[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10064-10066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and 
     for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of Members, we will 
have opening statements, and then we will have an amendment offered by 
the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
  On behalf of the leader, I make this statement. We are now on the DOD 
appropriations bill. After our opening statements, Senator Grassley is 
prepared to talk about his accounting amendment. We expect to have a 
vote at 9:30 on that amendment tomorrow morning. There will no more 
votes for the remainder of the day.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join my great friend, Senator Inouye, 
in presenting the Defense appropriations bill to the Senate. This bill 
is for the fiscal year 2001. It represents the twelfth bill we have 
jointly brought before the Senate: Six were presented by my friend from 
Hawaii during the period of time when he was the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and now this is the sixth bill presented by me during the 
second opportunity I have had to chair this subcommittee.
  First and foremost, the bill reported by our committee, in our 
opinion, meets all personnel, readiness, training, and quality-of-life 
priorities for the armed services.
  We have fully funded the pay raise and new authorized recruiting and 
retention benefits. All estimated costs of contingency operations for 
2001 in Kosovo, Bosnia, and southwest Asia are included in our 
recommendation. There should not be an emergency supplemental for known 
contingency operations in the year 2001 for the Department of Defense.
  The bill before the Senate sustains and augments the efforts to 
accelerate modernization of our Armed Forces.
  Significantly, the recommendation provides an additional $250 million 
for the Army's transformation initiative.
  I join my friend from Hawaii in commending General Shinseki for his 
foresight and leadership in moving the Army forward into a more 
deployable global force. These funds should accelerate the fielding of 
the initial transformation brigades in 2001.
  Our committee, consistent with the Defense authorization bill as 
presented to the Senate, adds funds for several missile defense 
programs. Mr. President, $139 million is added for the national missile 
defense research and development, $92.4 million for the airborne laser, 
and $60 million for the Navy theaterwide missile defense efforts.
  This is the crossroads year for missile defense. These funds are 
consistent with the recommendations and priorities of General Kadish, 
who manages this program, for the fiscal year 2001.
  A new initiative recommended in this bill is to transfer funding for 
the C-17 program to a new national defense airlift fund.
  Several years ago, funding for sealift acquisition was transferred to 
a central account. Airlift is a key strategic capability. The need for 
that is shared by all military services. Funding for airlift should not 
be borne solely by the Air Force, just as funding for sealift is not 
now borne by the Navy.
  Full funding is provided in this new account for 12 C-17 aircraft 
requested for 2001, and the advance procurement and interim contract 
logistics support submitted in the budget.
  The bill presented by the subcommittee includes report language that 
directs the Department to proceed with the current acquisition strategy 
to select a single design based upon the flight test program.
  The Joint Strike Fighter might be the single most important defense 
program this committee will consider in the next 10 years. We must get 
this one right. Industrial base concerns should only be addressed after 
we are sure we have selected the best aircraft at the best cost for the 
mission and not before we even select the winner of the competition.
  When the committee met to report the bill, several Members raised 
with me the subcommittee's recommendation to defer full funding on the 
two LPD-17 class vessels requested in the budget.
  The bill before us includes $200 million in advance appropriations 
for the two ships originally planned for fiscal year 2001. Also, it 
includes $285 million to pay for cost overruns incurred on the first 
four ships.
  I want to restate, as I have in both Maine and Louisiana in the past 
week, my personal commitment to the LPD-17 program. The focus of the 
adjustment we recommend is to get the program back on track with a 
stable design and address prior year problems. The funds provided are 
intended to assure that there will be no interruption in the work at 
the two shipyards and no additional delay in construction or delivery 
of the ships.
  At the markup, language was added by Senator Cochran and Senator

[[Page 10065]]

Snowe to permit the Navy to sign contracts for both ships using the 
funds appropriated by this bill. We have approved that recommendation. 
So there is no reason to say this bill in any way slows up the process 
of procuring these new ships.
  Finally, the recommendation provides $137 million for the new medical 
benefits included in the Senate-reported defense authorization bill. 
These efforts provide a new pharmacy benefit for military retirees. 
They are fully consistent with the objectives outlined by General 
Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, in his testimony before our 
committee.
  The new medical benefit package adopted during consideration of the 
defense bill does not require additional discretionary appropriations 
for the fiscal year 2001.
  It is our intention to work closely with the authorizing committees 
and with the Department of Defense to ensure that any new benefits are 
fully funded in the years to come. If a commitment is made under our 
watch, it is going to be kept.
  These improvements will come at considerable cost and will be an 
important element of future defense budget planning. This is really 
what the Senator from Nebraska was talking about, the oncoming 
important costs we must face. The definition of those costs is the 
problem so far.
  I urge all of our colleagues to look at this bill as a whole. It is 
packaged together. It really is a bill we have worked on. I do commend 
our staffs, our joint staffs, under Steve Cortese, who is with me, and 
Charlie Houy is with Senator Inouye.
  This bill once again is a bill that I think, as I said in the 
beginning, will meet our needs with the funds that are available this 
year. The allocation for defense is roughly $1 billion less than the 
amount made available by the Senate version of the defense 
authorization bill. It is about $1 billion below the allocation for the 
House-passed bill now before the Senate.
  Some of these issues have to be sorted out in conference with the 
House. I ask the patience of the Senate as we work to get the best 
possible package to the conference.
  I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that we have several 
issues in the bill that are also pending before the conference on the 
military construction bill because of the supplemental that was already 
passed by the House.
  The committee has closely followed the Senate's actions on the 
defense authorization bill so far this week. We intend to offer a 
managers' package of conforming amendments during consideration of this 
bill to accommodate the Senate's action on the bill.
  To that concern, I ask all Members of the Senate, if you have 
amendments to offer, please notify Senator Inouye or me as soon as 
possible. We can probably work out most of them. We hope we will be 
able to do so because our bill closely tracks the defense authorization 
bill. It tracks the priorities outlined by the military chiefs in their 
testimony before the committee, and it certainly tracks fully our 
understanding of the House version that was passed by the other body 
just recently.
  Mr. President, I now recognize our distinguished ranking member, the 
Senator from Hawaii, and once again call to the attention of the Senate 
the great honor that will come to him in just a few days; that is, the 
honor of receiving his Medal of Honor which he should have received a 
long time ago. It is a privilege to serve with my friend from Hawaii.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. May I first thank my chairman for his most generous 
remarks.
  Mr. President, I begin by congratulating Chairman Stevens for the 
superb manner in which he has guided this bill through the committees 
to the floor.
  I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my dear friend and 
chairman of the committee, Senator Stevens. I suggest to my colleagues 
that this is a good measure, worthy of support by all of us. I join my 
chairman in requesting that our colleagues submit their amendments in a 
timely fashion.
  I note that this measure--a measure that includes $287.6 billion; the 
largest ever considered by this Senate--was unanimously approved by the 
Committee on Appropriations by a vote of 28-0.
  It will do a great deal for both our readiness and moderniation 
requirements to protect our nation's security.
  Highlights include:
  For our military personnel and their families: It provides full 
funding for military pay including a 3.7 percent pay raise; an increase 
of $153 million for military bonuses to improve recruiting and 
retention; and increases for the GI bill for Reservists.
  The subcommittee has fully funded readiness programs, including: $4.1 
billion to support our peacekeepers overseas; an increase of $183 
million for our National guard; and a total increase of $4.5 billion 
for readiness from the levels provided in FY 2000.
  Full funding is also recommended for the new prescription drug 
benefit as authorized; and $275 million is recommended for breast and 
prostate cancer research.
  Critical investment highlights include the following: Full funding 
for our F-22 and F/A-18 fighters; an increase of $250 million for the 
Army's highest priority, ``transformation''; full funding for the 
Navy's carrier, submarines, and destroyers; and, an increase of $411 
million for ballistic missile defense programs.
  However, Senators should be advised that the bill does not provide a 
blank check to the Pentagon.
  It includes some tough reductions to programs that are being 
schedule, over budget, or simply not ready to proceed at this time.
  I want to assure my colleagues that the No. 1 priority in this bill 
is to protect near-term readiness.
  The men and women willing to go into harm's way to protect the rest 
of us simply must be provided the tools they need to defeat any threat.
  At the same time, the bill provides sufficient funding for 
modernization programs so that future readiness will also be protected. 
We must continue to invest for the future to ensure we are never caught 
unprepared.
  I would also like to point out that the Chairman has been very 
responsive to the wishes of the members. Many of the suggestions made 
by the Members of the Senate have been incorporated into bill.
  This is a very good bill. I strongly encourage all my colleagues to 
support it.


                           Amendment No. 3278

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent all after the enacting clause be 
stricken of the pending bill and the text of S. 2593, as reported by 
our committee, be inserted and that amendments then be considered as 
original text for the purpose of further amendments, being designated 
amendment No. 3278.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator could withhold, we need to 
take a look at the unanimous consent request which was just accepted.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I did not waive any points of order. It is my 
understanding that the original text of this bill is nevertheless 
subject to points of order under rule XVI.


                           Amendment No. 3279

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3279.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.

[[Page 10066]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Section 8106 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter 
     under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
     3009-111, 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to 
     apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of 
     Defense in fiscal year 2001.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment pertains to Department of 
Defense (DOD) disbursements.
  It requires DOD to match certain disbursements with obligations prior 
to payment.
  This policy has been incorporated in the last six appropriations 
acts: Fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
  Each year we have ratcheted down the threshold.
  The threshold is the dollar amount of the disbursement that must be 
matched with its corresponding obligation.
  We started at the $5 million level.
  Under current law, the threshold is now set at 500,000.00 dollars.
  In 1999, the Senate voted to lower the threshold from $1 million to 
the current level.
  Both the DOD Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have 
repeatedly stated that policy is a good idea.
  It is helping the department to control the flow of money.
  First, it is an important internal control procedure. It is a first-
line of defense against fraudulent payments.
  If a corresponding obligation cannot be identified, the payment 
cannot be made. It is as simple as that.
  Second, it is helping the department avoid ``problem disbursements'' 
or unmatched disbursements.
  A few years ago, the department had unmatched disbursements totaling 
about 50 billion dollars. This situation created gaping holes in DOD's 
books of account.
  And these gaping holes in the books of account are one big reason why 
DOD consistently fails to earn a ``clean'' opinion in the annual CFO 
audits.
  Those are the audits required by the Chief Financial Officers Act.
  And third, it is helping the department avoid overobligations, that 
is, making payments in excess of available funding.
  This year I am recommending that the threshold be retained at the 
current level of 500,000.00 dollars.
  The General Accounting Office needs to do more audit follow-up work 
before the threshold is lowered any further.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking minority member for supporting 
this policy and urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  I should ask the chairman of the committee if he wants to order a 
rollcall at this point because it is my understanding he wanted a 
rollcall vote on it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that is our 
intent. I want to take this time to congratulate the Senator from Iowa 
for once again raising the issue of proper accounting procedures for 
the Department of Defense. As we have in the past, I suggest it is a 
matter for the Senate to express their opinion about and support the 
endeavors of the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

                          ____________________