so. But a vote 
against this bill is a vote to not fund the Department of Defense 
properly in the coming year. If you want to nitpick this bill, you can.
  The process of putting it together was the most extraordinary process 
I have gone through in 31 years. I don't want to go through a 
conference like that again. And I assure the Senate that we will not.


 commercial satellite imagery and ground stations to the u.s. military

  Mr. BURNS. Can the Senator from Michigan discuss the importance of 
this bill regarding commercial satellite imagery and ground stations to 
U.S. military?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. The funding provided in this bill for Eagle Vision 
mobile ground stations enables reception of additional commercial high-
resolution satellite imagery sources and is critical to supporting our 
military forces in peace time and in war. The currently deployed system 
has proven its worth in U.S. military activities in Bosnia and Kosovo. 
It has helped our pilots better prepare for critical missions, while 
providing an extra measure of safety and security for our fighting men 
and women as they head into harm's way.
  Mr. BURNS. I have heard that the National Reconnaissance Office has 
recently completed an improved mobile ground station. I believe that it 
was built for receiving high-resolution commercial satellite imagery, 
such as the recently launched Ikonos satellite that is owned by Space 
Imaging. Is that correct?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. The most recently deployed Eagle Vision II mobile 
ground station has been fielded by the National Reconnaissance Office 
for use by the U.S. Army. It is a much improved system with even 
greater capability than the original Eagle Vision System built in 1995. 
Its enhanced mobility ensures rapid deployment and survivability, which 
is critical in meeting the current threats facing our military around 
the world. I am proud that a company from my state (ERIM International) 
has been the leader in developing and building this Eagle Vision mobile 
ground station capability.
  The funding in this bill has been sought and provided to ensure that 
additional Eagle Vision systems will be built with state-of-the art 
mobile capabilities to meet the critical imagery needs of our 
warfighters in the future. This is an outstanding example of how 
American firms can effectively work in partnership with the U.S. 
military to provide state-of-the-art technology to protect our men and 
women in uniform.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from Michigan.


                              Section 8160

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my dear friend, 
Chairman Stevens, and the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Byrd, for bringing to the floor a conference report 
that I know was reached through very difficult negotiations.
  There is no doubt that the conference on the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense 
Appropriations Bill was the most contentious in recent history. As the 
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I am aware of the difficult 
decisions that had to be made to reach a consensus with the House, and 
I will vote in favor of the conference report.
  Despite my over all support of this conference report, I must point 
out one provision in the bill that is fraught with danger. That 
provision is section 8160 which states: ``Not withstanding any other 
provision of law, all military construction projects for which funds 
were appropriated in Public Law 106-52 are hereby authorized.'' As all 
my colleagues are aware the Armed Services Committee has original 
jurisdiction for military construction and authorizes for 
appropriations each military construction project. In fact, the law 
requires that each military construction and military family housing 
construction project be both authorized and appropriated. The projects 
authorized in this conference report were not authorized in either the 
Senate or House Authorization Bills. The act of authorizing military 
construction projects in this conference report has a profound impact 
on the legislative process.
  Senator Stevens and I work closely in developing our respective 
bills. We have directed our staffs to share information and resolve 
differences in the bills before the Senate considers them. In fact, 
Chairman Stevens commented in his floor statement on the Fiscal Year 
2000 Defense Appropriations Bill that his bill mirrors closely the 
actions of the Armed Services Committee. This conference report is not 
consistent with that cooperation. It usurps the jurisdiction of the 
Armed Services Committee and may set a terrible precedent.
  While the rules of the Senate do not allow us to correct this in this 
bill, I trust that Chairman Stevens will acknowledge the jurisdiction 
of the Armed Services Committee over these matters and provide us his 
assurance that this conference report does not set a precedent and that 
military construction and military family housing projects will not be 
authorized in future appropriations bills.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Warner's concerns 
and appreciate his support for the conference report. As the 
distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee indicated, this 
was a very difficult conference. In order to assure the Senate's 
position on the most important national security issues, we agreed to 
other provisions that the Senate conferees would normally oppose. I 
assure my colleague that I respect the jurisdiction of the Armed 
Services Committee in these matters. I agreed to authorize the military 
construction projects only because it was

[[Page S12571]]

necessary to reach a final agreement. In my view, these actions do not 
set any precedent for future actions on appropriations bills. It is my 
hope and intention that this will not happen again in the future.
  Mr. WARNER. I appreciate the assurance of my colleague and thank him 
for addressing this matter.


                              section 8008

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
FY 2000 contains a provision allowing the Navy to apply up to $190 
million in FY 2000 advanced procurement funding to the DDG-51 multiyear 
procurement contracts renewed by Section 122 of the same legislation.
  Are my colleagues, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 
Majority Leader, and the senior Senator from Mississippi, aware of any 
provision of the FY 2000 Defense Appropriations Conference Report that 
conflicts with Section 122 of the FY 2000 National Defense 
Authorization Act?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I can tell the senior Senator from Maine 
that no provisions of the FY 2000 Defense Appropriations Conference 
Report conflict with the DDG-51 multiyear procurement contracts 
extension or the $190 million DDG-51 FY 2000 advance procurement 
provisions of Section 122 of the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of the senior 
Senator from Maine initiating this colloquy, and I concur with the 
statement of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I fully support the interpretation of my 
colleagues from Maine, Alaska, and Mississippi. The Navy has cost-
effectively produced the DDG-51 destroyer program under a very 
successful multiyear procurement, and no provision of the Conference 
Report conflicts with Section 122 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank my colleagues for joining me in clarifying this 
critical shipbuilding matter.


                    india/pakistan sanctions waiver

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank Chairman 
Stevens for his outstanding leadership during the long hours of debate 
leading to passage of the FY 2000 Defense appropriations bill. I 
especially thank the chairman for supporting Title IX of the act which 
permanently grants the President waiver authority over sanctions 
imposed on India and Pakistan. American business, workers, and farmers 
appreciate your efforts on this important economic and foreign policy 
provision.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very pleased this conference report 
provides the President permanent, comprehensive authority to waive, 
with respect to India and Pakistan, the application of any sanction 
contained in section 101 or 102 of the arms Export Control Act, section 
2(b)(4) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, or Section 620E(e) of 
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. This authority provides 
needed tools for the United States to be in a position to waive 
sanctions as developments may warrant in the coming months and years.


                          digital mammography

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I commend Senator Stevens for his work on 
the Defense Appropriations bill, and will support the passage of this 
legislation. Before the final vote, I would like to get some 
clarification on the Defense Health Science program that is funded in 
this bill. In the conference report, the Secretary of Defense in 
conjunction with the Surgeons General is to establish a process to 
select medical research projects. I see that a number of possibilities 
are listed in the bill. Is it the Senator's intent that the Secretary 
of Defense and the service Surgeons General will consider the programs 
listed in the conference report?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. One of the projects listed is digital mammography 
technology development. Advancing second generation imaging technology 
has the potential of increasing efficiency, reliability and lower 
costs, but would not be considered basic research. However, it seems 
appropriate that this type of project be reviewed. Is it the intent of 
the committee that this type of research and development program be 
included in the selection process?
  Mr. STEVENS. Since the Secretary and Surgeons General are charged 
with setting up a peer reviewed process, it is up to them to determine 
the specifics of the selection process. However, the Senator is correct 
that many health benefits are a result from technology development. I 
expect adjustments in the peer review process could be made, as 
appropriate, to delineate between basic research or technology 
development programs to account for differences as long as projects are 
in keeping with the ``clear scientific merit and relevance to military 
health'' requirement set forth in the report.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman for the clarification, and for his 
efforts to address military health issues.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I will vote for the Defense 
Appropriations Conference Report because there is much in it that I 
strongly support, especially including funding for the essential pay 
and benefit improvements for our service men and women which had been 
created by the Defense Authorization bill. I will also cast an 
affirmative vote as a measure of my admiration and respect for the fine 
work done by the Senate conferees, who were ably led by the 
distinguished senior Senator from Alaska and the distinguished senior 
Senator from Hawaii. Without the hard work of Senator Stevens and 
Senator Inouye I would likely have had to oppose the final product of 
the conference.
  The reason for my concern, and for my reluctant support for the 
Defense Appropriations Conference Report, is that, because of the 
adamant position of the House conferees, the conference report, in my 
judgment, seriously hampers the rational and cost-effective development 
and production of the Pentagon's highest-priority new weapons system, 
the F-22 aircraft. The slow-down in production will undoubtedly result 
in increased costs and the House conferees indeed have indicated that 
the final production level will likely have to be reduced to well below 
the currently planned 339 aircraft which would precipitously drive up 
the unit costs. The F-22, which has been under development for 16 years 
and has received close and ongoing testing and Congressional oversight, 
is absolutely critical to maintaining our air superiority into the 21st 
Century.
  Once again, I would like to thank Senators Stevens and Inouye for 
producing the best result for the F-22 that could be obtained, given 
the position of the House. While the compromise is an impediment to the 
F-22 program, it is not fatal, and with some extra effort, plus some 
shifting of Air Force funding, the delays and higher costs can be 
minimized. Nonetheless, I think all Members of the Senate, especially 
the 56 other Senators who joined with Senator Coverdell and me in 
writing to the conferees in support of the Senate's position on the F-
22, must be on notice that we will face another, and perhaps even 
tougher, fight on the future of the F-22 next year and beyond.
  In closing, I want to note that the work on this Defense 
Appropriations bill, and the preceding Defense Authorization bill has 
been marked by bipartisanship and pragmatism, resulting in the kind of 
national consensus and resolve which is perhaps the single biggest 
factor undergirding a nation's security. Unfortunately, this stands in 
stark contrast to what we saw yesterday, with the near-party line vote 
rejecting the Comprehensive Test Ban. I believe both parties bear some 
of the blame for that most unfortunate outcome. What I want to say 
today is that, beyond the Test Ban Treaty, beyond any specific dispute 
in national security policy, we in this body, as well as those in the 
House, and in the Executive Branch must, I repeat must, work to repair 
the partisan breach, and begin to recreate a bipartisan consensus on 
national security policy. I have some ideas along those lines which I 
will be sharing with my colleagues in the days ahead, but I think we 
can all take a lesson from the cooperative efforts of Senators Stevens 
and Inouye who have achieved that objective in the critical area of 
Defense Appropriations.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the large increase in defense 
spending called for under the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense 
Appropriations bill. The final conference report increases defense 
spending by $17.3 billion over last year's bill--$7.2 billion of

[[Page S12572]]

which is declared as emergency spending and will come straight out of 
the surplus. At a time when Congress is slashing many important 
domestic programs, I cannot support an increase of this magnitude.
  I do, however, want to express my strong support for the many good 
provisions that were included in this legislation. This bill includes 
funding for a needed pay raise of 4.8 percent for our military men and 
women and targeted bonuses to enhance recruitment and retention 
efforts. I was also pleased to see that the bill restores full 
retirement benefits for our personnel.
  Nevertheless, I think it would have been possible to include these 
important provisions without substantially increasing the defense 
budget. The Department of Defense need only to look within to find 
these savings.
  In January, the General Accounting Office found that auditors could 
not match about $22 billion in signed checks with corresponding 
obligations; $9 billion in known military materials and supplies were 
unaccounted for; and contractors received $19 million in overpayments. 
In April, a GAO study found that the Navy does not effectively control 
its in-transit inventory and has placed enormous amounts of inventory 
at risk of undetected theft or misplacement. For fiscal years 1996-98, 
the Navy reported that it had lost over $3 billion in in-transit 
inventory, including some classified and sensitive items such as 
aircraft guided missile launchers, night-vision devices, and 
communications equipment.
  This bill also includes many unneeded items. In an effort to provide 
some fiscal responsibility to the defense budget, I offered an 
amendment to this bill that would have denied the Air Force the ability 
to lease six leather-seated Gulfstream executive jets for the regional 
commanders in chief (CINCs). Even though the military has hundreds of 
operational support aircraft, the main argument against my amendment 
was that leasing the Gulfstream jets would be cheaper than purchasing 
the jet favored by the CINC's--the more expensive Boeing 737s.
  However, the final conference report not only includes the authority 
to lease Gulfstream jets, it also includes a $63 million Boeing 737 for 
the CINC of the Central Command. A recent article in Defense Week 
provides the details on how this unrequested jet was added to the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, our men and women in the armed forces do a 
great job. From Kosovo to Korea, they prove that they are the best 
fighting force in the world. They deserve the pay raise and other 
important benefits that they have earned.
  However, I cannot support the irresponsible spending that is included 
in this legislation and it is with regret that I must vote against it.

                               Exhibit 1

      Sidestepping Bosses, Four Star General Lobbied for Jetliner

                           (By John Donnelly)

       The U.S. commander in the Middle East recently went over 
     the heads of his Pentagon bosses by persuading a key lawmaker 
     to buy the military a $63 million jetliner which the Pentagon 
     not only didn't request but explicitly opposed, Defense Week 
     has learned.
       On several occasions over the last year, Marine Corps Gen. 
     Anthony Zinni told Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) how U.S. Central 
     Command needs a new, bigger aircraft to replace the aging EC-
     135 that now ferries Zinni and his staff between their Tampa, 
     Fla., headquarters and places such as Saudi Arabia and 
     Pakistan, according to Murtha's spokesman and several 
     congressional aides.
       As a result, Murtha--the top Democrat on the House 
     Appropriations Committee's defense panel and, like Zinni, a 
     Marine--made sure money for a new Boeing 737-300 ER was 
     inserted in the fiscal 2000 funding bill the House passed 
     last July, Murtha's spokesman, Brad Clemenson, confirmed.
       A four-star's advocacy of his command's needs, and a 
     congressman's generosity, may not be scandalous. In fact, 
     Zinni will have retired before the new plane arrives; and the 
     aircraft arguably may be needed. But the incident illustrates 
     one way the Pentagon's budget bloats: a general personally 
     lobbying for money--in this case one of the biggest boosts to 
     this year's Air Force procurement request--to buy a jet his 
     employers had already said costs too much.
       No 737 for any commander was in the Senate-passed 
     appropriations bill or either the House- or Senate-passed 
     authorization bills. This month, a House-Senate conference is 
     scheduled to reconcile the two appropriations measures and 
     decide whether to buy the 737.
       Zinni's spokesman said the general did not ask for the 737, 
     but only recounted his requirements in response to 
     congressional queries. But that picture of a passive Zinni 
     contrasts with those painted by numerous House officials, 
     including Clemenson, Murtha's spokesman.
       ``Zinni did ask for the help, and Mr. Murtha was supportive 
     of the request . . .,'' Clemenson said. ``I don't know if he 
     asked specifically for [a 737-300 ER], but he asked for 
     help.''
       In the form of a bigger support aircraft? ``Yes.''
       By sharp contrast, last March, Deputy Secretary of Defense 
     John Hamre and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air 
     Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, in a study for Congress, said a 
     Gulfstream V executive jet, not a 737, is ``the single 
     aircraft most capable of performing the CINC [Commander in 
     Chief of unified combatant commands] support role at 
     significantly reduced costs. . . .''
       The Joint Staff study conceded that Boeing 737-300 ERs 
     alone meet all the commanders' payload requirements, as the 
     chiefs themselves state them. But the report advocated the 
     Gulfstream V, designated C-37A, because the 737s cost twice 
     as much.
       ``However,'' the study said, ``on a one-for-one basis, the 
     estimated 20-year total ownership cost . . . for the 737-300 
     ER is about double that of the C-37A.''
       If a commander needs a bigger airplane, the Joint Staff 
     said, then one can be provided from ``other DoD resources.''
       What's more, the Pentagon's Hamre told Defense Week last 
     May how, in internal budget battles, he had fought hard to 
     overcome the regional commanders' desire for jets larger than 
     Gulfstreams to replace their aging fleet of nine aircraft, 
     mostly Boeing 707s. Hamre said he had to convince the 10 
     generals and admirals (including the boss of the U.N. command 
     in Korea) that the Gulfstream Vs were adequate.
       ``The CINCs aren't happy they have to live with a 12-
     passenger aircraft,'' Hamre said of the Gulfstream Vs. Most 
     of the 707s the CINCs now fly seat 45. By comparison, the 
     737-300 can fit up to 128 passengers, depending on the 
     configuration.
       ``I'll be honest,'' Hamre said. ``It was hard pulling this 
     off. We said [of the Gulfstream, or G-V]: `That's good 
     enough: It can get you to the theater, it can get you back 
     and you'll be in constant communication with your battle 
     staff.' So we sent up a report this spring saying the right 
     answer is a G-V.''
       Having lost the battle inside the Pentagon, Zinni appears 
     to have sought to win it on Murtha's House panel. If Zinni 
     made a similar case to the other three defense committees, he 
     wasn't successful. If other commanders waged a similar 
     campaign on Capitol Hill, no word of it has emerged.


                           response to query

       Lt. Cdr. Ernest Duplessis, a spokesman for the U.S. Central 
     Command chief, or CINCCENT, said: ``Gen. Zinni never made a 
     request for a 737 or any specific aircraft. Nor did he ask to 
     have his own individually assigned aircraft. Rather, he 
     provided his requirements when asked. . . .
       ``Gen Zinni has said he would accept the Gulfstream V with 
     noted reservations about the suitability of the plane to the 
     CINCCENT mission,'' Duplessis said. ``His shortfalls were 
     identified in response to questions from the House 
     Appropriations Committee.'' Duplessis declined to name any 
     lawmakers involved.
       However, several congressional aides said that, if Murtha 
     asked Zinni questions, they were likely to have originated as 
     broad queries about overall needs, not questions about CINC-
     support aircraft. They said Murtha almost certainly didn't 
     ask Zinni out of the blue if Zinni would like a new airplane.
       According to Clemenson, last Christmas Eve Murtha and Zinni 
     discussed U.S. Central Command's purported need for a larger 
     support aircraft with Secretary of Defense William Cohen 
     during a flight home from Saudi Arabia. In addition, aides 
     said Zinni and Murtha also talked about it last February 
     during a ``courtesy call'' Zinni paid to Murtha's office just 
     prior to the general's annual testimony before the House 
     defense-spending panel.
       ``It's something that's been talked about in a number of 
     contexts for a number of years here,'' Clemenson said.
       Regardless of how the subject first came up, Zinni's 
     portrait of the shortfalls of the Gulfstream Vs and the 
     advantages of a larger aircraft ran counter to the Pentagon's 
     hard-fought policy favoring Gulfstream Vs for the commanders, 
     whatever their personal misgivings.


                         not a stated priority

       The Joint Staff recommendation in favor of Gulfstreams came 
     after the fiscal 2000 budget request went to Congress in 
     February. The request contained no Gulfstreams, let alone 
     737s.
       Nor were Gulfstreams or 737s included on any of this year's 
     lists of ``unfunded requirements,'' sometimes called wish 
     lists--programs not in the budget request but ones that the 
     service chiefs consider important.
       Both the budget request and the wish lists are supposed to 
     include the top requirements of chiefs such as Zinni, though 
     some say the lists don't always include all key needs.
       Nonetheless, Zinni and Murtha believe the U.S. Central 
     Command chief, based at

[[Page S12573]]

     MacDill AFB, Fla., has a unique requirement for a large 
     aircraft to replace the current EC-135, which is a 1962 
     airplane. The CINCENT must travel 8,000 miles to his 
     conflict-ridden theater and must have the communications 
     gear, staff and combat equipment to be able to perform a 
     ``full contingency operation,'' Duplessis said. To avoid 
     delays, the aircraft must be able to make it that distance 
     without landing to refuel.
       The Senate-passed defense-appropriations bill, though it 
     did not fund Gulfstreams or 737s, did give the Air Force 
     legislative authority to lease, not buy, support aircraft, 
     which the Air Force has said means six Gulfstreams.
       However, even the plan to lease the smaller, cheaper 
     Gulfstreams triggered a controversy on Capitol Hill.
       Several lawmakers have criticized the purchase or lease of 
     luxury jets for four-stars while, at the same time, many in 
     uniform subsist on food stamps, aircraft are short on spare 
     parts and other needs go unmet.
       In addition, some in Congress point out that the military 
     already has hundreds of domestic ``operational support 
     aircraft,'' which the General Accounting Office in 1995 said 
     exceed actual needs. In addition to the CINC fleet, the Air 
     Force alone has 11 Gulfstreams, three 727-100s, two 747s, 
     four 757s and 70 Learjets. The other services have their own, 
     smaller fleets. The GAO said the services do not share these 
     assets effectively.
       Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) believes some of these 
     stateside aircraft, if not needed domestically, should be 
     provided to the CINCs. If a plane's range is not sufficient 
     for intercontinental flight, he says, it should be sold to 
     corporate executives to finance the purchase of any new, 
     larger jets for the four-stars.
       Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a member of the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee's defense panel, told Defense Week 
     recently that the need for the existing fleet must be 
     demonstrated before Congress signs up for new aircraft, 
     whether Gulfstreams or 737s.
       ``Before buying these jets, Congress needs to get a lot 
     more information as to the military's requirements for 
     executive aircraft,'' he said.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong 
opposition to the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations 
conference report.
  Back in June, I lamented the Senate's unwillingness to scrutinize the 
Pentagon's profligate spending. During the Senate's debate of the DoD 
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 gave the Defense Department a pass.
  Now we come to the conference report. I took some satisfaction from 
the F-22 drama that played out in conference, but the final act was 
rather predictable. Other than the F-22 program, however, did anyone 
question the Pentagon's continuing failure to adapt its priorities to 
the post-cold-war era? Clearly not.
  And who is left to pay for this $268 billion debacle? Who else but 
the American taxpayers.
  The Senate debated recently the wisdom of using across-the-board 
spending cuts as a budget tool.
  This conference report is the best argument against that strategy. We 
need look no further than this bill to find billions of dollars in 
wasteful spending that could be cut to avoid reductions in programs 
that are truly justified--including Defense Department programs.
  As we did last year, we are again in danger of breaking the spending 
caps agreed to in 1997, and as the distinguished Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee was reported to have said, military spending 
will be the force that breaks them.
  This bloated bill contains billions of dollars in spending that is 
simply unjustified. It spends even more than was requested by the 
Pentagon, a level that was already too high.
  Let me take just one example--the tactical aircraft programs.
  My opinion on the Navy's F/A-18E/F program is well known. I have not 
been shy about highlighting the program's myriad flaws, not least of 
which are its inflated cost with respect to its capabilities.
  I have to admit, though, that the Super Hornet program can claim to 
build on a solid foundation, in the form of the reliable, cost-
effective Hornet. The Air Force's F-22 program, on the other hand, is a 
brand new program. It is the most expensive fighter aircraft in the 
history of the world and arguably the most complex, yet it completed 
just 4 percent, or about 183 hours, of its flight test program before 
the Pentagon approved $651 million in production money. The completed 
flight test hours were about a quarter of the Air Force's own 
guidelines. In comparison, the F-15 flew for 975 hours before a 
production contract award; the F-16 for 1,115 hours; and even the much-
flawed Super Hornet had 779 flight test hours before a production 
contract was awarded. Let me remind my colleagues that the flight test 
program hasn't even tested the aircraft's much-touted stealth or its 
electronics capabilities.
  My primary concern with this program is its cost. This cold war 
anachronism will cost about $200 million a copy. Add this program's 
cost to the E/F and the Joint Strike Fighter, and we have a $340 
billion fiscal nightmare on our hands. We cannot afford this. CBO knows 
it; GAO knows it; the CATO Institute knows it; the Brookings 
Institution knows it. The Congress, however, cannot seem to figure it 
out.
  I know that some folks will talk about how this conference report 
puts the program under greater scrutiny and that it delays the 
aircraft's production, but let's be honest. Barring the discovery, and 
admission, of some enormous flaw, this conference report holds off the 
inevitable for just a year. This report postpones production of the Air 
Force's F-22 fighter plane until April 2001, but refrains from 
eliminating the program, as was done by the House.
  The report provides $1.9 billion to purchase up to six planes, under 
the scope of research and development and testing and evaluation. It 
even spends $277 for advanced procurement. That is something. The 
program is supposed to be under a microscope, but we still put up more 
than a quarter of a billion dollars for advanced procurement. If that 
is not a clear indication of the plane's future, I do not know what is. 
And just to cover both ends, the report establishes a $300 million 
reserve fund to cover any liabilities the Air Force might incur as a 
result of terminating the program's contracts. That's an awfully 
generous insurance policy given the trouble we're going through to fund 
other important programs, like veterans health care and education.

  As long as we are talking about money, I would like to take this 
opportunity to Call the Bankroll on the money that has poured into the 
coffers of candidates and political party committees from the defense 
contractors who have mounted a huge campaign to keep the F-22 alive.
  First, we have defense contracting giant Lockheed Martin, the primary 
developer of the F-22. Lockheed Martin gave nearly $300,000 in soft 
money and more than $1 million in PAC money in the last election cycle.
  During that same period, Boeing, one of the chief developers and 
producers of the F-22's airframe, gave more than $335,000 in soft money 
to the parties and more than $850,000 in PAC money to candidates.
  Then there are the subcontractors for the F-22, who account for more 
than half the total dollar value of the project.
  Four of the most important subcontractors, according to the F-22's 
own literature, are TRW, Raytheon, Hughes Electronics and Northrop 
Grumman.
  And I guess it should come as little surprise to us to find that 
these major subcontractors also happened to be major political donors 
in the last election cycle.
  Raytheon tops this list with nearly $220,000 in soft money and more 
than $465,000 in PAC money.
  Northrop Grumman gave more than $100,000 in soft money to the parties 
and more than $450,000 in PAC money to candidates.
  Hughes gave nearly $145,000 in PAC money during 1997 and 1998, and 
last but not least, TRW gave close to $200,000 in soft money and more 
than $235,000 in PAC money.
  The F-22 program, and TacAir in general, highlights the Defense 
Department's flawed weapons modernization strategy. And today I Call 
the Bankroll to highlight how the corrupt campaign finance system 
encourages that flawed strategy--by creating an endless money chase 
that asks this body to put the interests of a few wealthy donors ahead 
of the best interests of our national defense.
  The flawed strategy 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

[[Page S12574]]

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.
  Supporting the Defense Department's misguided spending priorities is 
not synonymous with supporting the military.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I fully support a significant increase in 
defense spending, and I support the core of the defense appropriations 
bill we're considering today. Indeed, it includes many critical 
provisions--including pay and benefits changes--that I and my 
colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee worked hard to pass 
in the defense authorization bill. For that matter, this bill includes 
many projects important to the Commonwealth of Virginia that were 
included in the authorization bill. But this is simply not the way we 
should legislate. Tacking extraneous provisions onto necessary 
legislation is exactly what fuels the cynicism of the American people.
  I have regularly supported Congressional increases to the defense 
budget. But this legislation is a perfect example of what's wrong with 
the Congress. And it reinforces the need for a line-item veto. The bill 
contains the usual billions of dollars of congressional spending not 
requested by the Department of Defense. My colleague from Arizona, 
Senator McCain, observed earlier this morning that some $6 billion in 
unrequested pork are part of this bill--perhaps the largest amount of 
unrequested pork ever. This is money that could have gone toward 
desperately needed improvements in our national defense, including more 
training, more spares and ammunition, more maintenance, and better 
quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.
  But beyond spending on unneeded projects, the bill employs some 
budget gimmicks that make a mockery of fiscal discipline. The bill 
designates--arbitrarily--$7.2 billion as emergency spending just to 
avoid the pain of dealing with the budget caps. I believe we ought to 
make the tough decisions to keep our spending under control. But if the 
Congress cannot discipline its spending, it ought to be forthright and 
acknowledge what it is doing. Avoiding hard choices with smoke and 
mirrors, however, is not responsible governing.
  The bill authorizes 15 military construction projects that the Armed 
Services Committee decided not to authorize in its conference report. 
The authorization of military construction projects is the 
responsibility of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As a member of 
the Armed Services Committee, I serve as the Ranking Member on the 
Readiness Subcommittee, where military construction matters are 
considered. We have been successful in limiting military construction 
spending to projects that meet certain strict criteria--including 
whether the military plans to build these facilities at some point in 
their future years defense plan. The appropriations bill added 15 
projects, of which at least half were not even on the Pentagon's books 
for eventual construction. Only the Armed Services Committee, with its 
longer-term, policy-oriented focus, can avoid this kind of spending 
that does little to improve the capabilities of our armed forces.
  For these reasons, I will reluctantly vote against this bill knowing 
it will pass overwhelmingly. Since I know the bill will pass, my vote 
will not jeopardize national security. It will not preclude the 
Department of Defense from spending the additional funds included in 
the bill to provide more pay and benefits, more spare parts, increased 
training, and better maintenance. As I said before, I have fought long 
and hard to see those increases in the defense authorization bill. And 
if my protest vote would determine the outcome, I would act 
differently. But voting against this bill is one of the few means I 
have available to register my protest forcefully. I simply cannot 
acquiesce to a process which misdirects funds crucial to our national 
security to those who are seemingly more interested in their political 
security. No one should doubt my commitment to a strong national 
defense, but no one should doubt my commitment to fiscal responsibility 
as well. We cannot continue to squander so much of our scarce resources 
on unnecessary pet projects when our needs for improved readiness are 
so great. And as I stated when I voted against the pork-laden Kosovo 
supplemental earlier this year, just because we have troops in harm's 
way does not give us an excuse to go on a spending binge.
  Hope springs eternal. Hopefully next year we can stem the pork, avoid 
the gimmicks, and respect long-standing committee jurisdictions.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as a member of the Defense 
Appropriations subcommittee and the conference committee which produced 
this bill, I am prepared to join with most of my colleagues in voting 
for its adoption.
  However, I feel I have a responsibility to raise several serious 
concerns and reservations about this conference report.
  First, I am concerned that we as a nation are not allocating our 
defense dollars as effectively and efficiently as we could to meet 
future needs.
  Defense programs sometimes seem to take on lives of their own. They 
are sustained and even expanded year after year, even if we would not 
include them in a truly zero-based budget designed to address our top 
priorities.
  The Pentagon, and we in Congress, need to ensure that we are giving 
due priority to real national security needs, particularly 
opportunities to reduce the risk of conflict, the growing scourge of 
terrorism, and emerging threats like chemical and biological weapons 
and cyberwarfare.
  We need to ask the tough questions, like whether it makes sense to 
devote billions to accelerating multiple missile defense programs which 
can be circumvented.
  My second concern is what I can only describe as budget sleight of 
hand.
  This bill is within its allocations, but it would not be if the 
Congressional Budget Office was simply allowed to do its job. But the 
political maneuvering forced arbitrary changes to paint a prettier, but 
fictional picture. The Budget Committees simply directed CBO to revise 
the numbers downward. This is far more than a minor accounting issue.
  CBO indicates that its estimates include a $2.6 billion reduction in 
Budget Authority--the adjustment for spectrum sales--and reductions 
totaling $13 billion in outlays at the forced direction of the Budget 
Committees' leadership. We should not fool the public about whether 
that $13 billion will actually be spent this fiscal year--it will be!
  We should not be blind-sided by these or other gimmicks through which 
the majority will claim not to be spending the social security surplus.
  Earlier this year, many of my colleagues questioned whether certain 
funding has properly been declared ``emergency'' spending, which means 
it's a unique expenditure not subject to the budget caps that are 
supposed to control our spending. How do these cynics feel about the 
$7.2 billion in Operations and Maintenance funds which this conference 
report would declare an emergency?

  This year's Budget Resolution adopted by the majority party which is 
now in charge even included a requirement that any emergency spending 
be fully justified in the accompanying report. But the conference 
report before us simply ignores that requirement. Can anyone with a 
straight face answer the questions the Budget Resolution would pose? 
Would they say it in front of a group of accountants or financial 
analysts? Would they tell their sons or daughters to run their finances 
that way?
  Is this Operations and Maintenance spending, much of it requested by 
the President and funded in prior years, ``sudden, quickly coming into 
being, and not building up over time''? Is it ``unforeseen, 
unpredictable, and unanticipated''?
  An emergency designation such as this in another appropriations bill 
would be subject to review by the Senate which could only be waived 
with 60

[[Page S12575]]

votes. However, the majority apparently anticipated this emergency 
because they exempted defense spending from the point of order.
  My third major concern is what we call the top-line, though most 
Americans would call it the bottom line. This bill weighs in at $263 
billion in new budget authority. That is over $3 billion more than the 
Defense Appropriations bill passed by the Senate and over $17 billion 
more than we spent on defense last year. These numbers come straight 
out of the conference report.
  I would not deny that we need to address readiness concerns and 
modernize our armed forces. We live in an uncertain world, a world 
which has become more dangerous through this body's rejection of the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty last night.
  Can the dramatic increase in defense spending stand at this level 
while we starve other pressing needs in education, crime prevention, 
health care, and so many other areas?
  I am not sure we can. So while I am prepared to vote for this bill 
today, I would urge President Clinton not to sign it into law until and 
unless other appropriations bills have reached his desk with sufficient 
funding levels to meet America's needs.
  If this can be accomplished without simply resorting to more 
budgetary sleight-of-hand--and I sincerely hope we can do this--then I 
hope this bill will become law.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, to my knowledge, there is no further 
Senator seeking time on the bill. I ask that we have a quorum call for 
a slight period to confirm the report that there are no other Senators 
wishing to speak. But if there are none within the next 5 or 6 minutes, 
I will ask the Senate to defer this matter according to the previous 
order. I will do that at 10:30, unless someone seeks time.
  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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to join my good friend from Hawaii 
in thanking our staff. Again, I can't remember in the time that I have 
served on the Appropriations Committee a more difficult period in terms 
of getting this bill to where it is in order to send it to the 
President. We fully expect it to be signed.
  Without Steven Cortese and Charlie Houy and the people who work with 
them, both Republican and Democratic staffs on our committee, this 
would not have been possible. They have worked weekends. They have 
worked into the night. They have been on call at the oddest hours I 
think we have ever had in terms of dealing with this bill.
  I sincerely want to thank them all and tell the Senate that this 
staff is primarily responsible for this bill being before the Senate 
today because of their hard work and their determination to make it 
come out right.
  I thank them all.
  I am now told that it has been confirmed there are no requests for 
time; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that there be no further time 
on this bill until the matter is called up for a vote by the leader 
according to the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time is yielded.
  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. 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.

                          ____________________