Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains on the McCain amendment?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I share many of the concerns that have been expressed by my colleague from Arizona. I am sure he understands I join him in the desire that we assure the adequate protection and support for our men and women in the armed services. I do think the amendment of the Senator is well intentioned. It is consistent with the priorities identified by Secretary Rumsfeld in his budget request for the fiscal year 2002. That request provides for a substantial increase, which I shall discuss further, in defense spending, commencing with October 1 of this year--82 days away. By the time this bill gets to the President, probably it will be 75 days; by the time he signs it, it will be about 70 days; by the time the money could be released by the OMB, and then released by the Comptroller of the Department of Defense, that is about 60 days later. So we are talking about the same time because their machinery over there is designed to follow through on the amendment that has already been submitted by the Secretary. I believe it is my duty to join the Senator from Hawaii, and others, in stating that we think this matter is better addressed in the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization and appropriations bills. The Senator from Arizona talks about authorization. This matter is before the Armed Services Committee now. The Secretary has testified before that committee. They may come up with different priorities. I believe the Senator is right; we have a role in helping to determine the priorities for defense spending. We share that with the House of Representatives. Congress has the power of the purse. I do believe we should use it. But with the situation going on now, Secretary Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs are working on a comprehensive effort to redefine defense priorities. He has submitted this amendment for 2002. We are just now reviewing the details of the total request that was received just prior to the Fourth of July recess. I do not think there is any way we can determine the merit of Senator McCain's amendment until we better understand what the Secretary of Defense and the services have presented to us in the amendment to the budget for 2002. Several items in this amendment are likely to be accommodated in the Department's annual omnibus reprogramming. Every year, as we get down to this last quarter, the Department comes to us with reprogramming requests which are approved, under existing law, by the Appropriations Committees of both the House and the Senate. That shifts considerable money. We gave the Department of Defense, this year, through the Defense Appropriations Act, the authority to shift $2 billion from one fund to a fund of higher priority. We have to approve that, of course, but that lifted the ceiling considerably. Annually, the Department presents to Congress reprogramming requests that shift from one purpose to an alternative higher priority. That is what we should do. We should let the Department shift these funds and tell us where they want them shifted to, if they wish to do so. But I am constrained to point out that the budget resolution for this fiscal year contains what we call a wall. It is a wall between defense and nondefense spending. The amendment by the Senator from Arizona calls upon us to make moneys available from a substantial number of nondefense accounts for defense spending. I want to assure you if the amendment were the other way around, suggesting we should take money from defense and put it in nondefense, I am certain the Senator from Arizona would join me in vigorously opposing such an amendment. I think, in my role on the Appropriations Committee, it is my duty to vigorously oppose this amendment because of the attempt to shift money from nondefense accounts to defense accounts for this fiscal year. Later this month we are going to review the $330 billion spending proposal of the Department of Defense for 2002. I am sure that as a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain will work very hard on these matters. I am certain he will assist in determining whether the priorities are correct as submitted by the Secretary, with the approval of President Bush. I do not believe we should shift funds from the nondefense priorities until we are certain that the funds are in excess of those programs' needs. As a matter of fact, I do not think we should do it at all because that was our commitment, that we would keep a wall between defense and nondefense spending. The budget resolutions for the last 4 years--I believe 5 years--have spelled that out. And we have adhered to it. We, in the Appropriations Committee, have been quite clear about that. I have to confess, I did suggest that some of the defense moneys go to the Coast Guard, but I made that request because I believe they are a semimilitary agency. They carry out some military functions, and they have to have military equipment, military training, and military assets on board their ships. But we have vigorously defended the concept of the wall. Those people who vote for the McCain amendment are, for the first time, going to set the Senate on record as abandoning the concept of the wall. I have asked the Parliamentarian if this is subject to a point of order because of this fact, and I have to ascertain that later. But I, for one, believe in the wall because we put it up to protect defense spending, not the other way around. I don't want to get political here, but in the last few years the President was not as much in favor of defense spending as the Congress, and therefore we protected the defense spending with the wall. I do not see any reason now for us to turn around and renege on the commitment we have made to protect that concept of separating defense and nondefense spending. We should not shift these funds from other nondefense priorities. It is a matter of fact that there are substantial needs out there for the Department of Defense. I do not argue about that at all. I have to confess, if I were the Secretary of Defense, I would be among those who would be asking for even more than has the Secretary of Defense. I have every reason to believe the Secretary of Defense has asked for more money than OMB has submitted to us because the OMB, with the overall problem of controlling expenditures and meeting objectives in the nondefense area, has limited the Secretary of Defense in his request for 2002. I think we understand that. We are going to push that envelope as far as we can. But clearly the moneys that have been requested now put this administration on record of requesting more moneys--I think almost $80 billion more--than the level of 2001 that will be spent in 2002 for defense. And that is-- what?--less than 3 months away. I really have objection to the McCain amendment because of where the money comes from. It cuts $41.5 million from the dislocated workers assistance program. It rescinds $100 million from the job training program. The committee bill already took some money from this dislocated workers program, but ours is from unexpended balances of the program. This rescission takes it from the program, actually cuts job training programs for dislocated workers. And I will vote against that as a separate amendment. Senator McCain's amendment also makes substantial reductions, significant reductions, in the international space station account. This is at a time of extreme need. I have been spending some time looking into the space program because of my extreme confidence in the Administrator there and his demonstrated interest in pursuing the space program. I am told the space program has some $4 billion in potential cost overruns already to meet the full promise of the first-class orbiting space laboratory. The rescissions in this amendment would impact needed upgrades to the space shuttle, critical upgrades needed to ensure the safety of our astronauts. I do not think we can afford to make a snap judgment because of a perceived need in the Department of Defense-- perceived because I think those needs have been already met by the submission by the Department. Why should we take moneys from the space account? We do not have any justification for that that I can find, that I can see. I think it is a critical juncture now in the future of the space station. I believe we should demonstrate our continued support for it. There are a great many items in the Senator's amendment that disturb me. I hope other Members will take a look at it to see where these moneys are coming from. They start on page 3 of the amendment. Not only are the funds reduced from the space account I just mentioned, there are funds from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, under the heading ``Industrial Technology Services,'' that are reduced by $67 million for the Advanced Technology Program. There is another $19 million from the Department of Commerce for the International Trade Administration. There are moneys that were provided under the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee and Emergency Oil and Gas Guarantee Loan Act. I do appreciate the fact that the Senator has deleted the suggested reductions in the Maritime Guarantee Loan Program Account. We also have a suggestion to take from the Department of Labor for the Employment and Training Administration under the heading ``Training and Employment Services'' and for the dislocated worker account, as I mentioned, $41.5 million; adult employment and training activities, $100 million. Then from the Department of Transportation--here again, I think this would be subject to a point of order--as I understand TEA- 21, there is a wall in that, too. That money cannot be used for other purposes, but the amendment of the Senator from Arizona would take $90 million from the transit planning and research and $16 million from job access and reverse commute grants under the Federal Transit Administration. All of this, to me, means that I appreciate the attempt of the Senator from Arizona to increase the amount of money for defense. If we had money that would be free under the budget for 2001 as it exists now, I would support the Senator's amendment to do so. But the Senator's amendment takes money from other accounts. I am being redundant now. These are nondefense accounts. And it takes the money to put it into the defense accounts to meet needs already covered by a budget submission delivered to the Senate prior to the Fourth of July recess which will for approximately the same time as this money could be made available, it will be made available under the 2002 bill. I cannot support it. I hope the Senate will not support the Senator's amendment. At the appropriate time, I will make a motion to table the Senator's amendment. I do not wish to do so at this time because he still has time remaining. I ask how much time do I have remaining.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains in opposition?

Mr. STEVENS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Wyoming wishes to have time. I yield him 7 minutes from the time in opposition to Senator McCain.

Mr. STEVENS. There is an hour in opposition to the McCain amendment. On behalf of the chairman, I yield the Senator 10 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, in 1983, at my request, we started the Army's infectious disease section to determine whether there could be a cure for AIDS or prevention of its transmission. Since that time, we have spent more money than all the world put together in trying to defeat AIDS. The way to help our great friends in Africa is to find a way to cure AIDS but not to take money from a system that needs protection under the Department of Defense.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to proceed on this amendment. I do oppose the amendment Senator Feingold has offered. I do so because of my great interest in this system. The V-22 represents the best new technology in aeronautics adapted by the military air system that I have seen in my time in the Senate. Unfortunately, it has had some bad circumstances, and we all regret deeply the difficulty it has had. I have spent a considerable amount of time with the Marines, in particular, on this system and have discussed them personally with the Commandant of the Marine Corps. I will be very brief in saying that I believe this amendment is untimely and it is not in the best interests of our Marine Corps system. I do believe, as the Commandant has written to me today, that the V- 22 Osprey is the Marine Corps' No. 1 aviation priority. I think we should be very slow to terminate or disturb such a system which is being developed in the best interests of our men and women in the Marines. In particular, if it proves successful, as I pray it will, it will take our men and women across the beach. We will not see visions again in any war of our people hitting the beach and being slaughtered at the edge of the water. They will be able to fly from smaller ships and all over the place and enter into any battle zone by air, and they will have a better opportunity of survival and success in defending our Nation's interests in a time of war. It is a military asset of great value to our Department of Defense. I intend to oppose the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent to me today by General James L. Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps, be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator from Arkansas 4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Missouri would yield 2 or 3 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield myself just a couple of minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the 30 minutes equally divided between Senator Byrd and myself includes the 10 minutes for Senators Gramm and McCain, but we are at liberty to yield that to any person on the other amendments, if necessary; is that correct?

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

Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum so we may examine this amendment for just a minute.

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 873

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we already have a Social Security lockbox. The pending amendment contains matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee; therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. STEVENS. May we have order, Mr. President.