Space

[Page: S7688]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S. 1894, which the clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1894) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

[Page: S7689]

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with the passage of Senate bill 1745 yesterday, the National Defense Authorization Act for 1997, we are now turning to the consideration of the defense appropriations bill for next year.

As I said, I believe the Senate can quickly dispose of this bill, which is Senate bill 1894. We have, in nearly every case, followed the initiatives that have been adopted by the Senate in the authorization bill.

I know there are some individual objections to portions of the bill, but as in the case last year when Senator Inouye and I presented an original bill to the Senate due to the need to complete preparations on this bill prior to the July 4th recess, we could not be sure that the House version of the bill would pass in time for the Defense Subcommittee to take up that bill. This Senate bill passed the subcommittee and full Appropriations Committee with only one minor adjustment, and reflects bipartisan work effort and total support by our Appropriations Committee.

Before turning to some of the details of the bill, I want to once again this year express my appreciation to my good friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. We have been partners in bringing this bill to the floor of the Senate for many years.

And, as I said, this bill again reflects our joint judgment.

In total, the bill accommodates the 602(b) allocations provided pursuant to the joint budget resolution. The amount is $244.74 billion in new budget authority and $242.98 billion in outlays. Our bill before the Senate, Mr. President, exactly meets those limits. The bill provides for about $1 billion more than the level of appropriations for 1996. But I call to the attention of the Senate that this bill includes all estimated funding for contingency operations such as Bosnia.

Again, that is another footnote to this bill. We have men and women in the field. We cannot afford to not get this bill passed by the deadline of September 30. In order to get this bill through conference and back to the Senate in time that it can be presented to the President and hopefully have him sign it, and then have time to act before September 30 in the event that he does not decide to sign it, we have to get this bill done. We have to get it to conference before the August recess.

We have worked to accommodate many of the priorities presented in the Armed Services bill. As I said, there are a few differences, however, that I should note.

The bill provides $475 million for shortfalls in defense health programs. Our subcommittee conducted a hearing in May on this subject. The additions we have made fully cover the failure of the administration to fully budget for health care for our military personnel, their families and retirees.

Second, we provide an additional $180 million for the Bosnia operation through December 20 of this year. As I said, that is the estimate that reflects the DOD's current best estimate for the charges which will be incurred through the Presidential deadline for withdrawal of those troops.

Third, we provide $150 million for the Army's peer review breast cancer research program and $100 million for a new peer review prostate cancer research program. In both instances, we have substantial involvement of military personnel in those two dread diseases, and we propose to commit some of the Defense Department's money to proceed with research to try to deal with those scourges.

We have proposed to continue the Department's support for the defense missions of the Coast Guard and propose to transfer $300 million of the funds involved, or at least the services that would be funded by that money, to the Coast Guard. This is the same level as is the case under this current year, 1996. The transfer was $300 million.

We have included an additional $119 million in the counterdrug program. This was specifically requested by Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the new administration coordinator of the counterdrug program.

We have considered closely as well the statement of administration policy concerning the House bill. The House bill was reviewed by the administration. They have given us their comments, and this bill reflects a genuine effort on the part of our committee to address the concerns raised by the President's senior advisers concerning provisions of the House bill. We worked in preparing this bill to assess the real funding problems of the military and have sought to allocate the increase afforded by the congressional budget resolution to the most urgent personnel and operational requirements.

We next worked to fund the priorities identified by each of the service chiefs. We took their counsel seriously, and this bill reflects their input. The statement of administration policy on this bill which we received last night is really from the OMB, and it notes that some of the items in the bill are not included in the President's defense plan, and that is correct. Congress rejected for 1996 and again in 1997 the reductions to defense spending proposed by the administration. The resolution adopted by Congress earlier this year provides $30 billion more than President Clinton's budget for the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.

In testimony before our subcommittee, each of the service chiefs highlighted the shortfalls in their budget and provided the committee with their priorities at our request.

While not every item in this bill is included in the Clinton 5-year plan, virtually every major increase specifically funds priorities identified by one of the service chiefs. Again, I want to point out that was our request. It was not a volunteered statement by the service chiefs, but we asked them to identify their priorities, and we have funded, to the best of our ability, the priorities identified by each of the service chiefs.

There are two specific increases not in the President's 5-year plan that I want to highlight. First, we provided an additional $759 million to continue the modernization of the National Guard and Reserve. This annual bipartisan effort to meet the needs of the Reserve components should be in this budget. It is right to do so. We need these funds to assure that we have an active Guard and Reserve component. We rely very heavily, more than at any time in the past, on our Guard and Reserves.

Second, I joined Senator Dole, Senator Thurmond, Senator Lott, and many others in recommending a significant increase in spending for national missile defense . Now, the proposed increase in this bill reflects a balanced effort to accelerate these systems to counter the theater and national threats, threats that our military and our Nation face today. For my State of Alaska, and I believe Hawaii also, deploying a capable defense missile system is a pressing and immediate priority. A recent national intelligence estimate exempted Alaska and Hawaii from its consideration of a national missile defense requirement and specifically stated that their estimate concerning the threat to the United States could not be applied to Alaska and Hawaii. We are within the threat from existing systems now.

Senator Inouye and I have looked for opportunities to save the taxpayers money in this bill, and let me point out that we have included new multiyear procurement authority for several systems, including the DTG-51 destroyer program. The Navy estimates that we will save nearly $1 billion over the next 4 years on that destroyer alone. We fully funded the C-17 multiyear contract which was authorized earlier this year.

Those and many more details of the bill are explained in our report which has been available to every Member of the Senate since June 21. These were our objectives, and I hope the bill will enjoy support of a large bipartisan majority.

Again, I urge the Senate to proceed expeditiously on this bill. Let us finish it today. We have a series of amendments we are prepared to accept, and I think we can move along very quickly if we have the cooperation of the Senate to do so.

Let me turn now, Mr. President, to my good friend. I might state for the information of the Senate that Senator Graham of Florida wished to make a statement to introduce a bill. We wanted to lay down our bill as indicated under the agreement, but it is my intention to yield such time, following the comments of the Senator from Hawaii, to Senator Graham so he might make a statement, introduce a bill, on the condition we recover the floor as soon he has completed his statement.

Let me, if I may, yield the floor to the Senator from Hawaii.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Chair.

I begin by commending our subcommittee chairman, the senior Senator from the State of Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for putting together what I consider to be a very good bill, a bill that all of us should and could support.

As the chairman indicated, last month the Senate adopted the conference report on the budget resolution, and that measure directed the Appropriations Committee to increase defense budget authority by $11.2 billion. The subcommittee's share of that increase is $10.1 billion. Chairman Stevens, acting in conjunction with the subcommittee, was tasked to determine how this increase should be allocated. I believe, as my colleagues review the bill, they will see that the subcommittee, under the leadership of Senator Stevens, used this increase very judiciously.

The bill provides many improvements to the administration's budget requests. For example, the bill increases funding for operation and maintenance by $500 million to protect readiness. We speak of readiness, Mr. President. This is necessary if we are to implement readiness. It includes such items as $280 million for barracks renovation and repair; $150 million for ship depot maintenance and to fund 95 percent of the Navy's identified requirements; $148 million for identified contingency costs, as the chairman clearly pointed out, in the case of Bosnia; and $119 million for the President's counterdrug initiative; $50 million to clean up the environment, protect endangered species.

We also add $590 million, Mr. President, to fully fund health care costs identified by the Surgeon General and DOD Health Affairs Secretary. This will allow our men and women in uniform access to health care that they deserve.

Third, as the chairman pointed out, we recommend $150 million for breast cancer research, $100 million for prostate cancer research, and $15 million for AIDS research. I think all of us can be very proud of what the Army Institute of Research has done in the area of AIDS.

The bill also provides $300 million for the defense missions of the Coast Guard.

Fifth, the chairman has added $40 million to examine alternative technologies to dispose of chemical weapons.

Mr. President, this bill has fully provided for the pay and allowances of our military personnel, including a 3-percent pay raise and a 4-percent increase in quarters allowances.

One can gain an appreciation from these few examples that the committee has responded to the needs of our men and women in uniform. The bill also provides $44.1 billion for procurement of equipment, which is an increase of $6 billion above the request of the President. This increase will provide for many of the high-priority needs identified by our commanders in the field. But the total is still $1.7 billion below the level recommended by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As the committee reported the bill, this bill adds $525 million to initiate a 4-year multiyear contract for the Navy's Aegis destroyer program. According to the Navy, this recommendation will save our taxpayers $1 billion.

This bill also adds $163 million to improve the Navy's EA-6B electronic jamming aircraft, and this will allow the Air Force to retire the EF-111, saving hundreds of millions of dollars.

Funding of $759 million is included for equipment for our National Guard and Reserve forces to the level authorized by the Armed Services Committee. Our Guard and Reserve commanders will decide what specific equipment to purchase.

The funding added by the committee for modernization responds to the concerns expressed by many of our military leaders that action is needed to ensure our forces are equipped with the world's best equipment. This bill also provides the level approved by the Senate for ballistic missile defense , $3.4 billion. While some of my colleagues may oppose this, I note that the Senate voted for this level last month.

The administration identified several issues in the House bill that it opposes. The committee has responded to nearly all of its concerns, rejecting restrictive legislative provisions and funding administrative priorities.

Chairman Stevens has done a masterful job in keeping this bill clean. It safeguards our national defense and the priorities of the Senate, and rejects controversial riders. As I indicated in my opening, this is a very good bill and I am strongly in favor of his recommendations. I sincerely believe it should have the bipartisan support of the Senate.

In closing, may I note the following. I am certain there are many in this Chamber who will criticize the fact that we have appropriated funds over and above the amount requested by the administration. For that matter, I should note if it were not for this subcommittee, the C-17 program would be dead. Today it is hailed by all as being the big working ship, the ship that is necessary, the plane that will carry the cargo for us. If it were not for Chairman Stevens and this subcommittee, the V-22 Osprey would be a dead bird. It is now considered the highest priority by the Marines.

The great hero of Desert Storm was the F-117, the Stealth fighter, the fighter that was able to knock out all the radar stations that made it possible for our bombers to come in. If it were not for this subcommittee, the F-117 would not have been operating in Desert Storm.

I would say we can take full credit for insisting upon modernizing the National Guard airlift with the C-130-H after the Air Force canceled that. Here is another historic footnote. If it were not for the action of this subcommittee, in all likelihood the central command would have been wiped out in 1990, just before Desert Storm. And we would have retired General Schwarzkopf just before Desert Storm.

I think we can take credit for saving the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.

This subcommittee was instrumental in upgrading the Patriot missile program, a program that we were ready to wipe out. It was not perfect, but the Patriot saved many American lives during Desert Storm.

So I just wanted to note a few of these items to indicate that, yes, we have taken the initiative to recommend items over and above that requested by the administration because, in our judgment, we felt these steps had to be taken. With that, once again I congratulate my chairman for having done a tremendous job.