J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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. 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: 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.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to a very distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee who has sat next to me on that committee for 18 years, the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. EXON. I am glad to reply. I have only 4 minutes left for closing remarks.

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield me time to answer?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I assume that all time has been used in opposition to the Exon, et al., amendment. I would like to inquire as to how much time is left on our side on the Exon, et al., amendment.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I might need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Feingold from Wisconsin, and Senator Harkin from Iowa be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in the limited time that I have remaining I would like to have the opportunity to recap the arguments for the Exon amendment. I would first like to point out for the full understanding of all that this is the only amendment that has any chance or likelihood of passage for making any meaningful reduction not previously contemplated in the defense budget. I voted against the previous amendment by Senator Wellstone that would have reduced and eliminated all of the $13 billion increase over and above what was requested in the President's budget and not requested in the Pentagon's budget. I simply say that all should understand that in essence the Exon amendment sponsored by many of my colleagues is in net effect reducing by only $2.4 billion the spending authorized by the Armed Services Committee and the combined action with the budget resolution. That is a far cry from the attempt by the Senator from Minnesota that--which this Senator had some sympathy for--I voted against, an attempt to show how reasonable and how minimal the approach is as being offered by this Senator from Nebraska and several of my colleagues. To put it another way, it is quite similar in its total approach to a measure of 2 years ago commonly called the Exon-Grassley amendment that made minor reductions in the defense authorization bill but was scorned at that time by some as though we were trying to devastate the national security interests of the United States. Let me explain further how minimal this proposition is. There has been a great deal of talk today about the fact that there was a reasonable proposal that would follow to be offered by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Georgia which would reduce the Defense authorization bill from the figure of $13 billion increase over and above what the President and the Pentagon had requested down to $11.4 billion. That would be about a $1.6 billion decrease from what the Armed Services Committee had authorized. The facts are, as I suspect the chairman of the committee and the ranking member would agree, they have no alternative. The Senate has already spoken in the budget resolution. The budget resolution reduced the $13 billion 1-year increase, over and above what the President and the Pentagon want, down to $11.4 billion. That was in the budget resolution. Obviously, unless that was reduced from a $13 billion increase over and above what the President and the Pentagon want, the authorization bill by the Armed Services Committee would be in violation of the Budget Act. So the fact that we are about to be offered an opportunity to cut the fabulous increase by $1.6 billion is a foregone conclusion because we had already acted on that previously on the budget resolution. Therefore, it is hard to say that that is a real cut. Likewise, the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska and others takes that $1.6 billion that we have agreed to now to be reduced and added an additional $2.4 billion cut or decrease over and above what the President and the Pentagon requested, for a net increase--a net increase for 1 year, mind you--of $9 billion over and above what the President and the Pentagon requested. That is a pretty healthy increase. If there is anyone on this floor who wishes to show some modest, reasonable step toward balancing the budget of the United States, the thing to do today would be to say, OK, we have to give some with regard to the defense budget, because the defense budget, obviously, with its vast multibillion-dollar increase, while we are reducing the real needs of Medicare and Medicaid and education and the environment and other programs, flies in the face of reality. Another way to put that, Mr. President, would be to say this is a chance for people who preach fiscal discipline, who want a balanced budget by the year 2002, who want a constitutional amendment to guarantee that by the year 2002, with this modest amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska and others to practice what they preach. There have been some things said today in this Chamber during this debate about Admiral Boorda, our late and dear colleague, who was very close to this particular Senator. The statement has been made that Admiral Boorda was asked what more money could he use as head of the Navy if he had it. That is like saying to a military leader, is there anything at all that you would like to have if you had a blank check?

Mr. EXON. Have I used up my time?

Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to close.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator. I think the Senator asks a very legitimate question. We have checked with the comptroller at the Pentagon for the answer. The answer is quite obvious when you recognize that when we look at the various charts here, we are talking about direct spending and indirect spending. Certainly, the funding tail that I referenced is a very real thing. The Congressional Budget Office, in making their cost estimates, looks at direct spending. And then there is indirect spending. The initial airplanes, helicopters, ships, and so forth that we have, as far as the chart that the Senator referenced is concerned, is right. But that would contemplate, I would say to my friend from Virginia, that we would buy this additional equipment and then we would not use it. So, at least primarily, the difference between what the Senator has referenced as zero in his chart does not address what the Pentagon tells us, the comptroller at the Pentagon, who, I think we both agree since we know him and trust him, says that the problem that you have is that not all of the direct and indirect spending expenditures for this equipment have been considered. Therefore, the Pentagon has done that analysis, which is not part of the CBO cursory review. They conclude that it will take $25 million more, if we go ahead and purchase the equipment, and then use it, than is included in the budget. This, I think, can best be described as an indirect spending impact that has a very definite effect on the budget of the Pentagon.

Mr. EXON. That is correct.

Mr. EXON. No, that is not right. I reply on the Senator's time. I happen to have the feeling that the comptroller at the Pentagon is a very honest, straightforward individual.

Mr. EXON. I am glad we straightened that out.

Mr. EXON. I always have the highest regard for my friend from Virginia, and he knows that. If we want to go to a draw on this, let us call it a draw and move on----

Mr. EXON. To the discussion of how we can justify this increase that is not requested by the Pentagon.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise to raise an objection. I was sorry I was not able to hear fully what the unanimous consent agreement was by the Senator from South Carolina. As the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Georgia know, I have been trying to work through several things that are pending to move this bill along. I think it is important that we finish the defense authorization bill. I say that as a member of the committee. Would the Senator from South Carolina please restate, basically, to this Senator what his unanimous consent request was. I may not object, but I was not able to ascertain what the thrust of the unanimous consent request was.

Mr. EXON. I object.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wellstone amendment be temporarily set aside for the purpose of this Senator offering an amendment.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I simply say to the majority leader, in order to accommodate my friend and colleague, I will delay for 10 minutes.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. May I inquire of the Chair as to the anticipated procedures? I understand we are stacking votes until sometime to be determined later by the two leaders. I assume that the next order of business under the unanimous-consent agreement would be the amendment to be offered by the distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking member with 20 minutes equally divided. Is that now the pending business before the Senate?