NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 (Senate - June 26, 1996)
[Page: S6949]
The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
AMENDMENT NO. 4345
Mr. EXON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 4345.
Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
After section 3, insert the following:
SEC. 4. GENERAL LIMITATION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1997 under the provisions to this Act is $263,362,000,000.
Mr. EXON. Madam President, there are several important cosponsors of this amendment. One is on the floor at the present time. I simply inquire of the Senator from Wisconsin--and I have agreed to yield him 7 minutes--if his time will allow him to wait, I will make opening remarks. However, if the Senator is cramped for time, I will yield at this juncture.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I will wait for the Senator from Nebraska to deliver his opening remarks.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Wisconsin for his usual courtesy.
Madam President, the amendment I have just sent to the desk is on behalf of myself, Senator Bingaman, Senator Kohl, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Levin. This amendment reduces--Madam President, reduces--the total funding level in the bill by $4 billion. This would still allow, I emphasize, this would still allow an increase--increase--in the President's request of $9.0 billion. A $9 billion increase would be allowed even if the Exon amendment is accepted. This is an increase of $155 million --an increase of $155 million--above this year's funding level.
To put that in perspective, I have a chart to which I will direct the attention of the Senate. It is headed `Comparison of the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Spending Proposals.' Billions of dollars are on the left side, with the first graph showing $263.2 billion, which would be if we had just taken the whole defense budget and froze it at last year's level, $263.2 billion. Under the Exon proposal, from the standpoint of last year, there would be an increase of something around $200 million or up to $263.4 billion, an increase of about $200 million still going up in national defense over last year's expenditures.
Compare that, if you will, with this big broad green graph on the right. If we go with the defense authorization bill that is presently before the Senate, we would balloon that to $267.4 billion for the same time period of fiscal year 1997.
Madam President, this amendment is a modest attempt, and I underline the word modest, a modest attempt to control Federal spending within reason, reduce the budget deficit and eliminate wasteful spending.
The bill before the Senate contains some $4.6 billion more than the Pentagon requested for fiscal year 1997 or for any of the next 5 years. I think the Congress could easily be able to identify $4 billion, either from this pork-barrel-laden $4.6 billion or from other sources to meet the requirement of this amendment.
Madam President, we are debating legislation that increases the Pentagon's request by a whopping $13 billion, nearly double last year's increase of $7 billion. At a time when we are considering deep reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, and other programs, I find it absolutely astonishing that between last year and this year we are proposing to give the Pentagon $20 billion more--to give the Pentagon $20 billion more--than the Pentagon had requested. Certainly in this case it is not the Pentagon that we can blame. The Pentagon came forth in cooperation with the President with what I thought was a workable program.
Madam President, I am under no illusion whatever. I understand the dynamics and the politics of the situation. I understand that Congress will, inevitably, increase this year's defense request, although it is still uncertain whether the
President will sign a bill calling for such an excessive increase of $13 billion.
What this Senator from Nebraska is saying is, rather than $13 billion, maybe if the President recognizes that we just reduce that to $9 billion over his request, there may be some chance of avoiding a veto.
Before this Congress sanctions this $13 billion increase, I think we should first examine how the majority proposes to spend it. For several weeks we have been hearing that most of the increase will be devoted to accelerating acquisition of weapons systems that the Pentagon wanted in future years but could not afford this year. If that were true, some of the increase would almost seem reasonable under that argument.
We have since learned otherwise. According to the Defense Department itself, of the $12 billion this bill adds for procurement, research and development, the so-called modernization--that is a great term; for modernization--$4.6 billion of that, or almost 40 percent was neither in the Pentagon's 1997 request nor in its 5-year plan for 1997 through the year 2001.
This second and last chart that I reference at this time I think elaborates and demonstrates the size of this increase. As I have just said, increases to the Pentagon's fiscal 1997 request for procurement and research and development is vividly demonstrated here. $11.4 billion is the total; $4.6 billion was not even in DOD's 5-year plan.
That is some way for conservatives to budget. I simply say that the budget request that was suggested by the Pentagon, and recommended and approved by all of the people in the Pentagon, was aimed at long-range budget planning that was realistic. And I might add, it was approved and endorsed by the Secretary of Defense, the joint staff, and the individual service chiefs, as the optimal way of allocating the roughly $1.3 trillion that both parties agreed to spend on defense over the next 5 years to fulfill our joint military requirements.
Madam President, I should also note that the Pentagon has calculated that, over the next 5 years, increases for these items not in its 5-year plan would cost $25 billion. Let me say that again, Madam President. This plan that is being forced down the throat of the Pentagon and the President would cost $25 billion above and beyond what is already budgeted for. In essence, it amounts to an unfunded mandate on the Pentagon.
To bring this point home, Madam President, I will read a letter dated June 26 from John White, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, written to Senator Daschle:
[Page: S6950]
In response to your question with regard to the funding levels contained in the FY 1997 Department of Defense Authorization Bill, I want to assure you that the President's defense budget and Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) as submitted to the Congress is sufficient to meet the security requirements of the Nation and to satisfy the policy directions of the Administration. Three times in three years the President has increased the level of resources made available to the Department to support the Bottom Up Review. We can achieve the objectives of the national security strategy with the resources requested by the Administration.
I am particularly concerned that many of the proposed increases contained in the Defense Bill now under consideration are for systems or programs which are not included in the Department's FYDP. These increases bring with them funding tails for the outyears which could limit future production of critical technologically advanced modernization programs now in development.
Madam President, that drives home the point that I referenced just a few moments ago about this $25 billion above and beyond what has already been budgeted for.
Let us look at some of these increases. Let us look at some of the programs that these increases propose to embrace. Remember, Madam President, none of them was in the Pentagon's 5-year plan. I am going to mention a few: $202 million for the Navy's Distributed Surveillance System; $183 million for the Army's AH-64 Apache helicopter; $158 million for the Army Kiowa Warrior helicopter; $234 million for Navy's F/A-18 C/D fighter; $107 million for the Air Force's F-16 C/D; $205 million for the Air Force's WC-130.
There are some 100 examples, none of which are in the Pentagon's comprehensive 5-year plan.
You can spend all day looking for them, and you will not find them. They are an expensive collection of pet projects, congressional pork, and outright wasteful spending. These increases are precisely the sort of deficit and budget-busting spending that would be subject to the line-item veto, if Congress had given that power to the President this year, as we once voted for here in the U.S. Senate.
I ask unanimous consent that a complete list of these increases be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
FISCAL YEAR 1997 SENATE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL: SUMMARY OF ADDS NOT IN THE PENTAGON'S 5-YEAR PLAN
[In millions of dollars]
Total adds in bill Adds not in 5-year plan Percent of total add not in FYDP
Fiscal year 1997 Senate defense authorization bill: List of adds not in the Pentagon's 5-year plan
[In millions of dollars]
Research, Dev., Test & Evaluation (RDT&E)
Army:
Weapons and Munitions Technology 20.0
Nautilus Thel 25.0
Tractor Red 3.5
Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology 4.0
Tractor Dump 13.6
Armored System Modernization: Advanced Development 12.0
Javelin 4.5
Air Defense Command, Control, and Intelligence--Eng. Dev 61.8
Longbow: Engine Development 12.0
Force XXI Initiatives 100.0
DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility 21.7
Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program 55.0
Other Missile Product Improvement Programs 9.0
Subtotal, Army RDT&E 342.1
Navy:
Surface/Aerospace Surveillance and Weapons Technology 9.0
Surface Ship Technology 6.0
Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology 7.5
Ship Propulsion System 8.0
Advanced Submarine Combat Systems Development 48.0
Advanced Submarine System Development 60.0
Gun Weapon System Technology 27.0
Other Helicopter Development 11.0
Electronic Warfare Development 65.0
Aegis Combat System Engineering 21.9
Arsenal Ship 147.0
Airborne Mine Countermeasures (MCM) 10.0
Distributed Surveillance System 202.0
Marine Corps Program Wide Support 40.0
Joint Service Non-Lethal Weapons Technology Program 15.0
Acquisition Center of Excellence 8.0
Subtotal, Navy RDT&E 685.4
Air Force:
Advanced Spacecraft Technology 75.0
Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator 1.4
Rocket Systems Launch Program (Space) 25.1
F-15E Squadrons 29.0
Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles 10.0
Sensor Fused Weapons 19.1
Subtotal, Air force RDT&E 159.6
Defense-Wide:
Anti-Satellite Program (ASAT ) 75.0
Tactical Technology 3.0
Materials and Electronics Technology 15.0
Defense Nuclear Agency 12.0
Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative Technologies 72.3
CALS Initiative 14.0
Environmental Security Technical Certification Plan 8.0
Boost Phase Intercept Theater Missile 15.0
National Missile Defense-Dem/Val 50.0
Other Theater Missile Defense/Follow-On TMD Activities-Demo 10.7
Defense Support Activities 3.0
Subtotal, Defense-wide RDT&E 278.0
Total, RDT&E 1,465.1
Procurement
Army:
C-XX (Medium Range) Aircraft 35.0
AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter 183.0
CH-47 Cargo Helicopter Modifications (Multi-year Program) 52.3
Kiowa Warrior Helicopter 158.4
Subtotal 428.7
Mobile Launcher Rocket Systems (MLRS) 147.0
Patriot Modifications 12.0
Avenger Modifications 29.0
Dragon Modifications 25.0
Subtotal 213.0
Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicles 50.8
Howitzer, Medium SP FT 155mm M109A6 (Modification) 61.2
M1 Abrams Tank (Modification) 26.5
Medium Machine Guns (Modifications) 20.0
Subtotal 158.5
CTG Mortar 60mm Illum M721/M767 7.0
CTG Mortar 60mm HE M720 12.5
Proj Arty 155MM HE M795 55.0
Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions (SLAM) 3.0
Armament Retooling Manufacturing Support (ARMS) 58.0
Subtotal 135.5
Medium Truck Extended Service PGM (ESP) (PREV SLEP) 3.0
Inland Petroleum Distribution System 33.0
Items less than $2 million (Construction Equipment) 54.0
Base Level Commercial Equipment 27.0
Subtotal 117.0
Total, Army procurement 1,052.7
Navy:
F/A-18C/D (Fighter) Hornet 234.0
EA-6 Series 33.3
F-18 Series 50.0
H-53 Series 14.0
Tomahawk Modifications 14.4
Subtotal 345.7
Shipbuilding & Conversion: Oceanographic Ships--SWATH 45.0
Subtotal 45.0
Other: Oceanographic Support Equipment 6.0
Subtotal 6.0
155mm CHG, Prop, Red Bag 24.0
155mm D864, Base Bleed 45.0
FUZE, ET, XM752 29.0
AN/TPQ-36 Fire Finder Radar Upgrade 1.7
Trailers 9.3
Subtotal 109.0
Total, Navy procurement 505.7
Air Force:
F-16 C/D (Multi-year Program) 107.4
WC-130 204.5
B-1B 56.5
AWACS Reengineering 109.0
Other Aircraft 21.2
DARP 182.2
Subtotal 680.8
HAVE NAP 39.0
AGM-130 Powered GBU-15 40.0
Conventional ALCMs 15.0
Hard Target Smart FUZES 2.0
Subtotal 96.0
Total, Air Force procurement 776.8
Defense-wide: National Guard & Reserve Equipment 759.8
Total, Defense-wide procurement 759.8
Grand total, procurement 3,095.0
Grand total RDT&E 1,465.1
Grand total, procurement 3,095.0
Super-total 4,560.1
[Page: S6951]
Mr. EXON. Madam President, these programs, in the opinion of most senior military leaders, are unnecessary. Even if the Pentagon had the money, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs have said that they would not fund these programs this year, not next year, not in 1999, not in the year 2000, and not in the year 2001.
Since both the administration and the Republican majority propose to spend virtually the exact same amount on defense over the next 6 years, funding these programs directly takes away from others that the Pentagon says it needs. Is this a way to budget responsibly for our national security? I suggest not. Is this a way we should spend the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars? I think not.
Some of my colleagues will assert that some of these increases are justified because they were included on one of the infamous wish lists that the services circulated on Capitol Hill. But none of these service lists was ever approved by the joint staff, who determines what is necessary. They are the experts.
It seems to me that we should realize and recognize that the full coordination with the services and our joint military needs should be kept in mind when we implement our military strategy.
Over the past 40 years, Congress has worked hard in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the joint capabilities of our armed services--first, by unifying the command of the services under the Secretary of Defense, and then by creating a strong joint staff and a strong Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This year's use of the wish lists directly undermines 40 years of work by promoting the services' parochial interests at the expense of our overall national defense strategy.
Madam President, I believe my friend and colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Coats from Indiana, a dedicated Republican, who has great knowledge of national defense issues, summarized the situation well when he said at a conference on April 24, 1996:
Few priorities on the `wish lists' stress how the programs can improve joint war-fighting capabilities. It seems counterproductive that the services would work to a consensus . . . only to deviate from this course during the authorization cycle. . . Such lists are not effective `gap closers' when they do not adhere to a logical, overreaching defense plan.
So the fact that some of these increases in the defense authorization bill were on a wish list is in reality no justification whatsoever for Congress to fund them.
Madam President, how long can this Congress continue doling out scarce discretionary funds to the Pentagon with this blank check philosophy? As many have warned, spending of the taxpayers' dollars so irresponsibly will undermine the public's confidence in the Congress as well as erode its support for adequate funding for national defense.
We have heard many speeches about how we need to cut unnecessary Government spending. This is an ideal opportunity for Senators to stand up and do just that.
This amendment is reasonable. This amendment is moderate. I wish we could do more. I am willing, although reluctantly, to give the Pentagon this year an additional $9 billion for programs it did not request this year. I am even willing to give the Pentagon an additional $600 million so that it can fund so-called congressional priorities. But enough is enough. Some sense of fiscal sanity is necessary.
Madam President, I simply say that the $4 billion in the cut that myself and the others are proposing is going to be accepted, at least in part, by a follow-on amendment that I understand will soon follow my amendment offered by the two leaders of the Armed Services Committee, by my distinguished friends, Senator Thurmond from South Carolina and Senator Nunn from Georgia. What they are proposing to do is to take roughly half of the cuts that this Senator has proposed and reduce the Senate Armed Services Committee bill from its $13 billion increase figure down to the budget resolution figure of $11.4 billion. I salute them for that. It is a step in the right direction.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
