[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 133 (Thursday, September 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11938-S11943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2658, which the clerk will state by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2658) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from
its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to
the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same,
signed by all of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of September 24, 2003.)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate, on
behalf of myself and the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, who is
currently chairing the Indian Affairs Committee, the Defense
appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2004.
This conference report was approved by the House of Representatives
by a vote of 407 to 15. It has overwhelming bipartisan support. The
agreement provides for a total of $368.7 billion for the Department for
fiscal year 2004. Throughout our conversations with the House over the
past months, Senator Inouye and I have sought to strike a balanced
agreement that we believe addresses key requirements for readiness,
quality of life, and reconstitution of our defense force.
As we take up this conference report on the floor today, there are
hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform deployed and serving
our country at home and abroad. They are performing superbly, and we
are extremely proud of what they are accomplishing. This agreement is a
demonstration of our support, the Congress's support, for our men and
women in uniform.
It provides a 4.1 percent average pay raise for all military
personnel. It funds an increase in basic allowance for housing to
reduce average out-of-pocket expenses from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent
for our military people. It provides an additional $128 million for the
continuation of increased rates for imminent-danger pay and family-
separation allowances.
This agreement honors the commitment we have made to our Armed
Forces--one we will maintain. It helps ensure they will continue to
have good leadership, first-rate training, modernized equipment, and
quality infrastructure. The agreement provides $115.9 billion for
operation and maintenance, $74.7 billion for procurement, and $65.2
billion for research and development.
Defense is a very expensive concept for our country. That is so not
only because we have a volunteer service but because we are modernizing
our force for the future. This agreement is the result of a bicameral,
bipartisan approach. I urge the Senate to adopt this conference report.
Let me once again thank my co-chairman, Senator Inouye, for his
support and invaluable counsel on this bill. I would also like to note
the dedicated work of his chief of staff Charlie Houy, Betsy Schmid,
and Nicole DiResta.
I thank my hard-working staff led by Sid Ashworth and including Tom
Hawkins, Kraig Siracuse, Bob Henke, Lesley Kalan, Jennifer Chartrand,
Menda Fife, Brian Wilson, Mazie Mattson, Nicole Royal, and Alycia
Farrell. They have helped put together this conference report and
worked with us through the year to bring us where we are today with the
largest defense budget in history and the best bill we have ever
presented to the Senate.
I yield to my good friend from Hawaii.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, before I proceed, I wish to commend my
chairman, Mr. Stevens, for bringing this conference report to the
Senate. In doing so, I commend him for his leadership. I realize
Members of the Senate may not be aware of this, but because of the
leadership skills and because of the hard work of the staff, the
conference committee concluded its work on this important measure in 2
hours. In 2 hours, we concluded a bill that was filled with controversy
and issues. At the end, the vote was unanimous.
The conferees recommend $368.7 billion in mandatory and discretionary
appropriations for the coming year. It is a huge sum, but it is a sum
that is absolutely necessary.
This is nearly half a billion less than recommended by the Senate and
$3.6 billion less than requested by the President. We have tried our
best to trim what some would call ``fat.''
[[Page S11939]]
The reduction to the President's request is not an indication that we
believe Defense is overfunded. Instead, it is because we realize that
there are so many other underfunded areas of the budget that we had to
reduce defense to accommodate these needs. This was a tough conference.
Our chairman did an exceptional job--I emphasize ``exceptional''--
representing the Senate position. This is especially true given the
reduced allocation.
This agreement provides the funds necessary for the military. It
fully funds the pay and allowances for our troops and thereby ensures
that we have taken care of the crown jewel of our Defense capability--
the men and women who put on the uniform.
In the interest of time, I will not present all of the details of
this massive bill. However, I would like to address two important
subjects that the managers of the House and Senate spent many hours
discussing.
First, the conferees agreed to include an amended version of House
language that would close down the Navy Station at Roosevelt Roads,
Puerto Rico.
As we looked into this matter we found that the Navy no longer needed
or wanted the base and it could save $300 million annually by closing
it. As such, we agreed to close the base. However, the conference
agreement ensures that the base will be closed in accordance with
existing base closure laws. We did not agree to a new procedure which
would have given the Navy all the benefits of the closure and the local
population none of the safeguards included in the BRAC legislation.
Second, the Senate bill include language terminating the
controversial Terrorism Information Awareness program, TIA. The
conferees have agreed to terminate the program and close the Office of
Information Awareness in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
DARPA.
Language has been included that precludes any successor version of
this program to be reinstated or developed by any Federal agency.
However, I must inform my colleagues that in our review, we learned
that there are some classified elements that are related to this
program. These have all the safeguards of programs under the
jurisdiction of the National Foreign Intelligence Program to protect
civil liberties of U.S. citizens. These are very important to the
ongoing war on terrorism overseas. The conferees have agreed to allow
this effort to continue.
In addition, there were some worthwhile programs in the Office of
Information Awareness unrelated to the TIA program. The Statement of
the managers lists these programs and funds their continuation. This is
a good compromise. It kills TIA and on-line betting, and other
questionable DARPA programs, but ensures that beneficial parts of
information awareness can continue. Finally, I want to express my
strong support for this measure.
My colleagues should know this was a fully bipartisan accord. There
are no parts of this bill that I oppose. While it is a compromise, it
is a very good bill.
The chairman and his staff, led by Sid Ashworth, have done great
work. I thank all the staff who worked so hard on this: Mazie Matson,
Nicole Royal, Jennifer Chartrand, Kraig Siracuse, Tom Hawkins, Bob
Henke, Lesley Kalan, Menda Fife and Brian Wilson of the majority, and
Nicole Diresta, Betsy Schmid and Charlie Houy of the minority staff.
This is a good bill, and I urge all my colleages to support it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2658, the Department of Defense appropriations
bill by FY 2004.
I commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member on their
successfully reporting and conferencing this bill.
The pending bill provides $368.7 billion in total budget authority
and $389.2 billion in total outlays for fiscal year 2004. The Senate
bill is $3.5 billion in BA and $4.6 billion outlays below the
President's budget request. These funds were shifted to other non-
defense spending bills consistent with an agreement with the
administration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 2658, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 2004: SPENDING COMPARISONS:
CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal Year 2004, in $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
Budget Authority.................. 368,183 528 368,711
Outlays........................... 388,642 528 389,170
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget Authority.................. 368,572 528 369,100
Outlays........................... 389,306 528 389,834
2003 level:
Budget Authority.................. 426,621 393 427,014
Outlays........................... 393,835 393 394,228
President's request:
Budget Authority.................. 371,699 528 372,227
Outlays........................... 393,222 528 393,750
House-passed bill:
Budget Authority.................. 368,662 528 369,190
Outlays........................... 388,836 528 389,364
Senate-passed bill:
Budget Authority.................. 368,637 528 369,165
Outlays........................... 389,371 528 389,899
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO--
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget Authority.................. (389) .......... (389)
Outlays........................... (664) .......... (664)
2003 level:
Budget Authority.................. (58,438) 135 (58,303)
Outlays........................... (5,193) 135 (5,058)
President's request:
Budget Authority.................. (3,516) .......... (3,516)
Outlays........................... (4,580) .......... (4,580)
House-passed bill:
Budget Authority.................. (479) .......... (479)
Outlays........................... (194) .......... (194)
Senate-passed bill:
Budget Authority.................. (454) .......... (454)
Outlays........................... (729) .......... (729)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, 9/24/2003.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is interesting to note that Senator
Nickles says this bill complies completely with the requirements of the
Budget Committee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we only have notification of one person
who wishes to speak. If that is the case, I believe we will have a vote
on this conference report sometime around noon. It is my hope that we
will have it before lunch if possible. So I put the Senate on notice
that we will be voting around noon.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I rise to address the conference
report for fiscal year 2004, the Department of Defense appropriations
bill. As has become a standard practice for appropriations matters,
this legislation is loaded with porkbarrel spending catered to the
parochial needs of the Members and special interests and not to the
interests of the men and women in the military.
I feel it is important that I come to the floor of the Senate to draw
attention to this legislation, especially at a time when American
troops are stretched across the globe, including major commitments in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I notice in this morning's paper it is very
likely that more National Guardsmen and Reserve Forces will have to be
called up. We should be devoting critical defense dollars to urgent
defense priorities. Apparently, that philosophy is not shared by all.
In this year's version of the legislation, there is over $6.5 billion
in Member add-ons. I must say I congratulate the committee because last
year it was $8.1 billion. So we have experienced a $1.6 billion
reduction. I want to point out that these add-ons were not in the
President's budget, not on the unfunded priority list, and not on the
Pentagon's long-range defense budget.
Nowhere--nowhere--was there a priority for any of these items that I
will be talking about and listing. One of the remarkable things about
it is our disabled veterans are now trying to receive what we call
concurrent receipt--
[[Page S11940]]
in other words, to be treated, when they are disabled, the same way
that nonmilitary members of the Federal Government are treated. As it
is now, they are prohibited against receiving both retirement and
disability pay, as are other men and women who work for our Federal
Government. Full concurrent receipt would cost the Government $3.5
billion annually, which is approximately half the total pork that is in
this bill.
So I am announcing to my colleagues today I was trying to work out
some way of ameliorating the cost of this concurrent receipt. When we
spend money like this--when we will spend $5.9 billion more by leasing
Boeing tankers rather than buying them, it seems to me that taking care
of the men and women who have served with honor and distinction in the
military deserve full concurrent receipt.
Once again, we are considering the Defense appropriations conference
report prior to the consideration of the Defense authorization
conference report. I remind my colleagues again of the role of the
Appropriations Committee. The responsibility of the authorizers and the
appropriators are expected to be distinct. The role of the Senate Armed
Services Committee is to establish policy and funding levels and
oversee the Department of Defense and its programs. The role of the
Appropriations Committee is to allocate funding based on policies
provided by authorization bills. The appropriators' function and role
today, however, is expanded dramatically, and they now engage in
significant policy decisionmaking and micromanagement, usurping the
role of the authorizing committees.
I recognize the failure of authorizing committees to pass authorizing
legislation contributes to this broken system and that often, as is
probably the case now, appropriators have no choice but to fund
unauthorized programs and take it upon themselves to make policy
determinations. That is why, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, I
have tried to reauthorize every program and bureaucracy that falls
under the responsibilities of the Commerce Committee. I think I have
done this with some success. But we still find, for example, in the
Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill--which has not been
considered yet on the floor--significant policy changes, laws written--
it is rather remarkable. Entire departments of Government are dissolved
without debate--by the way, with the strong objections of the executive
branch.
So one of the reasons the authorization bills are held up is because
Members know that authorization measures don't really have to pass, and
we know that the appropriations vehicles are always available to carry
legislative riders. I have testified before the Rules Committee on the
need for change, and I think at some point in time we will be faced
with a choice: We either do away with the Appropriations Committee or
with the authorizing committees.
The authorizing committees, to some degree, have become rather
engaging and sometimes interesting debating groups when the real
changes and policy decisions are made by the appropriators.
I also want to point out, last week I saw one of the most remarkable
things I have ever seen in all the years I have been here. The energy
and water appropriations bill was voted on and passed last Tuesday
night. We voted. It was a recorded vote. Everybody went home. The next
morning--and I mention this because the Senator from Nevada is on the
floor--the next morning the Senator from Nevada stood and asked
unanimous consent that $65 million be added for water projects for the
Corps of Engineers.
I understand there was some technical reason for it and there was
some technical change that was made, but I have to tell you, Mr.
President, I have never, in all the years I have been here, seen a bill
passed and voted on and the next day, many hours after the bill was
passed, a Member come to the floor and ask unanimous consent that
millions of dollars be added to an appropriations bill. If that is the
way we are going to do business around here, then, I say to my friends,
there is no fiscal discipline.
On September 17, the Comptroller General of the United States David
Walker delivered a speech at the National Press Club. According to the
head of the General Accounting Office, ``We must begin to come to grips
with the daunting fiscal realities that threaten our Nation's,
children's and grandchildren's future.''
In his speech, Mr. Walker cited CBO estimates at that time--they have
since gone up $401 billion and $480 billion for the unified budget
deficits for the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 respectively. If we take
out the Social Security surpluses, these numbers jump to $562 billion
and $644 billion respectively. More importantly, the costs of the $87
billion war supplemental are not even factored into these numbers.
In addition to this money, there are a number of financial
liabilities the Federal Government has to pay out but are not counted
against the budget, such as Medicare trust funds and health care
benefit costs provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This
leads Mr. Walker to state:
We are starting off in a financial hole we don't really
have a very good picture of how deep it is.
His suggestion:
It is time to admit that we are in a fiscal hole and ``stop
digging.''
I would like us to take seriously the advice of the top Government
watchdog and quit digging. It seems to me if everybody in this country
is watching reality television these days, I say to my good friends
watching the Senate proceedings on C-SPAN, you are not watching reality
television here. What you are watching is unreal. You are watching
Members who don't care about the budget deficit we are running. In the
face of huge deficits, we can still find enough money to blow on some
of the items I will describe today.
Mr. President, I am tired of fighting these bills. I don't enjoy
arousing the animosity of my friends on both sides of the aisle. I
don't pretend to judge these projects. Many of them are worthwhile.
Many of them are worthy causes. The hundreds of millions of dollars
that are spent out of the Defense appropriations bill for breast cancer
research is a worthy cause. My question remains, What in the world is
it doing in a Defense appropriations bill when we have men and women
who are still on food stamps and living in quarters that were built in
World War II?
I am dismayed by the lack of attention we focus on these bills. Aside
from scouring the bills to see if their projects are included, not much
time is devoted to considering the conference report.
This legislation passed the House of Representatives without a copy
of the bill text or explanatory report being available to all who want
to look at it. In fact, a member of my staff called the House committee
while they were voting on final passage of this conference report to
inquire if the committee had the report available. The House
appropriations staffer said they had a copy but were only allowing one
staff member at a time to look at it. Staff was not allowed to make
copies or remove the bill from the appropriator's office.
It took the House of Representatives 7 minutes to pass a bill that
appropriates $368 billion for projects that appear on the Defense
appropriations add-on list of items requested by Senators and were not
included in the President's budget request. They did not appear on the
Joint Chiefs unfunded priority list and were not authorized in the
Defense authorization bill.
This criteria has been useful in identifying programs of questionable
merit and determining the relative priority of projects that are
requested by Members, often at the expense of the readiness of our
Armed Forces.
The fact remains that in the years I have created these lists, no
offsets have been provided for any project. The Joint Chiefs provided a
list of critical requirements above what was provided for in the
President's budget request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for
the year 2004. We should provide additional funding for defense for
items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need, not for programs that
are important because of the State they come from or because of the
seniority of the Member of Congress.
My point is, we cannot do business as usual. There is an ever-growing
proportion of our Federal budget that is in these appropriations. While
the cost of each program or project may not seem
[[Page S11941]]
like a good deal of money, collectively, earmarks, such as the ones in
this legislation, significantly burden American taxpayers.
Let me point out some of the more egregious examples in this
legislation:
$135 million for advanced procurement of the LPD-17;
$8.1 million for the 21st century truck. Mr. President, $8.1 million
for the 21st century truck, not requested by the Department of Defense,
not on any list the Joint Chiefs of Staff might feel is important, but
the 21st century truck finds its way into the Defense appropriations
bill each year;
$4.3 million for the Army's smart truck. One would think after all
these years on the pork list if this truck was so smart, it would find
a way to fund itself by now;
$1.0 million for the Young Patriots Program. It is a wonderful name.
It is a program by the National Flag Foundation to expand the Young
Patriots Program to include a video which promotes the significance of
national patriotic holidays. I love our patriotic holidays, but $1
million to watch a video on national patriotic holidays?
One of my favorites that has come up--it is interesting, once they
are in, they continue year after year--$1.0 million for Shakespeare in
American Military Communities. Shakespeare in American Military
Communities has found its way in again. I guess it all is a matter of
priorities.
$1.8 million for the canola fuel cell initiative. I think canola is
cooking oil. I am not sure. But $1.8 million for the canola fuel cell
initiative not requested by the President or the Department of Defense;
$1 million for Lewis and Clark bicentennial activities. If this was
in the Interior appropriations bill, I would support celebrating the
Lewis and Clark bicentennial activities. I think it was a monumental
series of events in American history, but we are taking it out of
defense.
$7.5 million for the Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies
Programs. I can hardly wait to see the commercials that come from this
money.
$3 million for U.S.-made bayonets. Nobody else has made bayonets.
Once again, Buy America provisions have found their way into the bill.
$6.5 million for the procurement of lightweight armor for CH-46. The
conferees mention use of Kevlar, a DuPont product, making this another
Buy America provision.
I congratulate again the Senator from Alaska for a large number of
appropriations that are earmarked for the State of Alaska ranging from
$8 million and up to $26 million for railroad track alignment at Air
Force-managed ranges to $8.9 million for hybrid electric vehicle
testing only at the cold region testing facility. $9 million for the
Fort Wainwright Utilidor. I apologize I keep displaying my ignorance on
some of these items. I do not know what a utilidor is. Kentucky, they
did OK. Then there is $1.2 million for the Fort Knox University of
Mounted Warfare Campus Area Network Infrastructure. One of my favorites
that was in the bill last year, a half million dollars for a hangar at
Griffis Air Force Base in New York. The only problem with that is that
Griffis Air Force Base has been closed for many years. It no longer
belongs to the military or the Federal Government.
Of course, language preventing that has been in for several years,
language which clearly falls under the purview of the authorizing
committee, preventing the disestablishment of the 53rd Weather
Reconnaissance Squadron of the Air Force Reserve stationed in
Mississippi. That is clearly a policy decision and has nothing to do
with appropriations.
Then there is $45.7 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System;
$23 million for the Hawaii Federal health care network, $2.5 for the
Alaska Federal health care network. If I were from Alaska, I would be a
little upset at that disparity: $23 million for the Hawaii Federal
health care network, and only $2.5 million for the Alaska Federal
health care network.
Our old friend, the brown tree snake, is back, another $1 million for
the brown tree snake, the best funded snakes in the United States and
certainly in the world; $1.4 million for the minimally invasive surgery
program for Ohio; $4.5 million, Pacific Island health care network; $3
million for complementary and alternative medicine.
Again, I want to point out there are a number of excellent programs.
The legislation provides a pay raise to our soldiers, sailors, and
airmen, as well as a targeted raise for midcareer officers and selected
noncommissioned officers. The legislation also provides $128 million
for the continuation of increased rates for imminent danger pay and
family separation allowances. Of course, my question is: Why is that
not permanent?
I have a serious concern that extended deployments will lead to
retention problems if we do not work to ensure that we take care of our
soldiers and sailors. By providing our servicemembers with adequate
benefits, we help ensure that our military will not face retention
problems.
In this morning's Washington Post there is a quote from an unnamed
National Guardsman who said that with these recent strains, the Guard
in particular, and Reserves, are going to have significant
difficulties. National Guard and Reserve servicemembers are performing
many vital tasks. Direct involvement in military operations to liberate
Iraq in the air, on the ground, and on the sea, guarding nuclear
powerplants, our borders and airports in the United States; providing
support to the war on terrorism through guarding, interrogating and
extending medical services to al-Qaida detainees; rebuilding schools in
hurricane-stricken Honduras; fighting fires in our Western States;
overseeing civil affairs in Bosnia; and augmenting aircraft carriers
short on Active Duty sailors with critical-skilled enlisted ratings
during at-sea exercises, as well as during periods of deployment.
I look forward to the day when I do not have to criticize the
unrequested spending in appropriations bills. Yesterday, the House and
Senate passed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. I
was encouraged to see that there was not a great deal of unnecessary
spending in that legislation. We still have a number of appropriations
bills and conference reports left to consider in this session. I can
only hope that the members of the Appropriations Committee will follow
the lead of the Homeland Security appropriators in the future. I think
we are entering a very serious fiscal crisis in the United States,
including the fact that the Social Security situation is going to be
compounded by the retirement of the baby boomers, the Medicare trust
fund is going to be in a very serious situation, and we are rapidly
approaching the kind of deficits that were only equaled in the early
Reagan years and may even exceed them.
I know of no economist who does not believe that sooner or later the
deficit will increase interest rates and cause inflation. There are a
broad range of economists who have many different views on many
different aspects of economics. I know of none who believe that over
time burgeoning deficits are bad for America and the people who reside
in our country.
Not too long ago, someone said the difference between California and
Washington is that in California they cannot print their own money. I
think there is a certain truth to that. What bothers me is that we are
not making strong efforts to reduce unnecessary spending at this very
difficult time.
I thank the Senator from Alaska, our distinguished chairman, as we
enter a very difficult time, for trying to get approval of the request
of the President of the United States. I commend him for his heroic
effort on behalf of the much needed and very critical amounts of money,
both in terms of defense and in reconstruction funding.
I just came from a hearing in the Armed Services Committee where
Ambassador Bremer stated unequivocally, as did General Abizaid, that
this money, both for the military and reconstruction, is not only vital
but very time sensitive. Both Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid
said the war is on for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We
need to restore the infrastructure. We need to provide for their
security. Otherwise, we will face, in the words of Ambassador Bremer,
``the most severe crisis.''
I thank the Senator from Alaska, our distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, for the heroic effort he is making to get
that urgent request from the President of the United
[[Page S11942]]
States to take care of our men and women in the military and pursue to
success the very vital mission and challenges we face in Iraq.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from Arizona for
his comments about the supplemental. This bill before us now is what we
call the peace budget for defense. It does not contain any of the
monies for Iraq or for Afghanistan. That money is in the separate
supplemental emergency appropriations bill on which we are working.
That was handled in that manner because of the request that we have a
clear delineation of the monies to be spent for Iraq and Afghanistan.
I will comment on two things, but first I ask unanimous consent that
the vote on the pending conference report occur at 12:10 today, and
that Senators be so notified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object. There has been a problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was just notified by staff that we
received a call and we could have the vote at 1:15.
Mr. STEVENS. I did not hear the Senator. If there is an objection to
the time agreement, I will continue with my comments.
The Senator from Arizona did mention the money in this bill for the
Alaska railroad. The Alaska railroad goes through two military
reservations, and this money is to straighten out that railroad as it
goes through those two military reservations. We have done this for a
period of years now. We are straightening it out so it does not provide
a hazard to the people who live on base. It moves the sound as far as
we can from the military operations. It is much more safe as it is
straightened out and does not have a circuitous route through those two
military bases.
In addition, for the Senator's information, a utilidor is a facility
that we put into the ground in Alaska to carry our utilities. In
effect, it is an underground tunnel so that the utilities can all be
maintained underground during the wintertime. It contains water, sewer,
electric, all cables, and they are capable of maintenance through the
winter.
As a matter of fact, I would welcome the District of Columbia to
follow our path and put the utilities underground because every time
there is a storm, all the electric lines, power lines, and cable lines
come down because they are not buried. We do not just bury them under
the ground. We bury a long, continuous container that is capable of
being walked through so we can maintain all of the utilities on our
military bases. They, at times, need modernization. The money in this
bill is for modernization.
I know my friend wants to comment. I have been asked--we do expect a
vote. We will try to get a vote on the pending bill. We are having a
communications problem. I yield to my friend.
Mr. REID. I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, we
want to have a vote on this most important bill as early as possible.
It appears now we are not going to be able to do that until a later
time today because we have a number of people who are going to the
White House at 2:20. President Bush always meets on time.
Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, I am informed if I make a
request for a vote on this conference report at 1:15, that will be
acceptable. Is that not correct?
Mr. REID. We would agree to that.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
the conference report occur at 1:20, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, that would be fine if the
Senator would modify his request--that we stay on this until 1:15?
Mr. STEVENS. That is my understanding. We will stay on this bill
until 1:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Arizona, for whom I have the
greatest admiration and respect--he and I came to Washington together
in 1982 as new Members of Congress. Of course, at that time I was aware
of his gallant deeds for our country as a member of the U.S. Navy.
However, the Senator has tried to indicate that there was something
wrong with how the energy and water appropriations bill was handled,
especially the raising of the 302(b) allocations. That is done all the
time. We worked very hard with the chairman of the Budget Committee,
the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the chairman of the
subcommittee, this Senator, the chairman of the full committee, and the
ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee to come up with
some way to take care of the weather-related problems that had
occurred, dealing with the Corps of Engineers.
What we did was, we had an amendment ready to offer, to have an
emergency appropriation, in effect, for the $125 million that was
caused by weather-related activities. I have no doubt that would have
been agreed to. However, after meeting with the Senators about whom I
spoke, they were able to find money in other appropriations bills that
was not used. Rather than have the emergency designation, we simply
raised the 302(b) allocation. The $65 million was just that.
So anyone who would in any way infer that there was anything wrong
with that simply is wrong. The chairman of the full committee is in the
Chamber, and he would acknowledge that, as would the chairman of the
Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, as would Senator Conrad.
Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber, please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. REID. One reason I asked you to bring the Senate to order was
there were two conversations going on. They were both interesting. It
was hard for me to listen to both of those and also try to get my
thoughts together. I don't know which of the two was the more
interesting but they were both pretty good.
I say to my friend from Arizona, the distinguished senior Senator
from Arizona said the country was in a hole and we should stop digging.
I respectfully agree with him. But the hole isn't anything the Energy
and Water Development Subcommittee created. We are struggling to take
care of the defense needs of this country. You know the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee handles the defense nuclear programs of
this country, in addition to many other programs--university programs
and other things that go on.
The situation is simply that the hole the Senator talks about was
created by the fact that we are spending far more money than we are
taking in. It is no secret, when President Bush took office, there was
a surplus of about $7 trillion over 10 years. That is gone. This year's
deficit will be around $700 billion, when you take out the Social
Security Program and don't have that mask the deficit. So the hole is
there, and I acknowledge that. The Senator is right. I am simply saying
don't pick on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee; we had
nothing to do with the hole. The hole was dug by others, not by us.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, today I commend the Senate for
addressing and correcting an unfortunate hardship placed on Native
American veterans.
For the past decade, VA's Native American Housing Loan Program has
provided direct loans to eligible Native American veterans who wish to
purchase, construct, or improve a home on
[[Page S11943]]
trust lands--lands held by the federal government for the benefit of
Native Americans. A problem arose this year due to a provision included
in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill, which set a
spending cap for the program at $5 million. That figure was deemed
reasonable by the administration and appropriators because it was taken
from previous years' spending amounts.
However, due to historically low interest rates over the past year,
VA and borrowers have worked together to refinance many loans, loans
that were counted toward the $5 million cap. The combined costs of
refinanced loans and new loans led VA to exceed the newly-implemented
cap. Consequently, last June, VA was forced to cease providing further
funds for the year. This left many Native American veterans in despair
as their housing projects sat awaiting completion. With the cessation
of the program, veterans have been unable to complete construction on
homes that were already in progress, refinance existing loans, or pay
contractors.
The Native American Housing Loan Program originally began as a 5-year
pilot project in 1993. Congress, recognizing its value, has re-
authorized it twice and extended it through 2005. A recent GAO report
noted a primary motivating force behind the bill was the fact that the
home ownership rate among Native Americans is one of the lowest in the
United States, finding that ``while over 67 percent of Americans own
their homes, fewer than 33 percent of Native Americans own homes.''
In the report accompanying a reauthorization of the program in 1998,
the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs stated that direct loans to
these Native American veterans are necessary since--even with
traditional VA guarantees--commercial lenders will not make mortgage
loans to finance the purchase or construction of housing on Native
American lands. They decline to do so because Federal law would
prohibit a lender, in the event of default, from taking possession of
native trust lands. Recent estimates indicate there are approximately
190,000 Native American military veterans. Many expert demographers
recognize that, historically, Native Americans have the highest record
of service per capita when compared to other ethnic groups. Congress
realized that they should be allowed to receive the benefits they have
earned through their service--such as VA home loans--no matter where
they choose to live in the United States.
The Native American Housing Loan Program alleviates some of the
problems faced by Native American veterans in a couple of ways. First,
the bill lowers barriers for these heroic veterans by encouraging them
to participate in the privileges and benefits of home ownership in
America. Secondly, the program provides economic incentives to develop
thriving and long-lasting Native American communities. According to
VA's Annual Report to Congress for fiscal year 2002, VA closed 62 loans
during 2002 for a total of 289 loans made under the program from its
inception through September 30, 2002.
Mr. President, as ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee,
I applaud the Congress for working to alleviate this problem in a
timely manner. I am proud to support a provision in the Department of
Defense appropriations bill that will eliminate the spending cap
completely. The legislation ensures that stalled housing projects can
be continued without stifling future home ownership opportunities for
Native American veterans. I am glad that we have been able to work in a
bipartisan manner and I know the Native American veteran community is
thankful of our efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 364 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Gregg
Kerry
Lieberman
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________