[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 70 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4810-S4812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and
for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of Members, we will
have opening statements, and then we will have an amendment offered by
the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
On behalf of the leader, I make this statement. We are now on the DOD
appropriations bill. After our opening statements, Senator Grassley is
prepared to talk about his accounting amendment. We expect to have a
vote at 9:30 on that amendment tomorrow morning. There will no more
votes for the remainder of the day.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my great friend, Senator Inouye,
in presenting the Defense appropriations bill to the Senate. This bill
is for the fiscal year 2001. It represents the twelfth bill we have
jointly brought before the Senate: Six were presented by my friend from
Hawaii during the period of time when he was the chairman of the
subcommittee, and now this is the sixth bill presented by me during the
second opportunity I have had to chair this subcommittee.
First and foremost, the bill reported by our committee, in our
opinion, meets all personnel, readiness, training, and quality-of-life
priorities for the armed services.
We have fully funded the pay raise and new authorized recruiting and
retention benefits. All estimated costs of contingency operations for
2001 in Kosovo, Bosnia, and southwest Asia are included in our
recommendation. There should not be an emergency supplemental for known
contingency operations in the year 2001 for the Department of Defense.
The bill before the Senate sustains and augments the efforts to
accelerate modernization of our Armed Forces.
Significantly, the recommendation provides an additional $250 million
for the Army's transformation initiative.
I join my friend from Hawaii in commending General Shinseki for his
foresight and leadership in moving the Army forward into a more
deployable global force. These funds should accelerate the fielding of
the initial transformation brigades in 2001.
Our committee, consistent with the Defense authorization bill as
presented to the Senate, adds funds for several missile defense
programs. Mr. President, $139 million is added for the national missile
defense research and development, $92.4 million for the airborne laser,
and $60 million for the Navy theaterwide missile defense efforts.
This is the crossroads year for missile defense. These funds are
consistent with the recommendations and priorities of General Kadish,
who manages this program, for the fiscal year 2001.
A new initiative recommended in this bill is to transfer funding for
the C-17 program to a new national defense airlift fund.
Several years ago, funding for sealift acquisition was transferred to
a central account. Airlift is a key strategic capability. The need for
that is shared by all military services. Funding for airlift should not
be borne solely by the Air Force, just as funding for sealift is not
now borne by the Navy.
Full funding is provided in this new account for 12 C-17 aircraft
requested for 2001, and the advance procurement and interim contract
logistics support submitted in the budget.
The bill presented by the subcommittee includes report language that
directs the Department to proceed with the current acquisition strategy
to select a single design based upon the flight test program.
The Joint Strike Fighter might be the single most important defense
program this committee will consider in the next 10 years. We must get
this one right. Industrial base concerns should only be addressed after
we are sure we have selected the best aircraft at the best cost for the
mission and not before we even select the winner of the competition.
When the committee met to report the bill, several Members raised
with me the subcommittee's recommendation to defer full funding on the
two LPD-17 class vessels requested in the budget.
The bill before us includes $200 million in advance appropriations
for the two ships originally planned for fiscal year 2001. Also, it
includes $285 million to pay for cost overruns incurred on the first
four ships.
I want to restate, as I have in both Maine and Louisiana in the past
week, my personal commitment to the LPD-17 program. The focus of the
adjustment we recommend is to get the program back on track with a
stable design and address prior year problems. The funds provided are
intended to assure that there will be no interruption in the work at
the two shipyards and no additional delay in construction or delivery
of the ships.
At the markup, language was added by Senator Cochran and Senator
Snowe to permit the Navy to sign contracts for both ships using the
funds appropriated by this bill. We have approved that recommendation.
So there is no reason to say this bill in any way slows up the process
of procuring these new ships.
Finally, the recommendation provides $137 million for the new medical
benefits included in the Senate-reported defense authorization bill.
These efforts provide a new pharmacy benefit for military retirees.
They are fully consistent with the objectives outlined by General
Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, in his testimony before our
committee.
The new medical benefit package adopted during consideration of the
defense bill does not require additional discretionary appropriations
for the fiscal year 2001.
It is our intention to work closely with the authorizing committees
and with the Department of Defense to ensure that any new benefits are
fully funded in the years to come. If a commitment is made under our
watch, it is going to be kept.
These improvements will come at considerable cost and will be an
important element of future defense budget planning. This is really
what the Senator from Nebraska was talking about, the oncoming
important costs we must face. The definition of those costs is the
problem so far.
I urge all of our colleagues to look at this bill as a whole. It is
packaged together. It really is a bill we have worked on. I do commend
our staffs, our joint staffs, under Steve Cortese, who is with me, and
Charlie Houy is with Senator Inouye.
This bill once again is a bill that I think, as I said in the
beginning, will meet our needs with the funds that are available this
year. The allocation for defense is roughly $1 billion less than the
amount made available by the Senate version of the defense
authorization bill. It is about $1 billion below the allocation for the
House-passed bill now before the Senate.
Some of these issues have to be sorted out in conference with the
House. I ask the patience of the Senate as we work to get the best
possible package to the conference.
I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that we have several
issues in the bill that are also pending before the conference on the
military construction bill because of the supplemental that was already
passed by the House.
The committee has closely followed the Senate's actions on the
defense authorization bill so far this week. We intend to offer a
managers' package of conforming amendments during consideration of this
bill to accommodate the Senate's action on the bill.
To that concern, I ask all Members of the Senate, if you have
amendments to offer, please notify Senator Inouye or me as soon as
possible. We can probably work out most of them. We hope we will be
able to do so because our bill closely tracks the defense authorization
bill. It tracks the priorities outlined by the military chiefs in their
[[Page S4811]]
testimony before the committee, and it certainly tracks fully our
understanding of the House version that was passed by the other body
just recently.
Mr. President, I now recognize our distinguished ranking member, the
Senator from Hawaii, and once again call to the attention of the Senate
the great honor that will come to him in just a few days; that is, the
honor of receiving his Medal of Honor which he should have received a
long time ago. It is a privilege to serve with my friend from Hawaii.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. May I first thank my chairman for his most generous
remarks.
Mr. President, I begin by congratulating Chairman Stevens for the
superb manner in which he has guided this bill through the committees
to the floor.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my dear friend and
chairman of the committee, Senator Stevens. I suggest to my colleagues
that this is a good measure, worthy of support by all of us. I join my
chairman in requesting that our colleagues submit their amendments in a
timely fashion.
I note that this measure--a measure that includes $287.6 billion; the
largest ever considered by this Senate--was unanimously approved by the
Committee on Appropriations by a vote of 28-0.
It will do a great deal for both our readiness and moderniation
requirements to protect our nation's security.
Highlights include:
For our military personnel and their families: It provides full
funding for military pay including a 3.7 percent pay raise; an increase
of $153 million for military bonuses to improve recruiting and
retention; and increases for the GI bill for Reservists.
The subcommittee has fully funded readiness programs, including: $4.1
billion to support our peacekeepers overseas; an increase of $183
million for our National guard; and a total increase of $4.5 billion
for readiness from the levels provided in FY 2000.
Full funding is also recommended for the new prescription drug
benefit as authorized; and $275 million is recommended for breast and
prostate cancer research.
Critical investment highlights include the following: Full funding
for our F-22 and F/A-18 fighters; an increase of $250 million for the
Army's highest priority, ``transformation''; full funding for the
Navy's carrier, submarines, and destroyers; and, an increase of $411
million for ballistic missile defense programs.
However, Senators should be advised that the bill does not provide a
blank check to the Pentagon.
It includes some tough reductions to programs that are being
schedule, over budget, or simply not ready to proceed at this time.
I want to assure my colleagues that the No. 1 priority in this bill
is to protect near-term readiness.
The men and women willing to go into harm's way to protect the rest
of us simply must be provided the tools they need to defeat any threat.
At the same time, the bill provides sufficient funding for
modernization programs so that future readiness will also be protected.
We must continue to invest for the future to ensure we are never caught
unprepared.
I would also like to point out that the Chairman has been very
responsive to the wishes of the members. Many of the suggestions made
by the Members of the Senate have been incorporated into bill.
This is a very good bill. I strongly encourage all my colleagues to
support it.
Amendment No. 3278
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent all after the enacting clause be
stricken of the pending bill and the text of S. 2593, as reported by
our committee, be inserted and that amendments then be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendments, being designated
amendment No. 3278.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator could withhold, we need to
take a look at the unanimous consent request which was just accepted.
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. 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. I did not waive any points of order. It is my
understanding that the original text of this bill is nevertheless
subject to points of order under rule XVI.
Amendment No. 3279
Mr. GRASSLEY. I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 3279.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent 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, insert the following:
Sec. . Section 8106 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter
under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-111, 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to
apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of
Defense in fiscal year 2001.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment pertains to Department of
Defense (DOD) disbursements.
It requires DOD to match certain disbursements with obligations prior
to payment.
This policy has been incorporated in the last six appropriations
acts: Fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
Each year we have ratcheted down the threshold.
The threshold is the dollar amount of the disbursement that must be
matched with its corresponding obligation.
We started at the $5 million level.
Under current law, the threshold is now set at 500,000.00 dollars.
In 1999, the Senate voted to lower the threshold from $1 million to
the current level.
Both the DOD Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have
repeatedly stated that policy is a good idea.
It is helping the department to control the flow of money.
First, it is an important internal control procedure. It is a first-
line of defense against fraudulent payments.
If a corresponding obligation cannot be identified, the payment
cannot be made. It is as simple as that.
Second, it is helping the department avoid ``problem disbursements''
or unmatched disbursements.
A few years ago, the department had unmatched disbursements totaling
about 50 billion dollars. This situation created gaping holes in DOD's
books of account.
And these gaping holes in the books of account are one big reason why
DOD consistently fails to earn a ``clean'' opinion in the annual CFO
audits.
Those are the audits required by the Chief Financial Officers Act.
And third, it is helping the department avoid overobligations, that
is, making payments in excess of available funding.
This year I am recommending that the threshold be retained at the
current level of 500,000.00 dollars.
The General Accounting Office needs to do more audit follow-up work
before the threshold is lowered any further.
I thank the chairman and the ranking minority member for supporting
this policy and urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
I should ask the chairman of the committee if he wants to order a
rollcall at this point because it is my understanding he wanted a
rollcall vote on it.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that is our
intent. I want to take this time to congratulate the Senator from Iowa
for once again raising the issue of proper accounting procedures for
the Department of Defense. As we have in the past, I suggest it is a
matter for the Senate to express their opinion about and support the
endeavors of the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
[[Page S4812]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
____________________