[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7732-S7744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the conference report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, (H.R. 
     4576), have agreed to recommend and do 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 July 17, 2000.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will just take a minute. I want to make a 
parliamentary inquiry here.
  It is my understanding under the agreement there is about an hour and 
a half that has been set aside to speak on the conference report on the 
Defense appropriations bill; is that right? Approximately that much 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, there are 60 
minutes for Senator McCain from Arizona, 20 minutes for Senator Byrd, 
15 minutes for Senator Gramm of Texas, and 6 minutes equally divided 
between Senators Inouye and Stevens, by previous agreement.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent when that time is used, if those 
Senators have used it, the Senator from Wisconsin be allowed to speak 
for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise once again to address the issue of 
pork-barrel spending in an appropriations bill, in this case the 
defense appropriations conference report. This bill will pass by an 
overwhelming margin and with minimal debate. It will occasion the 
release of innumerable press statements attesting to our individual 
successes in bringing home the bacon.
  As we worship at the altar of pork-barrel spending, let's reflect a 
bit on the merits of our activities with respect to the practice of 
adding unrequested programs to the defense budget for parochial 
reasons. When the defense appropriations bill first emerged from 
committee, some of us found interesting the inclusion of language 
urging the Secretary of Defense to ``take steps to increase the 
Department's use of cranberry products.  . . .'' What I referred to at 
the time as ``the cranberry incident,'' Mr. President, in retrospect 
represented the high point of the process by which this conference 
report was assembled.
  There are over $7 billion in unrequested member-adds in this bill--
over $7 billion. That does not just represent a continuation of 
business as usual pork-barrel spending; it represents an egregious 
expansion of a practice that drains vital resources from a military 
that has witnessed a multitude of readiness problems while deploying at 
record-high levels. As we struggle with answers to such problems as how 
to modernize tactical aviation, maintain a fleet of sufficient size and 
capability to execute its mission, and fund ongoing and unforeseen 
contingencies, it is less than reassuring to read through the defense 
spending bill and see $1.8 million earmarked for development of a 
handheld holographic radar gun, although Trekkies across the nation 
will no doubt be pleased by this project.
  It is tiresome to scan these bills every year and see the annual 
member-adds of millions of dollars for spectral hole burning 
applications and for free electron lasers. And it is particularly 
tiresome, right after passing an emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill that included an executive jet for the commandant of the Coast 
Guard, to see in this bill a $60 million earmark for a new 737 for 
CINCPAC--an important command but $60 million for an aircraft that was 
neither requested nor required constitutes just one of many 
questionable additions to this bill.
  We have finally reversed 15 years in declines in defense spending, 
but for what purpose. To transfer $10 million to the Department of 
Transportation to realign railroad tracks in Alaska? To transfer $5 
million to the National Park Service for repair improvements at Fort 
Baker in northern California? To transfer another $5 million to the 
Chicago Public Schools to convert a former National Guard Armory? Was 
our objective in increasing defense spending to allow us to more freely 
earmark funding for such endeavors as the $500,000 for Florida Memorial 
College for funding minority aviation training; $21 million for the 
Civil Air Patrol; to continue to fund a weather reconnaissance squadron 
in Mississippi that the Air Force has been trying to get rid off for 
more years than I can remember? There is over $4 million in this bill 
for the Angel Gate Academy. There is the now annual allocation to 
preserve Civil War-era vessels at the bottom of Lake Champlain, this 
year in the amount of $15 million. There is $2 million for the Bosque 
Redondo Memorial in New Mexico and the usual $3 million for 
hyperspectral research.
  If a project is so worthy of Defense Department support, why doesn't 
it ever show up in a budget request? Why do we need to add money every 
single year for the National Automotive Center and its prize off-shoot, 
the Smart Truck Initiative. With another $3.5 million in the fiscal 
year 2001 defense bill for Smart Truck, I'm beginning to wonder if the 
intellect of this truck will be such that it will not only be capable 
of heating up a burrito, but will also perform advanced calculus while 
quoting Kierkegaard. When I look through this bill, I begin to lose 
sight of its fundamental purpose. The distinction between the defense 
bill and the Health and Human Services bill gets lost when you see $8.5 
million for the Gallo Center for Alcoholism Research, $4 million for 
the Gallo Cancer Center--see a pattern emerging?--another $1.5 million 
for nutrition research, $1.5 million for chronic fatigue syndrome 
research, and, of course, $1 million for the Cancer Center of 
Excellence--this latter add a reminder that if you call something a 
``center of excellence'' you are assured of being a beneficiary of 
Congress's largess.

  Mr. President, I do not take issue with research into important 
health problems affecting millions of Americans. But the abuse of the 
defense budget grows every year. It has long been used as a cash-cow 
for pet projects, but did that have to extend to the allocation of 
millions of dollars for programs of such exceedingly low priority that 
they don't even show up on already politicized unfunded priority lists?
  Astronomical Active Optics, Mr. President, were deemed worthy of over 
$3 million in defense funds, as was coal based advanced thermally 
stable jet fuel. Fifteen million dollars for the Maui Space 
Surveillance System, another annual add, $5 million for the Hawaii 
Federal Health Care Network, $8 million for the Pacific Island Health 
Care Referral Program, $1 million for the Alaska Federal Health Care 
Network, $1.5 million for AlaskAlert, $7 million for MILES 2000 
equipment at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $7.5 million for a C-130 
simulator for the Alaska National Guard, the annual $10 million

[[Page S7733]]

for utilidor repairs at Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright, 
Alaska, and $21 million for an unmanned threat emitter system for 
Eielson, and $7 million to sustain operations at Adak Naval Air 
Station, an installation of apparently marginal utility or the Navy 
would include it in its funding request. Re-use of Fort Greely, Alaska, 
receives $7 million for airfield improvement. One of my favorites, 
$300,000 for the Circum-Pacific Council for the Crowding the Rim Summit 
Initiative, represents a new addition to this list.
  The inclusion of so-called ``Buy American'' provisions continue to 
waste billions of dollars every year. These out-dated protectionist 
policies serve neither U.S. nor allied interests. It goes against the 
basic logical policy of getting the best product for the best price for 
the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. Additionally, these 
provisions, for example, the requirement to purchase only propellers 
manufactured in the United States, were added in conference--a practice 
with which I take strong exception and will discuss further in a 
minute.
  I have repeatedly addressed the growing perversion of the process by 
which budget requests and service Unfunded Priority Lists are put 
together. It has been clear for several years now that the services are 
under considerable political pressure from Capitol Hill to include in 
their budget requests or, at a minimum, on the Unfunded Priority Lists, 
unnecessary and unwanted items. Funding for the ubiquitous LHD 
amphibious assault ship for Mississippi is the classic example of this 
phenomenon. Indeed, the Defense Department and the Navy's rejection in 
the past of proposals to incrementally fund ships has given way to 
unrelenting pressure from members of Congress to so fund the LHD. 
Similarly, C-130s and passenger jets are routinely added to the UFR 
lists solely as a result of political pressure. In effect, then, my 
efforts at highlighting pork-barrel spending have resulted to some 
degree in the problem being pushed underground. That's called progress 
in Congress. It's called deception everywhere else.
  The fiscal year 2001 defense appropriations conference report takes 
the problem a major step further. The integrity of the budget process 
is under a new and devastating assault by the Appropriations Committee. 
There is in this conference report language specifying the very weapon 
systems the committee expects to see included in future budget 
submissions. It is a long list prefaced with the warning that ``the 
conferees expect the component commanders to give priority 
consideration to the following items . . . ,'' which it then goes on to 
detail.
  Finally, I would like to address the equally fascinating tendency of 
the Appropriations Committees to arrive at final budget numbers that 
exceed what was in either House or Senate bill. It is my understanding 
that conference is a process whereby differences between respective 
bills are the subject of negotiations resulting in agreements that 
either match one of the two numbers in question or find a compromise in 
between. I find it interesting, therefore, that this conference report 
has 166 instances of final numbers exceeding those that were in either 
bill. In many instances, funding was added in conference for which none 
was included in either chamber's bill. For example, $17 million was 
added in conference for a capital purchase plan for Pearl Harbor, and 
$10 million materialized for modifications to M113 armored personnel 
carriers. There is $10 million in the conference report which was in 
neither bill to continue the artificial issue of test firing Starstreak 
missiles, and $1 million for natural gas microturbines. In this bill 
vital for our national defense is $1.7 million for the South Florida 
Ocean Management Center and $1 million for Community Hospital 
Telehealth Competition. And, of course, the $60 million for CINCPAC's 
new 737 was added in conference. For none of these programs, totaling 
over $200 million, was funding included in either the House or the 
Senate bill.
  The total dollar amount for the entire category of conference items 
for which no funding was included in either chamber's bill or for which 
the final number exceeds what was in either bill is over $2 billion. 
Two billion dollars, Mr. President, in unrequested, unnecessary items 
that emerged miraculously in conference. I've heard of the fog of war 
resulting in horrendous casualties, but I'm perplexed by this fog of 
negotiating that results in horrendous budgets.
  Sadly, Mr. President, I could go on for another hour. I think, 
however, that I have made my point. The $7 million in the defense bill 
for the Magdalena Ridge Observatory in New Mexico, combined with the 
aforementioned adds for Astronomical Active Optics and the Maui Space 
Surveillance System leads me to ponder the universe of pork-barrel 
spending at a higher philosophical plane than in the past. We are 
adding millions of dollars every year to the defense bill so that we 
may better scan the heavens, perhaps as part of an ultimately futile 
effort to better understand our place in the cosmos. Only by applying 
such logic to the process of reviewing spending bills upon which we 
vote, however, can I hope to understand the phenomenon by which we 
regularly send billions of dollars down a black hole. At the end of the 
day, I guess Einstein's theory of relativity, as well as Newtonian laws 
of gravity, are at the center of the budget process. The practice of 
pork-barrel spending has been out of control for years; only now can we 
take it to a cosmic level never before contemplated.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONFERENCE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 OUT OF SCOPE ITEMS (THOUSANDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Program                                  Budget     House      Senate   Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Acquisition University.....................................   $100,331   $100,331   $100,331    $102,331
Defense Finance & Accounting Service...............................      1,416      1,416      1,416       2,416
Army National Guard Information Mgt................................     20,115     25,115     20,115      27,315
UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter.........................................     64,651    183,371    120,451     189,601
TH-47 Kiowa Warrior Helicopter.....................................          0      1,800          0      24,000
M113 Armored Personnel Carrier Upgrades............................          0          0          0      10,000
Special Purpose Vehicles...........................................      1,021      1,021      1,021       6,671
National Guard Multi-role Bridge Co.'s.............................          0          0          0       1,000
Launched Grapnel Hooks.............................................          0          0          0       1,000
AV-8B Litening Targeting Pods......................................     40,639     40,639     81,139     120,639
Shoulder-fired Lightweight Assault Weapon 83 mm HEDP...............          0          0          0       5,000
Capital Purchase Plan (Pearl Harbor)...............................          0          0          0      17,000
Air Traffic Control On-board Trainer...............................          0      3,000          0       4,000
Shipboard Programmable Integrated Communication Terminals..........          0          0          0       3,000
F/A-18 Technical Manual Digitization...............................          0          0          0       5,200
Advanced Technical Information System..............................          0          0          0       2,000
Boeing 737 for CINCPAC Executive Jet...............................          0          0          0      60,000
Integrated Bridge System for NSW Rigid Inflatable Boat.............          0          0          0       4,000
Natl Guard WMD Civil Support Team Equip............................          0          0          0         900
Emergency Support Heli-Basket......................................          0          0          0       2,500
Tank Trajectory Correctable Munition...............................          0          0          0       3,000
Air Force Cntr of Acquisition Reengineering........................          0          0          0       2,000
Air Force Knowledge Management Project.............................          0          0          0       2,000
Handheld Holographic Radar Gun.....................................          0          0          0       1,000
Environmental Quality Technology...................................     13,994     54,494     19,994      60,994
Electronics and Electronic Devices.................................     23,869     40,969     34,469      41,269
Defense Research Sciences..........................................    132,164    132,164    136,414     137,914
Materials Technology Research......................................     11,557     15,557     24,557      27,557
EW Technology Research.............................................     17,310     17,310     17,310      22,310
Missile Technology Research........................................     47,183     69,183     55,183      70,683
Modeling and Simulation Technology.................................     30,479     32,479     35,479      36,479
Vehicle and Automotive Technology..................................     63,589     68,589     87,089      89,089
Countermine Systems................................................     12,386     17,786     17,786      17,886
Medical Technology.................................................     75,729     98,729    102,229     112,729
Warfighter Advanced Technology.....................................     15,469     17,469     20,469      21,969
Vehicle and Automotive Adv. Technology.............................    148,114    162,114     89,114     168,114
Training Advanced Technology.......................................      3,072      6,072      3,072       7,072
EW Advanced Technology.............................................     15,359     20,359     15,359      30,359
Missile/Rocket Advanced Technology.................................     25,107     25,107     47,107      52,107
Tactical Exploitation of Natl Capabilities.........................     57,419     43,419     57,419      58,419
Engineering Development of C3 Systems..............................     49,316     49,316     49,316      61,816
Engineering Development of Weapons.................................     22,505     30,505     31,505      33,505
Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar.............................     17,898     26,898     21,898      28,898
Threat Simulator Development.......................................     13,901     16,011     18,801      21,001
Munitions Standardization..........................................     11,276     14,776     13,276      16,776
Force XXI Battle Cmd, Brigade & Below..............................     63,601     63,601     63,601      64,601
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities........................     57,906     81,906     72,906      89,906
EW Technology--Remote Signal Sensor................................          0          0          0       4,900
Environmental Cleanup Demonstration................................          0          0          0       3,000
Multifunctional Intelligence Sensor................................          0          0          0      12,500
Starstreak/Stinger Live Fire Test..................................          0          0          0      10,000
Northern Edge Launch Range Equipment...............................          0          0          0       3,000
Northern Edge Launch Range Infrastructure..........................          0          0          0       4,000
Trajectory Correctable Munition....................................          0          0          0       3,000
Intelligent Power Control Vehicle Systems..........................          0          0          0       4,100
Information Networking Systems.....................................          0          0          0      12,500

[[Page S7734]]

 
Natural Gas Micorturbines..........................................          0          0          0       1,000
Bradley Vehicle Hull & Turret Electronics..........................          0          0          0       2,000
Navigational Electronic Digital Compass............................          0          0          0       1,000
Printed Wiring Board Technology Center.............................          0          0          0       3,000
Natural Gas Air Compressor Technology..............................          0          0          0       1,000
Air & Surface Launched Weapons Tech................................     37,966     52,966     49,966      55,466
Human Systems Technology...........................................     39,939     38,139     33,939      40,439
Computer Technology................................................     68,076     92,026     87,576     106,526
Oceanographic & Atmospheric Technology.............................     60,320     68,070     65,320      77,070
Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Tech..............................     39,667     54,667     45,367      61,167
Surface Ship & Sub HM&E Technology.................................     37,432     68,232     57,232      73,432
Personnel Training Advanced Tech...................................     26,988     42,988     29,988      45,988
Environmental Quality & Logistics Tech.............................     24,002     39,002     42,202      52,502
Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology...............................     58,296     62,296     61,296      66,796
C3 Advanced Technology.............................................     29,673     35,673     44,673      45,673
ASW Systems Development............................................     19,680     24,680     24,680      27,680
Surface Ship Torpedo Defense.......................................          0     11,000          0      16,000
Shipboard System Component Development.............................    244,437    254,437    252,437     258,437
Ship Preliminary Design Studies....................................     46,896     46,896     50,496      56,896
Navy Conventional Munitions........................................     28,619     30,619     31,619      33,619
Navy Logistic Productivity.........................................          0     11,000          0      14,000
Multi-mission Helo Upgrade Development.............................     66,946     79,946     77,946      83,946
EW Development.....................................................     97,281    133,781    122,281     134,781
Airborne MCM.......................................................     47,312     50,312     47,312      51,312
SSN-688 & Trident Modernization....................................     34,801     62,801     49,801      72,801
New Design SSN.....................................................    207,091    212,091    210,091     214,091
Ship Contract Design/Live Fire T&E.................................     62,204     72,204     72,204      78,204
Navy Tactical Computer Resources...................................      3,291     28,291      3,291      30,891
Information Technology Development.................................     15,259     23,259     18,259      29,259
Marine Corps Program Wide Support..................................      8,091     14,891      9,091      17,891
E-2 Squadrons......................................................     18,698     37,698     18,698      50,698
Consolidated Training Systems Development..........................     27,059     34,559     32,059      38,559
Marine Corps Communications Systems................................     96,153    107,153      99153     109,153
Information System Security Program................................     21,530     30,130     21,530      32,130
Airborne Reconnaissance Systems....................................      4,759     15,759      8,759      23,759
CEC P31............................................................          0          0          0      10,000
Maritime Fire Training/Barbers Point...............................          0          0          0       2,000
Materials Micronization Technology.................................          0          0          0       1,000
Virtual Company LINK...............................................          0          0          0       2,000
South Florida Ocean Management Center..............................          0          0          0       1,750
Aircraft Affordability Project DP-2................................          0      3,500          0       4,500
SAR All Weather Targeting System-AWTS..............................          0          0          0       4,000
AC Hi-Temp Superconductor Electric Motor...........................          0          0          0       4,000
Fleet Health Technology............................................          0          0          0       3,000
Ship-towed Tripwire Sensor.........................................          0      3,000          0       8,000
Compatible Processor Upgrade Program...............................          0          0          0       3,500
Air Vehicle Dem/Val Bridge Contracts...............................          0          0          0      88,984
Engine Dem/Val Bridge Contracts....................................          0          0          0      22,500
Advanced Food Service Technology...................................          0          0          0       2,500
AQS-20 Sonar Data Recording Capability.............................          0          0          0       1,000
Sub Combat System Q-70 Retrofits...................................          0          0          0       8,000
Human Resource Enterprise Strategy.................................          0      8,000      3,000       9,000
Distance Learning at CAL State, San Berna..........................          0          0          0       5,000
CBIRF: Chem Agent Warning Network..................................          0          0          0       2,000
E-2C RMP Littoral Surveillance.....................................          0          0          0      15,000
E-2 C Improved Composite Rotordome.................................          0          0          0       2,000
Naval Intelligent Agent Security Module............................          0          0          0       2,000
18-inch Lens Sensor Development-TARPS..............................          0          0          0       5,000
Electro-optical Focal Plane Array Develop..........................          0          0          0       3,000
Aerospace Flight Dynamics..........................................     48,775     52,315     49,327      53,675
Space Technology...................................................     57,687     61,687     68,287      69,487
Air Force Conventional Munitions...................................     45,223     45,223     45,223      52,223
Advanced Aerospace Sensors.........................................     28,311     44,811     40,311      46,811
Flight Vehicle Technology..........................................      2,445      7,645      6,272      11,045
Integrated Command & Control (IC2A)................................        214          0      5,014       8,014
Compass Call.......................................................      5,834     25,834     15,834      21,834
Extended Range Cruise Missile......................................          0          0     20,000      40,000
Theater Battle Management C41......................................     41,068     41,068     46,068      48,568
Information Systems Security Program...............................      7,212     25,703     12,212      29,503
Airborne Reconnaissance Systems....................................    136,913    143,913    152,613     157,913
Handheld Holographic Radar Gun (H3G)...............................          0          0          0       1,000
Laser Spark........................................................          0          0          0       3,000
EW Survivability Enhancements......................................          0          0          0       3,500
Civil, Fire, Environmental Shelters................................          0          0          0       2,746
ACES II Ejection Seat for Higher Weight............................          0          0          0       4,000
X-15 Test Stand at Edwards AFB.....................................          0          0          0         500
Air Force Center of Acquisition Reengin............................          0          0          0       2,000
Air Force Knowledge Management Project.............................          0          0          0       2,000
Defense Research Sciences..........................................     90,415    100,415    102,015     109,815
University Research Initiatives....................................    253,627    289,627    263,627     292,077
Medical Free Electron Laser........................................     15,029     25,029     15,029      20,029
Biological Warfare Defense.........................................    162,064    166,564    150,064     168,314
Materials and Electronics Technology...............................    249,812    259,312    255,812     264,312
High Energy Laser Program..........................................          0          0          0      30,000
Explosives Demilitarization Technology.............................      8,964     23,164     19,664      30,164
Advanced Aerospace Systems.........................................     26,821     26,821     30,936      34,821
Chemical & Biological Defense Program..............................     46,594     49,344     55,694      57,894
Special Technical Support..........................................     10,777     14,777     15,777      29,577
Generic Logistics R&D Tech Demos...................................     23,082     47,382     37,082      48,182
Strategic Environmental Research Program...........................     51,357     57,357     51,557      59,557
Advanced Electronics Technologies..................................    191,800    211,800    198,300     221,500
Agile Port Demonstration...........................................          0          0      5,000       7,500
Advanced Sensor Applications Program...............................     15,534     24,534     31,034      38,334
Environmental Security Technical Certification.....................     24,906     24,906     25,406      29,256
BMD Technical Operations...........................................    270,718    292,718    304,218     313,218
International Cooperative Programs.................................    116,992    116,992    124,992     130,992
Chemical & Biological Defense Program..............................     83,800     83,800     88,800      89,800
General Support to C31.............................................      3,769     34,469      9,769      38,769
Joint Simulation System............................................     24,095     24,095     24,095      42,095
Information Technology Center......................................          0          0          0      20,000
University Advanced Materials Research.............................          0          0          0       1,000
Military Personnel Research........................................          0          0      2,000       4,000
Center for Counterproliferation, Monterey..........................          0          0          0       4,000
Lightweight X-band Antenna.........................................          0          0          0       2,000
F-22 Digital EW Product Improvement................................          0          0          0       5,000
Advanced Lithography Demonstration.................................          0      3,000          0       5,000
Navy Center of Excellence in Electro-optics........................          0          0          0       4,000
NTW Missile Defense Radar Competition..............................          0          0          0      80,000
Chem/Bio CBMS II Upgrades..........................................          0          0          0       2,000
Community Hospital Telehealth Consortium...........................          0          0          0       1,000
 
Total Number of Out of Scope items: 166.
Total Plus up of these items over the President's Budget Request: over $2.2 Billion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not intend to take all of my time. I 
would like to have Senator Gramm use some of his time.
  I would like to say I am not proud to be here on the floor. This bill 
probably ranks up with the two or three of the most outrageous pork-
barrel spending bills that I have observed in my years here since 1987. 
I should have demanded that the bill be read and I should be doing 
everything I can to block it. I intend to explain why.
  This bill, I say in all respect--in all respect to the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, and my good friend from Hawaii--is a 
disgrace. This bill has had $2 billion added on in conference--added on 
in conference. Not a single Member of this body who was not part of the 
conference had anything to say about $2 billion--B, billion--that was 
added in conference. As I say, I have not seen anything quite this 
bad--or perhaps I have, but it is very rare. This is a remarkable 
document. It has millions and millions and millions of dollars devoted 
to projects that have nothing to do with national defense.
  Mr. President, there is $4 million--excuse me--$8.5 million for the 
Gallo Center for Alcoholism Research. What is the Gallo Center for 
Alcoholism Research? That was added in the conference.
  It has $4 million for the Gallo Cancer Center, $1.5 million for 
chronic fatigue syndrome research, $1 million for the Cancer Center of 
Excellence. What does the Cancer Center of Excellence have to do with 
national defense?
  Mr. President, there are $4 million in this bill for the Angel Gate 
Academy. What is the Angel Gate Academy? There is now an allocation to 
preserve Civil War-era vessels at the bottom of Lake Champlain, this 
year in the amount of $15 million; $2 million for the Bosque Redondo 
Memorial.

  I am one of the few Members who know what the Bosque Redondo Memorial 
is. That is when we marched the Navajo Nation to Canyon de Chelle and 
killed thousands of the Navajo Nation. What does that have to do with 
defense?
  Mr. President, $3 million for hyperspectral research; astronomical 
active optics were deemed worthy of over $3 million in defense funds, 
as was coal-based advanced thermally stable jet fuel. Coal-based jet 
fuel? What do we have, a guy in the back of the plane shoveling coal?
  Mr. GRAMM. The Germans tried that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, $7 million--of course Alaska is here, of 
course Hawaii is here. There is $5 million for the Hawaii Federal 
Health Care Network. I say to the Senator, my dearest friend, what in 
the world is the Pacific Island Health Care Referral Program? The 
Hawaiian Islands Federal Health Care Network? Alaska Federal Health 
Care Network? $1.5 million for AlaskAlert, $7 million for equipment at 
Fort Wainwright, $7.5 million for the C-130 simulator.
  There is a gift for CINCPAC, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Forces in 
the Pacific. Perhaps he needs a new $60 million airplane. Perhaps he 
needs it, I don't know. We will never know because it was not in the 
House bill, it was not in the Senate bill, and it was put in in 
conference, $60 million.
  This is a remarkable document. I have submitted for the Record a 
four-page document. Many pages show: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, 
zero; Conference--a Capital Purchase Plan at Pearl Harbor: Budget, 
zero; House,

[[Page S7735]]

zero; Senate, zero; Conference, $5 million. What is that all about? 
What is that all about? Was it ever discussed on the floor of the 
Senate? Was it ever discussed at a hearing? Was it ever, dare I say, 
discussed in the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is the 
authorizing committee for these projects? Was it ever? No.
  This is quite remarkable. Air Force Center of Acquisition 
Reengineering: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; Conference, $2 
million.
  There is a Handheld Holographic Radar Gun--I repeat that--a Handheld 
Holographic Radar Gun: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; 
Conference, $1 million.
  Is there anyone in this body besides the appropriators, besides the 
appropriators in this body, who is going to vote $1 million of the 
taxpayers' money who knows what in the world a Handheld Holographic 
Radar gun is? Perhaps the Presiding Officer knows. He is a very smart 
guy. Perhaps Senator Gramm--he is an economist; he is a former college 
professor--perhaps he knows.
  Here is one. Information Networking Systems: Budget, zero; House, 
zero; Senate, zero; Conference, $12.5 million. What does that mean?
  Intelligent Power Control Vehicle Systems: House, zero; Senate, zero; 
Budget, zero; Conference, $4.1 million. What does that mean?
  One of my annual favorites--here is one that really is puzzling. Air 
Vehicle Dem/Val Bridge Contracts: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, 
zero; Conference, $88,984,000.
  My friends, you are going to vote to appropriate $88,984,000 of 
taxpayers' dollars for an Air Vehicle Dem/Val Bridge Contract.
  Here is another one, Advanced Food Service Technology: Budget, zero; 
House, zero; Senate, zero; $2.5 million for Advanced Food Service 
Technology. Mr. President, Advanced Food Service Technology? Again, 
what is that all about? Was it ever requested by the administration?
  The answer is no.
  Compass Call--I will not go into the Compass Call.
  NTW missile defense radar competition. That may be very important. 
Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; conference, $80 million. I say 
to my friends, $80 million will be spent on NTW missile defense radar 
competition which, again, never had a hearing in the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, was never discussed on the floor of the Senate, 
never discussed on the floor of the House, and 80 million of taxpayers' 
dollars.
  Here is another one. Information Technology Center. Budget, zero. For 
the uninitiated, ``budget'' means requested by the administration. The 
administration requested no money for it. The House put in no money for 
it in their Defense appropriations bill. The Senate put zero dollars in 
their bill. Yet it emerged from conference: Information Technology 
Center, $20 million; $20 million is now being spent on the Information 
Technology Center which none of us knows what in the world it is, 
except for a chosen few.
  What is happening here is that Members of the Senate and House who 
are not members of the Appropriations Committee are being deprived of 
their rights to knowledge and voting and discussing, debating, and 
making judgment on programs. And we are talking about big money here. 
We are talking about $2 billion--B, billion--that have been added in 
conference which neither House ever debated, discussed, nor amended.
  I think it is wrong, and I will return to something I said several 
times, both publicly and privately. It is time we made some tough 
decisions around here: Abolish the authorizing committees or abolish 
the appropriations committees. I am told by the distinguished chairman 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee that $600 million was 
transferred out of Navy accounts into Army accounts--$600 million--by 
the Appropriations Committee.
  We all know how the system is supposed to work. The authorizing 
committees authorize, and then the Appropriations Committee allows 
certain amounts of money which, in their best judgment, is needed. Now 
we are shifting hundreds of millions of dollars and adding $2 billion. 
We are inaugurating programs that have no relation--no relation 
whatsoever--to national defense.
  What in the world does a Gallo Research Center have to do with 
anything that is regarded defense?
  Mr. President, $7 million for the Magdalena Ridge Observatory in New 
Mexico--what does the Magdalena Ridge Observatory in New Mexico have to 
do with national defense?--combined with the aforementioned adds for 
Astronomical Active Optics and the Maui Space Surveillance System.
  Some months ago, I completed a failed Presidential campaign. I 
learned a lot of things in that campaign, but I also found that many 
Americans who did not vote in the 1998 election--in fact, we had the 
lowest voter turnout in history of the 18-to-26-year-old voter in the 
1998 election, and all of the predictions now are that we will have an 
even lower voter turnout in the year 2000 Presidential campaign.
  They said, particularly young people: You don't represent me anymore; 
you don't respond to my hopes, dreams, and aspirations. I think these 
young people have another complaint: You don't have anything to do with 
the expenditure of my tax dollars.
  It is controlled by a few and, in many cases, those few are 
controlled by special interests. Recently, there was a fundraiser 
conducted by the Democratic Party where one could pay $500,000 and buy 
a ticket. When I first came to the House in 1983, if someone had told 
me that, I would have said: You're crazy.
  Here we are in a process where I am not able to represent the people 
of my State, much less the other young Americans who thought that I was 
a decent public servant. How can I represent the taxpayers of my State 
when $2 billion is put in, in a conference about which I have no input? 
How can we call ourselves their representatives when they add money 
into an appropriations bill in a conference? Most Americans think $2 
billion is a lot of money.
  I will tell my colleagues this right now: We are not taking care of 
the men and women in the military. We have pilots leaving at the 
highest rate. We cannot retain them. We have young men and women 
leaving in the highest numbers we have ever experienced since the 
1970s. We are not meeting our recruiting goals. Yet we can spend $7 
million for the Magdalena Ridge Observatory; we can spend money for the 
LHD amphibious assault ship in Mississippi; C-130s and passenger jets 
are routinely added. The list goes on and on.
  I will have more to say because I have asked for the time, but it is 
not fair to the people of this country. I tell my appropriator friends 
now: You risk losing the confidence of the American people when you 
carry out these kinds of procedures. You risk and deserve the 
condemnation and criticism of average citizens when you use their 
taxpayer dollars in such fashion in a bill that says ``Defense 
appropriations bill'' and we give money to some Gallo outfit. It may be 
a good and worthy cause, but so much of this has nothing to do with 
national defense, and the procedure that is being used is not 
acceptable.
  I tell the appropriators now, and I want to make them very well 
aware, if next year this kind of behavior and these kinds of 
parliamentary procedures are pursued, I will do whatever one Senator 
can do to block passage of this bill. I say that not only because of my 
offense at this kind of procedure that has taken place, but I say that 
on behalf of the men and women who serve in the military today who are 
not having their basic needs met.
  We still have thousands of young men and women on food stamps. We 
still have marines recapping tires so they can buy additional 
ammunition with which to practice. We still have men and women in the 
military living in barracks that were built in World War II, and we 
will spend $2 billion that has nothing to do with their health, 
welfare, and benefit.
  I have that obligation, and that obligation clearly supersedes that 
of my obligation to my dear friends in the Senate. It has to stop. I 
was discussing this with my friend--and he is my dear friend--the 
Senator from Alaska. I said: This is terrible, all the things that have 
been put in.
  He said: You should have seen what they tried to put in.
  In all due respect to the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, it is not good enough.

[[Page S7736]]

  I see the Senator from Texas has more to say. I reserve the remainder 
of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, my dad was a sergeant in the Army. I have 
always believed in a strong defense, and I have always prided myself on 
the fact that at least, in my opinion, no one in the Senate was a 
stronger supporter of national defense and a stronger supporter of the 
men and women who wear the uniform of this country and who keep us 
free. I, therefore, thought it was incumbent on me to explain why I am 
going to vote against this Defense appropriations bill.

  Let me start by giving you a little history because I think it 
explains why we are at this extraordinary point with a bill that seems 
so very hard to explain. It started with President Clinton. It is, 
unfortunately, a standard pattern that, from time to time, we have 
Presidents who come into office and cut defense, and then as they are 
on the verge of waving goodbye, they propose massive increases in 
defense spending.
  My dear colleague from Arizona will remember that the largest period 
of increases in defense spending in the peacetime history of the 
country did not start while Ronald Reagan was President. It, in fact, 
started the last year Jimmy Carter was President, even though Jimmy 
Carter cut national defense expenditures consistently during his 
Presidency.
  President Clinton, in the first 5 years he was President, cut defense 
spending every single day. In the first year of his Presidency, real 
defense spending fell by 5.8 percent. In 1994, real defense spending 
again fell by 5.8 percent. In 1995, it fell by 4.7 percent; in 1996, 
4.9 percent; in 1997, 0.5 percent; in 1998, 2.8 percent. In every one 
of those years, real resources that we committed to national security 
and to the well-being of the men and women who defend America declined.
  Then, in 1999, finally, as we were looking at the 1999 budget, the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff finally stopped toeing the line for President 
Clinton, stopped apologizing for the decimation of the military, and 
pointed out that the military had been hollowed by Bill Clinton. It was 
a revelation that was late in coming, and it is a shame on the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff that they let it run for so long.
  So in 1999, led, I am proud to say, by the Republican Congress, we 
actually increased defense spending in real terms for the first time 
since Bill Clinton had been President.
  Now, in his final budget submission, President Clinton, as he is 
heading toward the exit, having cut defense consistently since he 
became President--even counting the increase Congress added last year, 
real defense outlays have been cut by 17 percent--now, in his parting 
budget, President Clinton proposed $16 billion of increases in defense 
spending.
  We might have celebrated that fact--having written a budget that 
added $16 billion and expanded our modernization programs, improved 
health care for our active duty military and for our retirees--there 
are many good things we could do with that $16 billion--but Congress 
was not going to be outdone. How dare Bill Clinton, in the final hours 
that he has in the White House, submit a massive increase in defense 
spending and have Congress just say yes.
  So remarkably, we find ourselves today in a situation where the 
President proposed a $16 billion increase, Congress has raised that by 
another $14 billion, and, as a result, we have over a 10-percent 
increase in defense spending in 1 year. I would submit that this is 
political upmanship that makes absolutely no sense. What has happened 
is, the surplus is literally burning a hole in our pockets.
  The picture is actually worse because there are all kinds of gimmicks 
in the bill that would allow more to be spent. You might wonder how $2 
billion that nobody voted on in either House of Congress could be added 
in conference. Let me explain how it happened. In fact, I am sure 
people wonder: Where do these emergencies come from? Every week or so 
now, they are seeing Congress pass an emergency funding bill. And they 
might ask: Where do these emergencies come from?
  On page 54 of this Defense appropriations bill, we have an emergency 
created. This is how it happened. The Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense, in section 8166, cut spending for the Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund by $1.1 billion.

  They took the $1.1 billion out of the appropriations bill, and then, 
in title IX, they added it back, but this time as an emergency. So, in 
the middle of page 54, an emergency is created, by taking money away 
from needed expenditures on American overseas contingency operations--
we take the money away in the middle of page 54--then we spend this 
money on all of these programs that Senator McCain is talking about, 
and then, at the bottom of page 54, we add it back because we have an 
emergency.
  Well, where did the emergency come from? The emergency came from the 
fact that they took the money from overseas operations to spend on 
other things. That is where the emergency came from.
  So they created the emergency in the middle of page 54, and then at 
the bottom of page 54, having created a crisis--we might have to bring 
troops home from Kosovo as a result of the money taken in the middle of 
page 54--so at the bottom of page 54, having created the emergency in 
the middle of the page, they then solve the emergency by taking exactly 
the same amount of money, declaring it an emergency so it does not 
count under the budget, and adding it back.
  It, I think, speaks volumes that Senator McCain looked at this bill, 
and I looked at this bill, and we both came up with a list of programs 
that we thought were indefensible. We never talked about our choice of 
programs, but there is not a single overlap on our lists. That tells me 
we were picking from a large bushel basket full of add-ons.
  Let me give you a few that I think deserve a prize. Five million 
dollars is earmarked out of Army operations and maintenance. I remind 
my colleagues, this is an area where we have a critical shortage of 
funding, where we have provided emergency money in the past. In clear 
violation of the base closing law--which says, when you close a 
military base you can't keep building infrastructure on that military 
base; when you have closed it, when you have transferred it to the 
civilian sector, you can't keep spending defense money on it--in clear 
violation of the base closing law, we provide $5 million, which we 
transfer to the National Park Service, to build infrastructure on a 
base that has been closed.
  No. 2, we provide $4 million to monitor desert tortoise populations. 
Remember, we are taking $4 million out of the defense budget. In fact, 
we declared an emergency when we took the money away from overseas 
operations, and then we put it back in for an emergency so we could 
fund programs such as monitoring desert tortoise populations.
  It is interesting, when you press, to learn what the justification 
is. The justification, you will be happy to know, is that we may, at 
some point, want to expand a military base, and the desert tortoise 
population might be relevant.
  I remind my colleagues, we are closing military bases. Nevertheless, 
in this bill, with all of our needs, we found room to provide defense 
money to monitor the desert tortoise population in California.
  Because we have a huge backlog in depot maintenance for our ships in 
the Navy, this Congress has provided $362 million of emergency money to 
try to deal with this backlog in ship maintenance so our ships can 
perform their missions. In this bill, we take $750,000 out of that 
emergency money and use it for renovations on the U.S.S. Turner Joy. 
Senator McCain will be one of the few people here who will remember the 
U.S.S. Turner Joy. It is a destroyer. It is well known because it was 
involved in the Tonkin Gulf action that got us deeper into Vietnam. But 
it has been out of the Navy since 1982. We are providing $362 million 
on an emergency basis to catch up with ship maintenance, and yet we are 
basically giving a tourist bureau money to do renovation on a ship that 
has been out of the Navy since 1982.
  There is $5.5 million for an Army research and development project. 
This is money meant for modernization so if we have to send men and 
women into combat, they will have technological superiority. We use 
this $5.5 million for laser vision correction. Laser vision

[[Page S7737]]

correction is a miracle. They can come in and do it, and you don't have 
to wear glasses anymore. But the point is, what does that have to do 
with national defense? Why are we funding medical research out of the 
national defense budget?
  Then there is $2.8 million to buy new office furniture for the 
Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA. At first you might say, OK, 
we built a new building; we have to buy new furniture. But there isn't 
a new building. We are not building a new building at the Defense 
Language Institute in Monterey, CA. The question is: Why do we need new 
furniture now? What is wrong with the old furniture? The answer: The 
surplus is burning a hole in our pocket. This is a grab bag. It is like 
one of these sales you see on television where they dump the clothes on 
a table and they are on sale, and everybody grabs a piece of it.
  Finally, $3.5 million is added in Army research, development, test, 
and evaluation for artificial hip research. Now look, artificial hip 
research is important. There are people who have deteriorating joints. 
We fund research at the National Institutes of Health to deal with 
health problems. What are we doing taking $3.5 million out of defense 
to fund this kind of activity?
  I will conclude on this: We took $1.1 billion out of defense. We 
declared an emergency because we didn't have enough defense money. 
Then, having declared an emergency and gotten the money, then we take 
the $1.1 billion that was supposed to be spent on defense and spend it 
on other things. As a result, we literally have an almost endless list 
of projects exactly like these. You have to ask yourself, is this 
really the best use for the taxpayers' money?
  I say to my colleagues, I am going to vote against this Defense bill 
because this is runaway spending at its worst. I voted against other 
bills because of the obscene way we literally are throwing money at 
these appropriated accounts. In this election year, with many close 
elections, we literally are spending money on anything that might have 
a constituency. This process has got to stop. I think it undermines the 
good work we are doing.
  I thank Senator Stevens. We have been working to resolve a 
disagreement over two unnecessary pay shifts. Senator Stevens has 
agreed--graciously, I might add--to fix that. But I am going to vote 
against this bill on the basis under which we are today considering it. 
I am going to vote against this bill because you cannot defend this 
kind of runaway spending. The only defense I've heard is that, in a big 
bill, you are going to take on some spending. I don't think that is 
good enough.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm for his efforts and 
his discussion of a bill that, obviously, is going to be passed by 
overwhelming numbers. Again, I point out, this is a Defense 
appropriations bill--appropriations. It is supposed to be for the 
money, not for making policy or authorizing.
  One of the more egregious practices that has crept in lately, that 
doesn't have a lot to do with money but has a great deal to do with 
national policy and in the end costs taxpayers enormous amounts of 
money, is the Buy American provisions. We started out with a couple. 
Now we have more and more and more. I will mention a couple of them.
  You have to buy only American products related to welded shipboard 
anchor and mooring chain. You can only buy American relating to carbon 
alloy or armor steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
property under the control of the Department of Defense, specifications 
to be determined by the American Iron and Steel Institute. There are 
Buy American restrictions related to the procurement of vessel 
propellers and ball and roller bearings.
  I am told that a request for proposal, so-called RFP, to people to 
bid on vessel propellers that would have been opened to, certainly, our 
NATO allies was recently published and, strangely enough, this was put 
in the bill. There is a requirement for the use of U.S. anthracite as 
the baseload energy for municipal district heat for U.S. military 
installations in Germany. I have remarked on this before because it has 
been there a long time. It is the classic example of taking coal to 
Newcastle. We have to take American coal, put it on a ship, and 
transport it to Germany to be used in Germany. I have never gotten an 
estimate as to how many millions that costs Americans.
  It exempts the construction of public vessels, ball and roller 
bearings, food, clothing or textile materials from Secretary of Defense 
waiver authority relating to the Buy American requirements involving 
countries with which the United States has reciprocal agreements. In 
other words, the United States has a reciprocal agreement, particularly 
with some of our NATO allies, and the Secretary of Defense cannot give 
any waiver for the purchase of clothing or textile materials. This is 
protectionism at its most egregious.
  It prohibits the development, lease, or procurement of ADC(X) class 
ships unless the main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are 
manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated entity.
  It transfers $5 million to the National Park Service for repair 
improvements at Fort Baker in northern California; $500,000 for Florida 
Memorial College for the purposes of funding minority aviation 
training. It is a worthy program. I would support it, if it were not in 
a Defense appropriations bill. It transfers $34 million to the 
Department of Justice for the National Drug Intelligence Center. We 
have an appropriations bill upon which that would have been entirely 
appropriate. Then they go on to restrict the center's ability to 
establish its own personnel levels.
  There are restrictions on the ability of the Department of Defense to 
contract out any activity currently performed by more than 10 
Department of Defense civilian employees.
  This is an appropriations bill, Mr. President. Now the Department of 
Defense cannot contract out any activity, no matter how much money it 
would save the taxpayers, under any circumstances, if there are no more 
than 10 DOD civilian employees. It doesn't matter if there are a 
thousand military people. More than 10 Department of Defense civilian 
employees. That is offensive, to have that kind of language in a DOD 
appropriations bill.
  It prohibits reduction to disestablishment of the 53rd Weather 
Reconnaissance Squadron, Air Force Reserve, Mississippi. We all know we 
have the capability to monitor weather, thanks to modern technology.
  It mandates continued availability of funds for the National Science 
Center for Communications and Electronics in Georgia.
  It requires the Army to use the former George Air Force Base, 
California, as the airhead for the National Training Center.
  We could not let the Army or Department of Defense make that 
decision. We require the U.S. Army, no matter what it may cost, to use 
George Air Force Base as the airhead for the National Training Center.
  It authorizes the Secretary of Defense to waive reimbursement 
requirements relating to the costs to the Department of Defense 
associated with the conduct of conferences, seminars, and other 
educational activities of the Asia-Pacific Center.
  It is well to note that the Asia-Pacific Center is located in Hawaii. 
Why don't we waive reimbursement requirements for any center in America 
or the world? Why just for the Asia-Pacific Center?
  It transfers $10 million to the Department of Transportation to 
realign railroad tracks at Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort 
Richardson, Alaska.
  I wonder if there are railroad tracks that need to be realigned at 
other defense facilities in America. I would imagine so.
  It mandates that funds used for the procurement of malt beverages and 
wine for resale on a military installation be used to procure such 
beverages from within that State.
  Suppose they could get those beverages at a lower cost from some 
other State?
  It earmarks $5 million for the High Desert Partnership in Academic 
Excellence Foundation, Inc., for the purpose of developing, 
implementing, and evaluating a standards- and performance-based 
academic model at schools administered by the Department of Defense 
Education Activity.
  What makes the High Desert Partnership the place to get the $5 
million?

[[Page S7738]]

Was there ever a hearing on it? Did the Personnel Subcommittee or Armed 
Services Committee ever look at it? No.
  It earmarks $115 million to remain available for transfer to other 
Federal agencies.
  That is $115 million; just transfer it to other Federal agencies. 
Why?
  It earmarks $1.9 million for San Bernadino County Airports Department 
for installation of a perimeter security fence at Barstow-Daggett 
Airport, California.
  It earmarks $20 million for the National Center for the Preservation 
of Democracy.
  It earmarks $7 million for the North Slope Borough.
  It earmarks $5 million to the Chicago Public Schools for conversion 
and expansion of the former Eighth Regiment National Guard Armory.

  I argue, Mr. President, that there are guard armories all over 
America that could be converted.
  It earmarks $1 million for the Middle East Regional Security Issues 
Program.
  It earmarks $2 million, subject to authorization, for the Bosque 
Redondo Memorial in New Mexico.
  It earmarks $300,000 for the Circum-Pacific Council for the Crowding 
the Rim Summit Initiative.
  It earmarks $10 million for the City of San Bernadino, contingent on 
resolution of the case of City of San Bernadino v. United States.
  Mr. President, it is obvious that this procedure in the Congress of 
the United States of authorizing and appropriating has lurched 
completely and entirely out of control. When you are earmarking $2 
billion out of an appropriations bill which has neither been examined 
nor voted on by either body, we have a case that has got to be 
remedied, and we have obviously wasted billions of dollars of the 
taxpayers' money.
  The American people deserve better. I say again to the distinguished 
members of the Appropriations Committee, with whom I have an excellent 
and warm personal relationship, this cannot stand. Next year, if this 
kind of practice continues, then I will have to do everything in my 
power to stop it, as I said before, not only because of my obligation 
to the taxpayers, which is significant, but my obligation to the men 
and women in the military who are being shortchanged by these 
procedures and, indeed, neglected in many respects.
  I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 20 minutes remaining for Senator 
Byrd and 6 minutes for Senators Stevens and Inouye.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I shall use half of that 6 minutes, if I 
may be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
4576, the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriations Act was endorsed by 
all the Senate conferees, and enjoys the full support of our 
distinguished ranking member Senator Inouye.
  This bill, in combination with the emergency supplemental bill passed 
last month, provides a true jump start to restore the readiness, 
quality of life, and modernization of our Armed Forces.
  The Senate considers this conference report at the earliest point in 
the year since 1958--which means the Department of Defense can plan now 
to execute the funds provided by Congress for the full fiscal year.
  Our adoption of this conference report today would not have been 
possible without the extraordinary effort and leadership of House 
Chairman, Jerry Lewis.
  In partnership with the former House Chairman, and current ranking 
member, Jack Murtha, they reported the bill in early May, and presented 
it to the Senate in time for us to act prior to the July 4th recess.
  Both committees set the FY 2001 bill aside to complete work on the FY 
2000 supplemental in late June. That bill provided $6.5 billion to 
repay the Army for operations in Kosovo, and to address critical 
personnel, medical, and fuel cost increases.
  This bill extends those initiatives, providing needed funds for new 
medical benefits for military retirees, real property maintenance, 
depot maintenance, and environmental restoration.
  The most significant initiative contained in the conference report is 
the nearly $1 billion increase for the Army transformation effort.
  Last October, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the new Chief of Staff of the Army, 
established a new vision for the Army--a more mobile, lethal and 
flexible force for the 21st century.
  In this bill, funding is provided to procure the first two brigade 
sets of equipment for the new ``transformation'' force.
  We are determined that this new force be equipped as rapidly as 
possible, and intend to maintain this pace of funding in fiscal years 
2002 and 2003.
  Meeting our national strategic priorities, the bill establishes a new 
national defense airlift fund, to procure C-17 aircraft.
  The centerpiece of how our Nation can maintain its global leadership 
position is strategic mobility. As our force is as small, to meet our 
national commitments, we must be able to respond to crises anywhere on 
the globe--the key to that is the C-17.
  Finally, this bill accelerates development, and seeks to reduce 
technical risk, on the full spectrum of our missile defense programs.
  The conference worked to keep the airborne laser, space-based laser, 
national missile defense, and Navy theater-wide programs on track, and 
provide additional funds for the Arrow Joint Development Program with 
Israel.
  It is again my privilege this year to join my colleague from Hawaii 
in presenting this bill to the Senate. We simply could not have 
completed our work without his leadership, guidance, and partnership. I 
would now like to yield to Senator Inouye for his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. the Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I want to begin by informing the Senate 
that, at $287.9 billion, this act represents the largest defense 
spending measure in history.
  The act is $176 million more than was recommended by the Senate and 
$706 million below the House level.
  The conference agreement is a fair compromise between the two Houses. 
Funding for many items of priority of each of the bodies have been 
included, but concessions were also required of each Chamber.
  Our chairman and his House counterpart should be given great credit 
for this measure.
  I am confident the funding contained in this act will allow our 
military to meet their most critical readiness and modernization needs 
in the coming year.
  However, Senators should be advised that the bill does not provide a 
blank check to the Pentagon.
  It includes reductions in some programs that, such as in the Navy's 
LPD-17, are behind schedule, over budget, or simply not ready to 
proceed.
  In addition, the conferees concurred with the House, terminating the 
Discoverer II and Sadarm programs.
  Mr. President, these were difficult decisions, but by making these 
tough choices the conferees were able to identify sufficient resources 
to protect those programs which are truly critical to the support of 
our military forces.
  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.
  To help meet our readiness requirements, the conference agreement 
includes the following among its many accomplishments:
  (1) Fully funds a 3.7 percent military pay raise;
  (2) Provides an increase of more than $400 million for real property 
maintenance;
  (3) Provides an increase of $234 million for depot maintenance; and
  (4) Provides funding for a new pharmacy benefit for our older 
retirees.
  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 am particularly pleased that the conferees were able to provide 
nearly

[[Page S7739]]

$1.4 billion in support the Army's newest initiative commonly referred 
to as ``transformation.''
  These funds will allow the Army to begin to outfit its first two 
interim combat brigades with new equipment to test out this 
revolutionary concept.
  This is the highest priority of the Army Chief of Staff and is 
critical to supporting our Army.
  Mr. President, these are but a few of the many items included in this 
bill to ensure that our defense forces remain second to none.
  Mr. President, this is a very good compromise agreement. I strongly 
encourage all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, a process of this nature, which involves 
appropriations in excess of $275 billion, is a result of many hours and 
many days of collaboration and consultation with hundreds of people, 
including the President, the various Secretaries, committee staff 
members, Senators, and Representatives. A measure of this magnitude, 
obviously, will be supported by some and criticized by others. One can 
never come forth with a ``perfect'' bill. It is just not possible.
  However, I believe it is important that certain clarifications be 
made. I know, for example, that my dear friend from Arizona spoke of 
the Navy Theater-Wide Missile Defense Program and suggested that the 
House had not sought the funds, and neither did the President of the 
United States nor the Senate of the United States. However, I am 
certain the Senator would have noted, if he studied the report 
carefully, that this was debated on this floor for very many minutes. 
It was debated in the House, it was debated in the Appropriations 
Committee and in the authorization committee. The only difference was 
that the House provided $130 million to be designated for very specific 
purposes. In the Senate, for the same program, we provided $50 million 
for the whole program itself.
  When the compromise was reached, we decided to let the Department of 
Defense make its allocations. So we drew a new line item. The new line 
item obviously was not requested by the President, nor by the House, 
nor by the Senate. But the matters debated and compromised were fully 
debated by this body. That can also be said for many other programs.
  I wish to advise my colleague that as far as I am concerned, this 
measure is a good one. It addresses the needs of our military. It 
provides the funds that are necessary to feed, clothe, and adequately 
and appropriately arm our men so they can stand in harm's way with some 
confidence that they will be protected.
  I commend my chairman, the Senator from Alaska, for his leadership on 
this matter. It is not easy.
  I am the first to admit that there must be some waste in a measure of 
this magnitude. There are some that we may disagree with as to its 
merit and it relevance to do defense. But that is my view. Others may 
disagree with me. But I think overall this is a fine bill and it is 
worthy of support by the Members of the Senate.
  I yield the remainder of my time.


                              sar facility

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and my colleague from Florida in a brief 
colloquy concerning the South-Florida based Advanced Tropical Remote 
Sensing Center and its Synthetic Aperture Radar [SAR] facility.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I'd like to join Chairman Stevens and my 
colleague from Florida in this colloquy to address this important 
issue.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to address this important topic with 
Senator Mack and Senator Graham. I am pleased to confirm that this 
conference agreement provides $4.9 million dollars for remote sensing 
research and development activities in the RDT&E Defense-Wide 
University Research Initiatives account.
  Mr. MACK. I am very pleased to have this confirmation, and to know 
the Senators' personal interest and support. As the Senator is aware, 
one of our major objectives for this center, an objective supported by 
the leadership of SOUTHCOM, is to greatly enhance our nation's drug 
traffic interdiction capability.
  Mr. GRAHAM. This will be the only SAR facility of its kind in the 
east, and the Department of Defense has indicated to us, its' strong 
interest in developing this capability further in South Florida. It was 
for this reason that we asked the Senate to approve, which it did, an 
amendment for up to an additional $5 million dollars specifically for 
drug interdiction activities at the facility.
  Mr. STEVENS. I know that Senator Mack and Mr. Graham intend that the 
Department of Defense drug interdiction officials provide all 
appropriate support possible on this important objective. Addressing 
the shortage of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance coverage 
is an important step in strengthening DoD's drug interdiction efforts.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it was for the purpose of securing a 
clarification of their intent on this matter that I sought this 
colloquy. I thank them for their support, interest, and leadership.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator 
Mack and Chairman Stevens to secure funding for this important project.


                            Crusader Program

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to ask my friend, the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for clarification on the 
language in the Defense appropriations conference report concerning the 
Crusader program. The language states that fifty percent of the funding 
for the Crusader program cannot be obligated or expended until thirty 
days after the Secretary of Defense submits the Congress a 
comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) on the Crusader program. I 
would ask the Chairman, is this language intended to delay the 
continuing development of the Crusader program?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Oklahoma 
that the language in the statement of managers is not intended to delay 
the continued development of Crusader. I would also state that Senator 
Inouye and I expect that the AOA should be completed and delivered to 
the Congress by December 15th of this year.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Chairman is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe that it is not the intent of the 
conferees to require that the Department of Defense prepare a weapon 
system analysis AOA as required for the Department of Defense 
Directives for system milestone reviews. Instead, I believe what is 
needed is a quicklook analysis that evaluates the capabilities and 
costs of Crusader and comparable weapons system alternatives to support 
the Army's Transformation Initiative to include the counterattack corps 
and brigade combat teams.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.


                       longbow apache helicopters

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska, the 
distinguished chairman of our Defense Appropriations subcommittee, 
engage in a colloquy with me on the topic of proposed international 
sales of Longbow Apache helicopters?
  Mr. STEVENS. I will be happy to engage in such a colloquy with my 
colleague.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator for his time and compliment our 
distinguished Chairman for skillfully guiding this bill through the 
challenging process of mark-up and conference. As the Chairman is well 
aware, the Stinger air defense missile and the Apache Longbow are two 
programs of great interest to me and to the state of Arizona. Over 
41,000 Stinger missiles have been delivered and over $4 billion has 
been invested in Stinger weapons and platforms, and over 1,200 Apaches 
have been delivered to the U.S. and our allied forces.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of the Senator's interest and of the 
Stinger's and Apache's capabilities. They are fine systems and have 
received the support of this committee for years.
  Mr. KYL. And I thank the Chairman for the committee's report. Sales 
of Apache Longbow and Stinger, however, apparently are being 
jeopardized by what I believe is a misinterpretation of congressional 
language contained in the FY00 DoD conference report. Therefore, I am 
seeking his help in clarifying the intent of Congress with regard to 
that provision.

[[Page S7740]]

  In the FY00 DoD Appropriations bill, section 8138 directs the Army to 
``conduct a live fire, side-by-side operational test of the air-to-air 
Starstreak and air-to-air Stinger missiles from the AH-64D Longbow 
helicopter.'' The provision further states that the Army is ``to ensure 
that the development, procurement or integration of any missile for use 
on the AH-64 [Apache] or RAH-66 [Comanche] helicopters . . . is subject 
to a full and open competition which includes the conduct of a live-
fire, side-by-side test as an element of the source selection 
criteria.'' My understanding is that the intent of this provision was 
to direct the Army to conduct a test of two systems in order to ensure 
that its helicopters are fielded with the best possible air-to-air 
missile.
  The problem, is that the Army has interpreted this provision so 
broadly as to prevent the sale of Apaches equipped with a Stinger air-
to-air capability to our allies. Apparently the Army view is that they 
cannot do so until the operational test is conducted. Is it the 
Chairman's understanding that this language was intended to in any way 
obstruct the potential sale of Stinger-equipped Apaches to any U.S. 
ally?
  Mr. STEVENS. I believe that the intent of Section 8138 was to require 
the Army to conduct an operational test of Stinger and Starstreak, not 
to impede sales of the Apache.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished Chairman for engaging in this 
colloquy and for his insight, and I yield the floor.


                 Abrams-Crusader Common Engine Program

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I commend Senator Stevens for his 
leadership and work on this important bill. Clearly, America has a 
continuing need to maintain a robust, well equipped military that is 
capable of defending freedom and preserving the peace. This bill 
advances the Department of Defense and our military services toward 
this objective.
  One element of this bill involves the U.S. Army's innovative effort 
to improve the Operation and Support cost of our M-1 Abrams main battle 
tank and the new Crusader Mobile Artillery system. For several years, 
the Army has recognized that the maintenance and support cost of the 
present M-1 tank was excessively high. Concurrently, the Army was 
developing the next generation of mobile artillery systems--to be 
called the Crusader.
  Late last year, the Army made a bold decision to pursue a 
consolidation of the engine component of both the M-1 and Crusader 
program. This consolidated effort is called the Abrams-Crusader Common 
Engine (ACCE) program. By consolidating the engine procurement for both 
vehicles, the goal is to reduce the costs to the Army for both 
vehicles.
  Mr. President, I noticed that the Senate version of this bill reduced 
the amount of funds available for the ACCE program by $48 million. I 
learned the committee had concerns over the Army's interest in 
developing a new engine for these two vehicles. This conference report, 
however, restores $20 million to the ACCE program. I would ask the 
chairman of the committee if the restoration of this $20 million 
reflects a change in the committee's view of the program or do you 
remain concerned that the program is too costly and adds concurrency to 
the Crusader system?
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the assistant majority leader for his kind words 
and note that I have very good support and participation on the defense 
subcommittee with Members from both sides of the aisle, so I share his 
kind words with my colleagues on the committee.
  Regarding the ACCE program, the Senator is correct: this conference 
report restores $20 million to the ACCE program. He is also correct 
that the Senate bill had a larger cut to the program and that the cut 
reflected substantial reservations over the cost of a new developmental 
engine for both the M-1 and the Crusader.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for that 
explanation. It is encouraging to once again recognize that the 
Chairman--while a vigorous advocate for a robust defense capability--is 
constantly vigilant to ensure that the money we spend for defense is 
also a sound investment.
  The Army's initiative to re-engine the M-1 is a good idea. 
Maintenance and fuel costs associated with operation of the M-1 are 
very high; perhaps as much as 60 percent of the M-1's total O&S cost. 
Replacing the current gas turbine engine with a more fuel-efficient and 
reliable engine has the potential to save substantial amounts for the 
Army. However, the cost to develop a new engine could be quite high. 
There is even one press article citing a Defense Department official 
indicating the development costs could approach a half billion dollars. 
So, while the Army initiative is a good one, the costs associated with 
the program are prohibitive.
  Regarding the Crusader program, the engine selection will be critical 
to the overall performance and success of the vehicle program. If the 
Army were to proceed with the consolidated ACCE program, it is clear 
that concurrency in the Crusader program would be higher than if the 
Army selects an engine already developed and currently in production.
  As a final question for the Chairman, does the cut reflected in this 
conference report for the ACCE program indicate a lack of support for 
the M-1 re-powering effort or the Crusader system?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this conference report contains funds to 
support both the Crusader vehicle and the M-1 re-powering effort. These 
efforts are supported in the final bill. The final funding levels 
reflect the substantial concern over the cost to develop a new engine, 
as well as the desire to see the Army pursue an NDI solution.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the time and attention of 
the Chairman to my concerns related to the Crusader system and the ACCE 
program, in particular.


                              Bayonet 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee a question regarding the 
defense appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2001. I 
noticed that the conference report retained a very important project to 
buy new bayonets for the Marine Corps. Is the funding within the Marine 
Corps Procurement line in fact for Bayonet 2000?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. The conference report includes 
$2 million for Bayonet 2000 in the Marine Corps procurement account.
  Mr. INOUYE. I also concur with Chairman Stevens.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and the 
distinguished Ranking Member for that clarification, and appreciate 
their hard work on the conference report.


                                 MTAPP

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to query my distinguished 
colleague from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, on 
a program of importance to my constituents. Mr. Chairman, is it the 
intention of the conference committee that of the $4,000,000 
appropriated in the Air Force's operation and maintenance title for the 
Manufacturing Technical Assistance Pilot Program (MTAPP), $2,000,000 
shall be expended during fiscal year 2001 only for the continued 
expansion of the program into Pennsylvania through the National 
Education Center for Women in Business at Seton Hill College? As the 
Chairman may know, half of the appropriated FY2000 funds are not being 
provided to the program in Pennsylvania, and I seek to ensure that 
during FY2001 the funds are allocated between the two MTAPP programs.
  Mr. STEVENS. My distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania is correct 
that the conference committee intends that $2,000,000 of the Fiscal 
Year 2001 appropriation for MTAPP be expended in Pennsylvania through 
the National Education Center for Women in Business at Seton Hill 
College. Further, it is my understanding that FY2000 monies intended to 
be spent in Pennsylvania pursuant to last year's appropriations bill 
have yet to be obligated. Therefore, I wish to express to the Senator 
my clear intent to ensure that FY2000 and FY2001 monies fund the MTAPP 
in the manner this committee and the Congress intend.


                       Electronic Warfare System

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I was wondering if the distinguished 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee

[[Page S7741]]

would rise to engage in a brief colloquy.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to accommodate the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. I congratulate the Chairman on a strong bill that will 
improve our national security. As a conferee I understand the many 
challenges he faced in putting this bill together. While I support the 
overall bill, I would like to express my deep concern over a provision 
of this conference report that reduces funding for an important 
electronic warfare system for the F/A-18E/F. The conference report 
reduces funding for the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasure 
(IDECM) program by $29.6 million in the F/A-18E/F procurement account. 
I understand that this reduction may provide insufficient funding for 
Low Rate Initial Production, significantly increase the risk to full 
rate production, and may mean that operationally deployed F/A-18E/F 
aircraft will not have adequate protection against radio frequency 
guided missile threats. Therefore, I would like to ask the Chairman for 
his support in addressing this issue for FY01.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the Senator's concerns. My understanding is 
that the Navy planned to buy 30 Low Rate Initial Production units. 
However, testing of the IDECM system occurs throughout fiscal year 
2001. The operational evaluation of the IDECM System will not be 
complete until early in fiscal year 2002. The conferees were concerned 
about a large LRIP buy proceeding ahead of the test program. The 
conference recommendation still allows the Navy to buy 20 units, more 
than the number required for the operational deployment. I will work 
with you to review the test results and to ensure that the LRIP program 
is appropriate.


                          alcoholism research

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and my colleague from Alaska in a brief 
colloquy concerning the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program that is 
funded again this year in the Defense appropriations bill. Would 
research proposals related to alcoholism be appropriate for 
consideration under the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. The conference report includes 
$50 million in funding for the Department of Defense to conduct a Peer 
Reviewed Medical Research Program to pursue medical research projects 
of clear scientific merit and direct relevance to military health. 
Alcoholism research would be an entirely appropriate candidate for 
funding consideration.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the statement of the managers to accompany 
the conference report on H.R. 4576 included a table to delineate the 
projects recommended for funding in the Defense Health Program. 
Unfortunately, the information included in the Congressional Record and 
printed in House Report 106-754 deleted one line from the recommended 
list of projects. To clarify the agreement of the conferees, I ask 
unanimous consent that a table taken from a copy of the official papers 
which lists the actual agreement be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL ADJUSTMENTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget        House        Senate      Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Maintenance:
    Government Computer-Based Patient Records............  ...........      (10,000)  ............       (6,000)
    Comprehensive breast cancer clinical care project [    ...........        7,000   ............        7,000
     Note: The conferees support continuation of a public/
     private effort, in coordination with a rural medical
     center and a not-for-profit medical foundation, to
     provide a program in breast care risk assessment,
     diagnosis, treatment, and research for the
     Department of Defense. The program shall be a
     coordinated effort among Walter Reed Army Medical
     Center, National Naval Medical Center, an
     appropriate non-profit medical foundation, and a
     rural primary health care center, with funding
     management accomplished by the Uniformed Services
     University of the Health Sciences. ] [Transferred
     from RDT&E,A.]......................................
    Post-polio Syndrome [Transferred from RDT&E,N.]......  ...........        3,000   ............        3,000
    Coronary/Prostate Disease Reversal [Transferred from   ...........  ............  ............        6,000
     RDT&E,N.]...........................................
    Community Hospital Telehealth Consortium.............  ...........  ............  ............        1,000
    Medicare Eligible Health Options Study...............  ...........        2,000   ............        2,000
    Claims Processing Initiative.........................  ...........        3,600   ............        3,600
    Military Treatment Facilities Optimization...........  ...........      134,000   ............  ............
    Reimbursement for Travel Expenses....................  ...........       15,000   ............  ............
    Reduced Catastrophic Cap.............................  ...........       32,000   ............  ............
    Senior Pharmacy Benefit..............................  ...........       94,000   ............  ............
    Military retiree pharmacy benefit....................  ...........  ............      137,000   ............
    Senior Pharmacy Increase.............................  ...........  ............  ............      100,000
    Outcomes Management Demonstration at WRAMC...........  ...........  ............       10,000        10,000
    Pacific Island Health Care Referral Program..........  ...........  ............        8,000         8,000
    Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines...............  ...........  ............        7,500         7,500
    Hawaii Federal Health Care Network (PACMEDNET).......  ...........  ............        7,000         7,000
    Clinical Coupler Demonstration Project...............  ...........  ............        5,000         5,000
    Center of Excellence for Disaster Management and       ...........  ............        5,000   ............
     Humanitarian Assistance [Transferred to O&M, Navy.].
    Tri-Service Nursing Research Program.................  ...........  ............        4,000         4,000
    Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program.............  ...........  ............        3,500   ............
    Graduate School of Nursing...........................  ...........  ............        2,000         2,000
    Brown Tree Snakes....................................  ...........  ............        1,000         1,000
    Alaska Federal Health Care Network...................  ...........  ............        1,000         1,000
    Biomedical Research Center Feasibility Study.........  ...........  ............        1,000         1,000
    Oxford House DoD Pilot Project.......................  ...........  ............          750           750
    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.  ...........  ............       (6,300)       (6,300)
Research and Development.................................       65,880      327,880       402,880       413,380
    Head Injury Program..................................  ...........        2,000   ............        3,000
    Joint U.S.-Norwegian Telemedicine....................  ...........        4,000   ............        2,000
    Cancer Research ([Note: Only for cancer research in    ...........        6,000   ............        5,500
     the integrated areas of signal transduction, growth
     control and differentiation, molecular
     carcineogensis and DNA repair, cancer genetics and
     gene therapy, and cancer invasion and angiogensis.].
    Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program....  ...........      175,000       175,000       175,000
    Army Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program..  ...........       75,000       100,000       100,000
    Ovarian Cancer Research Program......................  ...........  ............       12,000        12,000
    Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program...............  ...........  ............       50,000        50,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at my request, the conferees added a $2 
million item to match a program that the House had included. This 
program, under the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 
Appropriation, is listed under the Human Systems Technology Program as 
``Maritime Fire Training/Barber's Point''.
  This funding is to be available to enhance the ability of the 
Department of Defense to meet its civilian crewing demand and assist in 
maintaining a cadre of qualified seafarers for times of national 
emergencies.
  The Department of Defense is facing a significantly smaller pool of 
Merchant Mariners than existed in the past. In recent Senate testimony, 
Vice Admiral Gordon Holder, Commander of the Military Sealift Command, 
identified the issue of Merchant Mariner availability as a key issue to 
his command. Admiral Holder testified that ``MSC's difficulty in 
recruiting and retaining a professional cadre of civil service merchant 
mariners also extends to the U.S. Commercial Merchant Fleet.'' 
Moreover, a recent study by the National Defense Transportation 
Association has identified potential merchant mariner shortages. The 
new requirements of the standards of training, certification, and 
watchkeeping will have an impact on our ability to maintain a qualified 
pool of seafarers.

[[Page S7742]]

  The Pacific Theater is the fastest growing sector for civilian U.S. 
Merchant Mariners, with at least 2,500 civilian seafaring jobs coming 
online over the next three years. To assist the Department of Defense 
in meeting its civilian merchant mariner requirements, the conferees 
provided this funding. It is contemplated that the funds will be used 
for a maritime fire training facility at the Hawaii National Guard 
Facilities at Barber's Point. The facility will be used to train 
service component and civilian merchant mariners.
  Mr. REID. Thank you for your hard work on this bill. This will 
provide the funding necessary for a strong military. I rise today to 
discuss one item contained in the Defense Appropriations Conference 
Report
  The Conference Report includes language under Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense, National Guard Counterdrug Support 
directing that of the funding provided in the Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities account, $2,000,000 above the state allocation 
be provided to the Nevada National Guard to allow for the Counterdrug 
Reconnaissance and Interdiction Detachment unit in northern Nevada to 
expand operations to southern Nevada.
  I would like to clarify that the funds for this project should be 
made available from the overall ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
Activities, Defense account of $869,000,000 and not from the money 
allocated to the National Guard Counter-Drug support program, sometimes 
called the Governor's State Plan, which was also separately increased 
by $20,000,000 in the bill. I believe that this is reasonably clear 
from the language of the report, but I wanted to ensure there was no 
confusion. Is my description of the breakdown of the funding correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, your interpretation of the language is correct.
  Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your clarification 
and again would like to thank you for your good work on this bill and 
support of the military.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Department of Defense appropriations 
conference report that the Senate will pass today does not reflect the 
realities of the post-Cold War world in which our men and women in 
uniform serve this country.
  I want to state very clearly, Mr. President, that my opposition to 
this bill should not be interpreted as a lack of support for our men 
and women in uniform. Rather, what I cannot support is the Cold War 
mentality that continues to permeate the United States defense 
establishment.
  I strongly support our Armed Forces and the excellent work they are 
doing to combat the new threats of the 21st century and beyond. 
However, I am concerned that we are not giving our forces the tools 
they need to combat these emerging threats. Instead, this bill clings 
to the strategies and weapons that we used to fight--and win--the Cold 
War.
  I say again today what I have said so many times before. The Cold War 
is over, Mr. President. It is time we stopped fighting it.
  For example, as my colleagues know, I strongly support terminating 
production under the Navy's Trident II submarine-launched ballistic 
missile program. During the recent consideration of the Department of 
Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001, I offered an amendment 
that would have terminated production of this Cold War-era weapon, 
which was designed specifically to be a first-strike strategic missile 
that would attack targets inside the Soviet Union from waters off the 
continental United States.
  I deeply regret that the Senate did not adopt this amendment, and 
that production of the Trident II missile will continue for at least 
one more year. This conference report includes more than $433 million 
to purchase 12 more of these missiles, as well as another $9.5 million 
in advanced procurement funds for additional missiles the Navy hopes to 
buy in future years.
  It is beyond my comprehension why the Navy needs more of these 
missiles when it already has 372 in its arsenal. Despite the fact that 
it already has ten submarines that are fully equipped with this 
devastating weapon, the Navy wants to backfit four of its older Trident 
I submarines with these newer weapons. To achieve this, the Navy wants 
to have a total of 425 of these missiles, so the President continues to 
request them in his budget. And the Congress continues to spend the 
taxpayers' money on acquiring more Trident II missiles even as the 
United States negotiates further arms reductions with Russia.

  I also continue to be deeply concerned about the Pentagon's 
procurement strategy for tactical aircraft. This conference report 
includes nearly $2.8 billion for the multi-year procurement of 42 of 
the Navy's FA-18E/F aircraft. My opinion on this program is well known. 
I have not been shy about highlighting the program's myriad flaws, not 
least of which is its inflated cost compared to the marginal at best 
improvement over the FA-18C/D aircraft. I am troubled that the 
Department of Defense and the Congress are committing $2.8 billion in 
taxpayer money to purchase 42 of these aircraft when there are still so 
many design problems that need to be overcome. And this is just the 
first installment for the taxpayers. The Navy hopes to eventually have 
a fleet of 548 of these aircraft.
  The General Accounting Office concluded in a report issued in May 
2000 that the noise and vibration problems with the aircraft's wings, 
which the Navy has known about since September 1997 but has not 
corrected, are sufficient cause to delay multi-year procurement of the 
FA-18E/F. GAO argued that if this problem is not corrected before full-
rate production, costly retrofitting and redesign of the wings will 
likely be necessary later. The GAO report also outlined serious 
problems with the plane's engine. Despite GAO's recommendation, and 
despite the fact that, in a February 2000 report, the Department of 
Defense's own Commander of the Operational Test and Evaluation Force 
found that there are 27 major and 88 minor deficiencies in the 
aircraft, and that five of the major deficiencies concern its 
aerodynamic performance, the Pentagon has chosen to move forward with 
this costly multi-year procurement.
  In my view, Mr. President, the Department of Defense should have been 
absolutely sure this aircraft's design problems were addressed before 
beginning a multi-year procurement process. I continue to have serious 
concerns with the safety, effectiveness, and cost of this plane. I will 
continue monitor closely this procurement, including attempts to 
resolve the problems outlined by GAO, and I will continue to scrutinize 
future appropriations requests for this program.
  The Cold War-era Trident II missile and the new FA-18E/F aircraft are 
just two of the many examples of questionable spending in this bloated 
Defense Appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, this debate is really one about priorities. Of course 
all of the members of this body would agree that we must maintain a 
strong national defense. Our debate should be about how we can best 
maintain a strong defense, modernize our forces to respond to the new 
threats of the 21st century, adequately compensate our men and women in 
uniform, and reign in the out of control defense spending that 
continues to line the pockets of contractors around this country.

  And it is high time that the Pentagon rethink its priorities. I am 
utterly appalled that at a time when members of our Armed Forces are on 
food stamps that this body tabled, by a 65-32 vote, an amendment 
offered by the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] to strike a 
provision in the Senate version of this bill which would allow the 
Secretaries of the Army and the Navy to spend taxpayers' money to lease 
nine so-called ``operational support aircraft.'' These aircraft are 
actually luxury jets that are used to transport high-level military 
officers. This provision, which was included in the pending conference 
report, will allow nine more of these jets to be leased, three each for 
the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. The General Accounting Office has 
argued that such a lease is costly and unnecessary.
  Mr. President, this bill exceeds the fiscal year 2000 level by nearly 
$20 billion. The Congress has given the Pentagon $3.3 billion more than 
it says it needs to defend this country. The Congress has added 
aircraft and ships that

[[Page S7743]]

the Pentagon did not request, and added spending in other areas, and 
somehow has not yet managed to fully fund the National Guard.
  Mr. President, as I have said time and time again, there are millions 
upon millions of dollars in this bill that are being spent on out-dated 
or questionable or unwanted programs. This money would be better spent 
on programs that truly improve our readiness and modernize our Armed 
Forces instead of on programs that continue to defend us against the 
hammer and sickle that no longer looms across the ocean. This money 
also would be better spent on efforts to improve the morale of our 
forces, such fully manning and adequately compensating our National 
Guard; ensuring that all of our men and women in uniform have a decent 
standard of living; or providing better housing for our Armed Forces 
and their families.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to voice my objection to a particular 
provision of the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriation Act. Overall, I 
believe this legislation does much to meet the needs of the U.S. 
military. However, I believe that a provision relating to the 
procurement of C130Js sets a dangerous precedent which may jeopardize 
the military readiness of our nation.
  The Air Force requested two C130J aircraft in the FY01 budget. No 
other aircraft presently in the Air Force inventory can do what the 
C130 does. It is capable of taking cargo into small, unimproved 
airfields where larger, jet engine aircraft are not capable nor 
designed to go. The C130 is our only ``intra theater'' airlift, unlike 
the C17s, C141s and C5 which are ``inter theater'' airlift.
  Each year that the Air Force has received appropriations for C130Js, 
it has assigned the aircraft to those units in its total force which 
were in greatest need. In 1978, the Air National Guard even developed 
sound guidelines, based on objective criteria, to ensure that the units 
with the most aged and corroded aircraft received replacements first. 
This allocation method has been fair and effective and ensured that all 
units of our Air Force are modernized in an appropriate manner.
  For the past twenty-one years the Air Force has had the authority to 
determine where newly acquired aircraft were assigned--and the units 
most in need received the planes. However, many units are still flying 
planes which first flew in Vietnam and are rapidly reaching the end of 
their useful service life.
  This year, however, the Defense Appropriations Act directs that the 
two C130Js go to Western States Air National Guard units for 
firefighting. First, let me say that I am sympathetic to anyone at risk 
for forest fire damage. However, I question whether firefighting should 
be the determining factor for the allocation of military aircraft, 
particularly when the aircraft in this bill would be used to replace 
existing firefighting aircraft. Secondly, the designation of these 
aircraft for Western States deviates from the guidelines which the 
National Guard designed and has followed for the past twenty years. 
These aircraft units are not at the top of the Air Force's priority 
replacement plan. Lastly, and most importantly, the inclusion of this 
directive language could set a very bad precedent. This would be the 
first time Congress has usurped the authority of the Air Force in 
determining which units should receive new C130 aircraft.
  It is my hope that this provision is an exception to the rule and 
that next year the Congress will not override the decision of the Air 
Force to allocate aircraft based on an objective evaluation of need. I 
hope that, and will work to ensure that, Congress allows the Air Force 
to exercise its judgement in deciding which units should be modernized 
with any aircraft approved in the budget process. To do otherwise 
raises serious doubts about our commitment to military readiness.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am supporting the fiscal year 2001 Defense 
Appropriations Act with a very mixed sense of frustrated resignation 
and expectant hope for the way we are resourcing our national defense. 
A major source of frustration this year is that we will have missed yet 
another opportunity through the decision made in the budget process to 
meet our new, growing or neglected national security requirements.
  We should have been able to fix our military medical health care 
system and keep our promise of health care to thousands of military 
retirees who feel they have been cheated by the nation. We should have 
been able to raise the pay of our service members to bring it more in 
line with the private sector faster. We should have been able to fund 
our dangerous ship and aircraft maintenance backlogs. We should have 
been able to lay the foundation for increasing our ship construction 
rate to ensure we keep our 300-ship Navy strong and ready. We should 
have been able to increase our funding of basic science and technology 
to set the conditions for the rapid development of the next generations 
of ships, aircraft, and land combat forces.
  It is a source of continuing disappointment to me that there is still 
too much parochial, pork-barrel spending in the defense appropriation 
process. Last year, the Defense Appropriations bill was so overburdened 
with pork, I voted against it in protest. Increasing defense spending, 
so necessary to the demands of our national security today and into the 
future, will not improve our military capability and readiness if money 
is funneled into projects that serve parochial interests, not the 
national interest.
  My views on the need to increase defense spending and my objections 
to pork-barrel spending are well known and I regret the missed 
opportunity this appropriation represents. Yet, having said that, there 
are many elements of this defense appropriations act that are 
critically important and which I fully support. This appropriation 
continues the trend and our commitment in the Congress to increase 
spending for our national defense--$15 billion above last year's 
appropriation and $3.3 billion above the President's request. Most 
importantly, it does more to take care of our most important national 
security resource--people. This appropriation increases pay for our 
service men and women by 3.7 percent, increases housing allowances for 
military families, increases quality of life enhancements, and 
increases enlistment and retention bonuses to deal with critical 
challenges in personnel.
  This appropriation supports important ship construction and 
maintenance requirements to keep our Navy strong and ready. It provides 
full funding, $4.1 billion, for our next aircraft carrier CVN-77 and 
$1.7 billion for procurement of a third Virginia Class for New Attack 
submarines. Very importantly, this appropriation increases the 
President's request for ship depot maintenance by $142 million, and 
appropriately makes these funds immediately available to the Navy as a 
matter of emergency to deal with a critical ship repair backlog.
  We need to take a lesson from this session's consideration of how 
Congress provides for the common defense. We need to take advantage of 
historic budget surpluses to objectively and aggressively deal with the 
challenges of defending America's interests in a still very dangerous 
world. We need take advantage of a political and popular willingness to 
invest in today's and tomorrow's security and ensure that we fully 
resource our armed force's requirements for a good quality of life, 
training, equipment, maintenance, and modernization. Finally, Mr. 
President, we need to take advantage of an opportunity to keep our 
promise of health care to the thousands of military retirees who gave 
the best years of their lives to the defense of this nation. I regret 
we missed this opportunity, but on balance, this bill satisfies many of 
our national security requirements, and merits support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am authorized to do so, and I yield the 
remainder of the time of the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.
  Mr. President, has all time now been yielded?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
  Mr. STEVENS. The time set for the vote on this bill is 3:15. Is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S7744]]

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________