[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.
____________________