[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 103 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8617-S8622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S8617]]
Senate
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT--
Continued
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
allocated to the Senator from Arizona be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains, Mr. President?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Approximately 1 hour 10 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire if the Senator from West Virginia wishes
to use any further time at this time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, I
will respond. I do intend to. I would hope that the cloakroom would
find out if any Senators on my side want any time on this bill.
Mr. STEVENS. That is the reason I have reserved our time and Senator
Inouye reserved his time also. I have been notified of no Senator on my
side who wishes to use part of my time. I don't know about the Senator
from Hawaii. He indicates he has had no requests.
It appears Senator Byrd would be the last person to make a statement.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I speak, in part, on another matter, but basically
with reference to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I would
hope to title my remarks at this point ``Homeland Insecurity.''
In a mere matter of days, we will officially kick off the 2004
Presidential election season, with the convening of the Democratic
convention in Boston. The political activities and festivities in
Boston will also mark the beginning of a tense interlude between the
conventions and the November elections, during which the Nation has
been told to brace for the possibility of a large-scale terrorist
attack on the United States.
Earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI
Director Robert Mueller went on national television to warn the
American people that credible evidence pointed to plans by al-Qaida to
launch a large-scale attack on the United States before the November
elections in an effort to disrupt our democratic process. Yet in the
weeks since our Nation's top Homeland Security officials issued that
blunt and alarming warning, the administration appears to have buried
its head in the sand, carrying on with business as usual, seemingly
oblivious to the gathering danger predicted by its own experts.
This morning the Washington Times newspaper published on its front
page a chilling account of shadowy groups of Middle Eastern men
carrying out surveillance at airports, probing security measures,
conducting what appear to be dry runs on our aircraft. The reports are
anecdotal, but regardless of whether the article turns out to be
accurate or merely an example of scare-mongering, it raises serious
questions and underscores serious flaws in the administration's
preparedness to respond to another terrorist attack on the United
States.
Following the tragic events of September 11, protecting the Nation's
commercial aircraft became the top antiterrorism priority of the
Federal Government in this country. The administration established a
firm goal for the number of Federal air marshals so that a high
percentage of critical flights could be protected. The exact number of
air marshals is classified. However, it is no secret that the Federal
Air Marshals Program has never reached the staffing level deemed
necessary to protect the American people in the wake of the September
11 attacks.
Worse, as commercial air travel rebounds to its highest level since
the September 11 attacks, the number of Federal air marshals is
actually declining, falling 9 percent below the meager staffing level
that the program was initially able to achieve and far further below
the administration's stated goal.
As air marshals leave the program, budget constraints prohibit the
hiring of replacements. The number of air marshals continues to
dwindle, and the number of critical flights they are able to cover
remains on a steady downward spiral. That is enough to make your hair
stand on end.
At a time when Americans have been told, in the starkest terms
possible, that al-Qaida is moving forward with plans to attack our
homeland, the administration continues to twiddle its thumbs and allow
our homeland defenses, including protection of commercial aircraft, to
erode.
While the Bush administration claims progress in the war on terror
and asserts that it is making the Nation safer, the facts belie the
rhetoric. The assertions are hollow. The administration has
consistently put homeland security on the back burner. At the prodding
of Congress, the administration grudgingly created the Cabinet-level
Department of Homeland Security. Senator Stevens and I wrote language
into appropriation bills providing that the head of Homeland Security
would require confirmation. No, the administration didn't want to send
Mr. Ridge up before the Appropriations Committee until Senator Stevens
and I joined in writing that language. Since the creation of this
Department, the administration has failed to provide the Department
with the resources needed to make Americans safer.
[[Page S8618]]
The Senate, I am sorry to say, is somewhat complicit in the
administration's negligence. The Senate has danced right along to the
White House tune. As Brutus said, in scolding Cicero for attempting to
toady up to Antony:
Our ancestors would have scorned even a gentle master.
Although the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Homeland
Security bill more than a month ago, it has been languishing--now get
this. Let me say that again. Hear me. Although the Senate
Appropriations Committee passed the Homeland Security appropriations
bill more than a month ago, that bill has been languishing on the shelf
since then and has yet to see the light of day on the Senate floor.
That is the bill making appropriations for homeland security. That is
the bill for your protection, may I say to the people who are watching
this Senate through those electronic lenses. It is your protection,
your security, your children's protection, your property, your
community. And yet that bill has been languishing, where? On the shelf
since then and has yet to see the light of day on this Senate floor.
For some reason which I cannot divine, this do-nothing Senate--hear
me--for some reason which I cannot divine, this do-nothing Senate,
under the Senate Republican leadership, has bottled up the Homeland
Security bill, refusing to allow the Senate to debate it and pass it
and send it to the President of the United States.
Here we are, the Senate is about to go out for 45 days, and what
about your safety out there? What about the safety of the American
people? What about the safety of the communities of this country? What
about the safety of the children who attend the schools of this
country? What about them? Are they going to have to wait 45 days before
this bill making appropriations for homeland defense is to even be
called up and debated in this Senate? Yes. We are going to go home. We
are going to go home and leave those people unprotected insofar as new
moneys are concerned for the Department of Homeland Security.
Fie on the administration that would treat the American people so
cavalierly. Here is a bill that has been waiting. This is not Senator
Stevens' fault. His Appropriations Committee, of which I am the ranking
member, has reported out this bill days and days ago. We should have
taken that bill up and passed it. Where is it now? It is bottled up,
and there are no chances--none--of calling this appropriations bill up
before we go home for a 45-day recess. Go home. Go home. And yet amidst
all of this, this administration has been issuing dire warnings about
al-Qaida and what may happen in this country in the meantime, and
particularly during a time when the American people are going through
the democratic processes of nominating a President and Vice President
of the United States.
Now, if that isn't enough to make the hair curl, I would like to know
what we need to make it curl.
Unlike the billions upon billions of dollars in funding that the
President has demanded from Congress to fight his war in Iraq, he has
been strangely silent on the need to appropriate homeland security
funding to better protect you, Senators, you, the American people at
home.
In the wake of the most recent terrorist alert, one would think--
wouldn't one think--that the President of the United States would have
called on Congress to provide supplemental funding for new measures to
thwart the threat from al-Qaida? Wouldn't one think that?
There are so many weak links in our homeland security network for
which added resources could be a true lifesaver. The country needs
additional funds to secure our mass transit systems, to increase the
inspection of air and ship cargo containers, and, yes, to increase the
number of Federal air marshals.
Yet the White House is doing nothing in this regard--nothing,
nothing--to press Congress to move on this Homeland Security
appropriations bill before we close the doors and go home.
If the reports of pilots and flight attendants and air marshals cited
in the Washington Times article are accurate, our Nation's aircraft may
be under a renewed threat of attack. If the ``credible evidence'' cited
by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the FBI is
accurate, then the United States is entering an extremely--extremely--
dangerous period. And if the chairman of the so-called 9/11 Commission
was correct in the assessments he made today--I believe he was--then
the United States must face up to the mistakes it made in the past and
to the probability of another terrorist attack of even greater
magnitude than that which shook the Nation on September 11, 2001.
Yet the White House is doing nothing in this regard. By pretending
that funding for homeland security can wait, and by refusing to
acknowledge that additional resources are needed to protect the Nation,
the administration is callously playing fast and loose with the safety
of the American people.
I hope and I pray that America remains safe over the coming months. I
hope and pray that the reporting is wrong. I hope and pray that the
evidence collected by our homeland security experts is off the mark. I
hope and pray that the political conventions will be the scenes of
nothing more sinister than elbowing for a better view of the platform.
Above all, I hope and pray that the administration will come to its
senses, drop its pretension that all is well with homeland security,
and provide the financial resources required to truly protect the
American people at home.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the
floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, the 9/11 Commission released its
report and the Commission Chairman, Thomas H. Kearn, said that an
attack ``of even greater magnitude is possible--even probable.'' In
fact, intelligence assessments have long warned that al-Qaida is
seeking weapons of mass destruction to use against Americans in the
United States.
The 9/11 Commission specifically recommended today: ``Support the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program'' and went on to state that it
``is now in need of expansion, improvement, and resources.'' Yet the
conference report before us today includes a rescission insisted upon
by the other body of $50 million in fiscal year 2003 funding for
cooperative threat reduction programs. In other words, although this
bill appropriates $409 million for these programs in fiscal year 2005,
12 percent of that amount from prior appropriations is being taken
away. I think that is a huge mistake.
These programs, known as ``Nunn-Lugar'' programs after former Senator
Sam Nunn and the current distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, assist countries of the former
Soviet Union in the safe and secure transportation, storage and
dismantlement of nuclear weapons and nuclear and chemical materials, as
well as preventing the diversion of nuclear materials or equipment. So,
we have just cut funding for programs that will help keep nuclear
weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
There has been some confusion about the impact of this cut. The
official at the Defense Department charges with administering these
programs believes that she will be able to move funds around
sufficiently to prevent the cancellation of any programs, this time. I
hope she is right.
The cooperative threat reduction programs are notorious for how
slowly the money is obligated. That is not because the programs are
unneeded, or because federal employees are not doing their jobs.
Rather, pay-outs are slow because cooperation from the countries
concerned and various statutory certifications are required before the
funds can be used.
This fact makes the program a tempting target for those looking for a
pot of money to raid. But such critical programs must not be looked at
as ``bill payers'' for other defense needs.
Neither should we view cooperative threat reduction programs as
``foreign aid.'' That red herring must be put to rest. As former
Defense Secretary Bill Perry used to say, CTR is ``defense by other
means.'' There is no more pressing national security need than to
secure the sources of weapons of mass destruction and keep them out of
the hands of terrorists.
I want to put the House on notice today that I will vigorously oppose
further cuts in these programs. And should any deobligation of funds be
[[Page S8619]]
necessary because of this cut, I will urge the President and the
Secretary of Defense to reprogram funds to prevent the cancellation of
programs and contracts.
We have no greater responsibility than to protect our Nation from an
attack with weapons of mass destruction and I, for one, will not stand
for this critical program to be chipped away until it becomes
ineffective.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I want to discuss the Defense
Appropriations conference report. I want to say upfront this
legislation is extremely important. At a time when our soldiers are
still in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, this
legislation provides resources they need.
This bill is all the more important because costs of war in Iraq are
spiraling upward. The GAO has just reported that there is a shortfall
of over $12 billion in funding for war costs for fiscal year 2004. This
is on top of the $87 billion supplemental that we passed last year.
This year's Defense Appropriations bill makes $25 billion in emergency
reserve funding for war costs available immediately, helping to cover
this shortfall and ensure that our troops have what they need in Iraq.
It is important to note that much more is likely to be needed in
2005. CBO recently estimated that military operations in 2005 could
cost $55-$60 billion. These estimates demonstrate that the Bush
administration has failed to budget properly for the war in Iraq and
continues to understate the likely cost of these operations.
While this Defense conference report is extremely important, I want
to make clear that I am deeply disappointed with the budget provisions
that were added to this conference report behind closed doors by the
majority, without any debate in the House or Senate. In what I believe
is an unprecedented move, the majority has inserted deeming language
into this defense conference report--setting the overall fiscal year
2005 discretionary spending level at $821 billion. This deeming
language should have been debated in the Senate. It is entirely
inappropriate to add this language outside the scope of conference
without any debate by the Senate or by the Budget Committee. Clearly it
was added because the majority knows that members of the Senate will
not want to oppose a defense bill while our troops are in harm's way.
This is no way to govern. It sets a terrible precedent. Since a
conference report is not amendable, the majority is effectively
stifling the ability of the Senate to fully debate and amend the
deeming language. But that seems to be the point here. The majority
does not want to give the Senate the opportunity to fully debate and
amend this language.
We wouldn't be in this position if the majority had passed a budget
resolution this year. That is where the overall spending and revenue
amounts are supposed to be determined. Yet, because the majority's
leadership has refused to restore a strong paygo rule that applies to
both tax cuts and spending, the Senate has been unable to get an
agreement on a budget. Despite the record deficits we now face, the
majority and the Bush administration are still fixated on passing more
and more unpaid-for tax cuts. The Bush administration's fiscally
irresponsible leadership is driving our nation's finances right off the
cliff--and at the worst possible time, on the brink of the retirement
of the baby boom generation.
I mentioned that there was no debate on this deeming language.
Governing this way is bound to lead to mistakes. In drafting this
deeming language, the majority has left out the firewall provisions
that guarantee that the gas tax contributions of our Nation's motorists
will be used to finance the Nation's highway and mass transit. We have
had highway and mass transit firewalls in place for the last 6 years to
ensure that funding for those programs is not diverted to other areas.
But now, under this deeming language, the firewalls will be eliminated
and those highway and mass transit funds could be pilfered to cover
shortfalls in other areas of the budget. I think this is a significant
mistake--a horrible precedent to set in advance of a highway
reauthorization bill.
As I said earlier, the funding for our troops contained in this bill
is very important. But I want to be clear how disappointed I am in the
way the majority is operating here and in the way they, along with the
Bush administration, are dangerously undermining our Nation's fiscal
and economic security.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference
report for the fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations act. While I
recognize the importance of passing this legislation prior to the
upcoming recess, I am once again disappointed that we are acting on the
appropriations measure prior to enactment of the Defense Authorization
Act.
The responsibilities of authorizers and appropriators are expected to
be distinct. The Defense Authorization Act lays out the blueprint for
the policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its
programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate
funding based on policies provided by authorizations bills. In reality,
the appropriators' function, however, has expanded dramatically, and
the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decision
making and micromanagement, largely usurping the role of the
authorizing committees. I remain hopeful that we will complete action
on the Defense authorization act when we return in September in order
to provide further clarification of congressional intent to the
Department of Defense.
In the meantime, enactment of the Defense appropriations legislation
is very important, and it will enable us to continue to meet our
obligations to support service members in the fight against terror. The
conference report includes many critical funding provisions to which I
lend strong support, such as the funding to increase Army end strength
by 20,000 soldiers. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the
conference report also includes a large number of unauthorized and
unrequested provisions.
While I appreciate the hard work and the laudable intentions of the
members of the Appropriations Committee, the number of earmarks
contained in this conference report is alarming. This conference report
and accompanying statement of the managers contains close to 2,000
earmarks totaling $8.9 billion in Member adds.
With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, and with
looming budget deficits at home, the Congress faces some tough choices.
We must find a way to uphold our fiscal responsibility while fully
providing for our military needs. The costs that go along with the
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demand now, more than ever, a new
fiscal sanity in approaching our appropriations bills. A half-a-
trillion dollar budget deficit means we simply cannot afford business
as usual. We simply cannot continue the binge of pork barrel spending
that consumes an ever growing proportion of our Federal budget. While
the cost of an individual project may get lost in the fine print of
lengthy bills, together, they all do real damage. Collectively, these
earmarks significantly burden American taxpayers.
Not surprisingly, along with the growth in deficit spending over the
past few years, there has also been a significant growth in earmarks
and pork barrel spending. In fact, according to information compiled by
the Congressional Research Service, CRS, the total number of earmarks
has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004.
That is an increase of 240 percent in 10 years. In dollar terms, the
earmarking has risen from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same
period.
Based on the calculations of my office, the fiscal year 2002 Defense
appropriations act contained $3.7 billion in pork. The conference
report on the fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations act contained
$8.1 billion in pork. The fiscal year 2004 Senate-passed Defense
appropriations act contained well over $4 billion in pork. This year
$8.9 billion was added in the conference report and the statement of
the managers, which is more than twice the number in last year's
Senate-passed version of the legislation. This is real money. Every
year, countless important military and domestic programs go unfunded or
underfunded. I find it hard to understand why we can find the money to
pay for member add-ons, but then have to battle to fund concurrent
receipt or the survivor benefit plan.
The Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what
was
[[Page S8620]]
provided for in the President's budget request. That list totaled
nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2005. I believe that if we have the
resources, we should do all we can to provide additional defense
funding for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need. But
instead, we routinely fund programs just because they are important to
a particular state or district represented by a powerful Member of
Congress. I find this practice to be a disservice to our military men
and women, as well as to all American taxpayers.
Once again, the appropriators' addiction to tanker recapitalization
is too great for any amount of medication. The whole tanker love affair
reads like a bad novel. It is very suspect that the Appropriations
Committee added $100 million in this conference report under the
heading ``Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund.'' Fortunately, the Senate
provision prevailed and Chairman Stevens, as he publicly stated he
would do, did not allow the House earmark for Boeing 767 tankers to
carry through conference. On that point, the Tanker Replacement Fund is
muted. Only the report language makes reference to the ``current tanker
replacement program of record''--that program, undisput
edly, is the KC-X program which is in the Air Force's Future Years
Defense Program.
Over the past 3 years, I have spoken at length on the Senate floor on
the Boeing 767 tanker lease--it is difficult to understand why we are
still debating a tanker program when no money has been included in the
President's defense budget submitted to Congress. Further, the Senate
Armed Services Committee did not authorize any funding for tanker
recapitalization for fiscal year 2005. The Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, General John P. Jumper, USAF, did not request advance
procurement for tanker replacement in his ``Fiscal Year 2005 Unfunded
Priority List,'' totaling nearly $4 billion, which he submitted to
Congress in March 2005. The reason is simple--tanker replacement money
is not needed now. However, the appetite for this scandal-riddled
program is too great, despite the unethical acts of serious misconduct
by Air Force officials and the firing of several senior Boeing
officers, including the very top of the corporation. It is hard to
comprehend why the appropriators continue to put tanker
recapitalization ahead of greater priorities for our servicemen and
women.
Having said this, I congratulate the appropriators for considering
the recent Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Aerial
Refueling Requirements. Critically, the Defense Science Board task
force found there is no compelling material or financial reason to
initiate a replacement program prior to the completion of the Analysis
of Alternatives, AoA, and the Mobility Capabilities Study, MCS.'
Moreover the task force observed that the Air Force greatly overstated
both the amount of corrosion throughout the KC-135 fleet and the KC-
135's operation and support cost growth. It also found that the KC-135E
can fly to 2040. In other words, the `dominating rationale' cited by
the Air Force to Congress for having taxpayers pay billions of dollars
more for leasing Boeing's KC-767A tankers than they would for buying
them outright, has been conclusively shown to be without merit. The Air
Force's representations on this issue remains a matter of continuing
investigative concern. The likelihood that the analysis of
alternatives, AOA, and mobility capabilities study, MCS, if done
properly, will recommend an acquisition method for these tankers now
known to be wholly unsuitable here, is probably minimal. So the
Secretary's decision appears fatal to at least the lease component of
the proposal.
I look forward to seeing the language in the fiscal year 2005 Defense
appropriations act reconciled with the fiscal year 2005 National
Defense Authorization Act, which remains in conference. The language in
the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill is valuable in
that for the first time, it will inject much needed sunlight on a
program whose development has been largely insulated from public
scrutiny. The tanker provision in the authorization bill ensures that
any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers is done
responsibly, as is the case with most defense programs, however, that
has not been the case so far. We should expect no less from the Air
Force.
Let me briefly highlight just some of the egregious examples of pork
contained either in the conference report or the statement of managers
for FY 2005:
$3.5 million sleep deprivation research. Last night, my
staff was here late into the night, conducting tests in sleep
deprivation, as they compiled the seventy-plus pages of pork
found in the joint explanatory statement. The results: they
are tired.
$3.4 million for USMC Hitchhiker. Back in my day, you could
give a Marine a ride for free.
$1 million for the Deep Digger.
$1 million for repair to the Biathlon Trail at Fort
Richardson, Alaska.
$ million to restore the Woody Island and its historic
structures.
$110 million for the Advanced Procurement of F-15s. The air
Force has decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15.
Yet this earmark keeps the F-15 production line open, so I
question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers
of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air
Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both.
$1.9 million, for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
celebration. You don't need to have the exploration skills of
Lewis and Clark to see that this is a path to higher
deficits.
$1 million for the Center for Optical Logic Devices. I am
the first one who would pay for logic if we could insert some
into our political process, but this earmark won't do it.
$7.7 million for the Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless
System. Chameleons change colors; but one thing does not
change is the unrequested provisions in appropriations bills.
$2 million for the Air Battle Captain program at the
University of North Dakota. This provision sends students
from West Point to North Dakota for their flight
lessons. Instead of letting flight schools compete for the
ability to train these cadets, we have earmarked their
training to North Dakota. We are putting parochial
interests over the necessity to provide the best training
possible for the best price to our Army cadets.
$4.2 million for the LISA inspector. This sounds very
interesting.
$3.4 million dollars for Project Albert. Hey Hey Hey! Seems
like Albert could get pretty fat off all the pork in this
bill.
$2.8 million for the C-135 Improved Waste Removal System.
We need to improve the way we remove waste from this bill.
Maybe combined with the Deep Digger, we can find a way.
I use humor in describing some of these earmarks, but the damage they
do is deadly serious. They pull money away from legitimate funding
priorities and they waste taxpayer dollars. Each year, many of the same
earmarks appear in appropriations legislation, and each year I come to
the floor and point them out to my colleagues. Some of the
appropriators' perennial favorite projects include:
$4.3 million for the Smart Truck. This provision, which
directly lines the pockets of the auto industry in Detroit,
is not exactly smart.
$7.5 million for the 21st Century Truck. This program has
been around for years and not once has the Department of
Defense requested funding for it. While I'm sure we all would
love to jump into a truck that could be in a James Bond
movie, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the Department of
Defense to pay for it.
$5.6 million for the New England Manufacturing Supply
Chain. This is above and beyond the $14 million for this
project already earmarked over the last two years.
$33.9 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Why
should we provide $44 million for this system, when there are
many observatories in the United States, such as the Lowell
Observatory in Arizona, that already offers many of the same
benefits as the Maui site?
$1 million for the Brown Tree Snakes. Once again, the brown
tree snake has slithered its way into our defense
appropriation bill. I'm sure the snakes are a serious
problem, but a defense appropriations act is not the
appropriate vehicle to address this issue.
There are many earmarks that funnel dollars to worthy programs--such
as breast cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense
reason for these items to be on this piece of legislation. This type of
critical research should be funded through the Labor/HHS appropriations
bill. Our soldiers and sailors need to be provided with the best
equipment, housing, and support possible. Scarce defense dollars should
be used for these defense purposes, not others.
Once again, the appropriations earmarks in this defense conference
report are funneled primarily in to the home States of those Members
who sit on the Appropriations Committee. If you look at the plus-ups in
the Counter-Drug Activities the earmarking becomes clear. Plus-ups are
included for the following States: Florida, Indiana, Tennessee, Alaska,
Hawaii, West Virginia,
[[Page S8621]]
Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico. All of these states, I repeat, all of
these States have Members on the Appropriations Committee in either the
House or Senate. I find it hard to believe that only States represented
by appropriators have drug problems.
I could go on and on listing examples of pork in this legislation. We
would fulfill our objectives better if we reassessed our spending
priorities.
This year's conference report also includes a number of ``Buy
America'' provisions. For example, it prevents the foreign purchase of
welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain four inches in diameter and
under. Another provision ensures, that all carbon, alloy or steel
plates are produced in the United States. Whew. I know we will sleep
better at night knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured
in the U.S. Yet another section prohibits the Department of Defense
from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source.
I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on
readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. Every
year, Buy America restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the
American taxpayers over $5.5 billion. From a philosophical point of
view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies, and from an
economic point of view they are ludicrous. Free trade is both an
important element in improving relations among nations and essential to
economic growth. From a practical standpoint, Buy America restrictions
could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international
markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from
long-standing trade partners. Not to mention that procurement policy
determined in the Defense authorization bill, not in the appropriations
bill.
I also want to comment briefly about a provision contained in this
Defense appropriations conference report that is entirely unrelated to
funding our national defense needs.
A so-called ``technical amendment'' was added to the Senate measure
at the surprise of a number of us who have been on record for opposing
such a provision when efforts were made to add it to other legislative
measures. Despite the fact that a member of my staff was on the floor
during the debate on the Defense appropriations bill and we had been
assured the opportunity to review all amendments prior to their
adoption, one amendment was suddenly accepted without the review or
concurrence of myself or my staff. That amendment rewrites the Fiscal
Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill to allow for 23--States plus the
District of Columbia, to receive over $300 million in additional
funding for highway project earmarks. Of course, this project funding
is on top of the funding they already receive under what many of us
consider to be an unfair formula whereby the gas taxes of donor states
are transferred to pay for the roads in donee states.
With the adoption of this new provision that has been retained in the
pending conference report, 23 States plus the District of Columbia, the
majority of which are already donee States and receiving more funding
than they contribute, will now receive even more money to pay for
earmarked projects included in the Omnibus. Again, this funding is in
addition to the funding distributed by formula. While the appropriators
are taking action to ensure their earmarks are funded outside the
formula, 27 States, the majority of which are donor States and already
subsidizing other States' highways, will get no benefit, thereby
exasperating highway funding inequity.
While it doesn't surprise me that the appropriators found a vehicle
for their provision; it does surprise me that they would act in such an
orchestrated manner when they knew fully their efforts faced opposition
if done so in what most of us consider to be regular order,
whereby objectionable amendments are not added just because they are
supported by the bill managers. One of the many Senatorial courtesies
we all hold dear is that we usually can take Members at their word and
that their rights will not be ignored simply for political expediency.
Sadly, that was not the case with the adoption of this provision.
The ongoing conference on the highway reauthorization bill is on
life-support. If the House, Senate, and administration can reach an
agreement on an overall funding level, I will certainly do all that I
can as a conferee to ensure that earmarks are counted towards each
State's formula distribution. It is only fair that we ensure that once
a formula is determined; a formula that I am confident will still
include donors and donees, that earmarks are not permitted to further
shortchange donor States' highway funding.
I also want to point out that buried at the end of the bill text is a
legislative rider that changes our immigration laws. This provision
carves out workers in the fish roe processing industry from numerical
limitations under the H-2B visa program. While I will be the first to
testify to the need to reform our immigration system, and have done so
repeatedly, we should not begin to do it on the Defense Appropriations
bill by giving a benefit to one small segment of the fishing industry.
This is not the way to legislate. There are severe problems with our
H-2B visas. We reached the numerical cap on visas early this year and
dependent industries are now struggling to hire the labor they need to
operate. The H-2B is just one example of our flawed immigration system;
yet carving out a fix for parochial interests; without addressing the
overall problem is shortsighted. While owners of fish roe processing
facilities benefit from the help powerful members of the Appropriations
Committee, every other industry- facing a labor shortage because of
this cap will continue to suffer.
I wish it were not necessary for me to come to the Senate floor with
every appropriations bill to criticize the amount of unrequested
spending in the legislation. I do so because I believe it is critical
for American taxpayers to understand where the money from their pockets
is really going. I urge my colleagues to stop ``porking up'' our
appropriations bills. In a time of huge spending deficits and scarce
dollars, it is long past time to stop feeding at the rough. We can do
better.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the conference report to accompany H.R.
4613, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year
2005, provides $391.170 billion in budget authority and $416.011
billion in outlays in fiscal year 2005 for the Department of Defense.
Of these totals, $239 million is for mandatory programs in fiscal year
2005.
The bill further provides $28.2 billion in budget authority in fiscal
year 2004 designated as emergency requirements. Of this total $26.8
billion is for defense purposes and $1.3 billion is for non-defense
purposes.
The fiscal year 2004 emergency funds for defense include $25 billion
in supplemental appropriations for on-going operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. While the President requested these funds for fiscal year
2005, the conference report makes these funds available on enactment.
The conference report also includes a repeal of a $1.8 billion defense
rescission enacted in the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill, P.L. 108-
199--in effect appropriating a new $1.8 billion for defense. In total,
the $26.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 emergency defense budget
authority generates $19.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2005.
The bill provides $500 million for wildland fire suppression for
2004. These funds are consistent with amounts assumed in the 2005
budget resolution. The conference report also includes the following
non-defense funds: $685 million for the Iraq embassy and diplomatic
security expenses; $50 million for convention security in New York City
and Boston; and $95 million for Sudan humanitarian assistance.
The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year
2005, including emergencies, of $390.931 billion. This amount is $1.684
billion less than the President's request and equal to the 302(b)
allocations adopted by the House of Representatives. This amount is
$68.4 billion less than fiscal year 2004 enacted levels when
supplemental appropriations are included. When supplemental
appropriations are not included the conference report provides $20.8
billion more than last year's enacted level.
The conference report also provides a 2005 302(a) allocation to the
Senate Appropriations Committee. This will ensure that adequate
enforcement tools are available as the Senate considers
[[Page S8622]]
the remaining appropriation bills. The allocation in the conference
report is consistent with the levels envisioned in S. Con. Res. 95, the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005.
I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee
for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous
consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the
bill be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 4613, 2005 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS.--SPENDING COMPARISONS--
CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal Year 2005, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report: \1\
Budget authority............. 390,931 239 391,170
Outlays...................... 415,772 239 416,011
House 302(b) allocation: \2\
Budget authority............. 390,931 239 391,170
Outlays...................... 415,987 239 416,226
2004 Enacted:
Budget authority............. 459,374 226 459,600
Outlays...................... 424,429 226 424,655
President's request:
Budget authority............. 392,615 239 392,854
Outlays...................... 418,639 239 418,878
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 390,931 239 391,170
Outlays...................... 415,594 239 415,833
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 383,773 239 384,012
Outlays...................... 401,566 239 401,805
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............. 0 0 0
Outlays...................... -215 0 -215
2004 Enacted:
Budget authority............. -68,443 13 -68,430
Outlays...................... -8,657 13 -8,644
President's request:
Budget authority............. -1,684 0 -1,684
Outlays...................... -2,867 0 -2,867
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 0 0 0
Outlays...................... 178 0 178
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 7,158 0 7,158
Outlays...................... 14,206 0 14,206
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the amounts shown above, the bill includes $19.902
billion in emergency outlays in 2005 flowing from the $27.656 billion
emergency supplemental included in Titles IX and X of H.R. 4613 for
2004. The bill also contains $500 million BA and $340 million outlays
in 2004 for wildland fire suppression.
\2\ This table compares Senate action to the House 302(b) allocation for
information purposes only, not for budget enforcement purposes. The
House has deemed 302(b) allocations for 2005 based on the 302(a)
appropriations allocation set out in the conference agreement on S.
Con. Res. 95, the 2005 budget resolution, which the House has passed.
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I address a question to my colleague
from West Virginia?
There are no more requests for time. We are prepared to yield back
the remainder of our time and go to a vote. Is the Senator from West
Virginia prepared to yield back the remainder of his time?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, not having had any other requests for
time, I ask that all time remaining be rescinded.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw that request.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will allow us the opportunity, we have some
people who are not expecting the vote to occur right now.
Mr. President, if the distinguished chairman of the committee will
allow a 5-minute quorum call, we think we will have this matter worked
out very quickly.
Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw my request and concur and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I direct this question to the distinguished
Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, who has worked so
hard on this bill. Would he and Senator Byrd allow the vote to begin at
7:15?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very willing to enter into such an
agreement. Have the yeas and nays been requested?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
Mr. STEVENS. I request the yeas and nays on final passage, when that
occurs. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall commence at 7:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I ask the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley--we
have about 4 minutes until the vote occurs. Would he like to speak for
that period of time?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be
recognized until 7:15, when the vote occurs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized until 7:15.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S.
2762 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 7:15 has arrived. The question is
on agreeing to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4613. The yeas
and nays have been requested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]
YEAS--96
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
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
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--4
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Kerry
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I inserted in the Record the name of
staff members who worked on this bill. I compliment them. I need a
round of applause for the staff. This is record time for this bill. It
is a very good bill. It is essential. Emergency funds will be available
as soon as the President signs it.
I thank all Senators for their cooperation today to get this bill
passed before we go home for recess.
____________________