Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my hope the Senate will agree that we can proceed on other amendments. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Senator's amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regretfully must oppose Senator McCain's amendment. I understand the amendment, but it takes a different approach to funding critical Department of Defense priorities for fiscal year 2000 than the committee has approved in this bill before the Senate. Based upon the amounts that we provided in the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations for Kosovo and funds that were remaining from the 1999 supplemental for Bosnia, the committee determined--and I add that it was at my request--that at least $3.1 billion now available to the Department of Defense can and should be carried over to the year 2000. As a matter of fact, on the floor of the Senate I stated that our intent was to try and take care of some of the year 2000 obligations in that supplemental to best reflect the needs of the Department and the pressures across the discretionary accounts under the 1997 budget agreement. Our committee adjusted the totals in this bill to reflect those specific amounts that carry over from the 1999 appropriation into the year 2000. Having done so, having brought $3.1 billion more into this account, we then removed some of the moneys that we previously allocated to the account into the nondefense area. The discretion to do that gave us the ability to meet critical needs in the nondefense area. We believe that we did address critical readiness problems in the supplemental, and we specifically anticipated some of those needs which could possibly have been incurred--the costs incurred--before September 30th of this year. Those now appear to be funds that will be required in the year 2000, and we have met those demands by moving forward with the money. I know this has caused some anxiety to people within the Department of Defense who believe that we have cut the bill. We have not cut the bill. The bill is exactly the same amount of money originally under consideration by the committee, but we have found the moneys to pay those bills by carrying forward into the year 2000 some of the 1999 appropriations. We believe we have met the needs of the military under this bill. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona strikes from the bill $3.1 billion, rather than carry forward with the money from 1999. I think that will have a detrimental impact on the priorities established by the committee and the priorities that some Members have presented not only in committee but on the floor. For instance, the Senator's amendment would reduce nearly $270 million from the service operation and maintenance accounts, including $53.5 million from the Army National Guard alone. In procurement, the amendment pending would reduce or eliminate funding provided to replace the aging UH-1, the Huey helicopters, built in the 1960s, with the Army's modern standard, the UH-60 Blackhawk. The amendment reduces funding for advance procurement of one of the Commandant of the Marine Corps' top priorities, the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship. For the Air Force, funding for additional F-16, EC-130J and JStars aircraft would be deleted. In research and development, funds added for the SBIRS satellite, national missile defense and the third arrow battery for Israel would be reduced. For the Defense Health Program, the additional amounts provided for breast cancer research and prostate cancer research would be cut also by the Senator's amendment. In response to Members' requests that the committee provide additional funds to fight the war on drugs, the committee did add funding for the gulf states counterdrug initiative, the National Guard counterdrug missions, and $50 million in response to the proposed Drug Free Century Act. Senator McCain's amendment would delete $61.6 million of the funds added to the bill for those efforts. The Senator from Arizona and I have discussed on many occasions that we do have different approaches to addressing the funding needs for the Armed Forces. I know Senator McCain is a stalwart proponent of the men and women of the armed services and their families, and I believe I am also. We are just approaching the job from a different direction. I believe that I must, on behalf of the committee, oppose the amendment. I truly believe the flexibility provided by the committee to the Department of Defense best accommodates the needs of the military, and ensures that funds are available in the accounts where necessary to accommodate readiness, quality of life, modernization and technology priorities. I can state categorically the accounts that are here to accommodate readiness, quality of life, modernization and technology priorities of the Department of Defense have been met by our bill. The Senator mentioned some of the items in this bill that affect my State. The Point Barrow landfill was created by the Department of the Navy. It operated in Point Barrow for many, many years. As that installation was closed down, the Department of Navy did not remediate the landfill. It is a terrible problem in the Arctic, particularly in the summertime when that landfill becomes just a morass. The local people have asked, using Defense Department funds, that the job be completed. This bill does, in fact, provide moneys for that purpose. The Senator mentioned the joint Federal telemedicine project that is going on in my State. Again, this is an initiative by the Department of Defense that has a substantial amount of communications capability in our State to deal with Federal agencies' needs and the needs of the services they provide throughout the State of Alaska to coordinate a delivery system for medicine using telemedicine techniques. We believe that is going to result in reducing the cost of health care delivery to Alaska Native people and the Indian Health Service to the military people throughout our State who serve on military bases and those who receive the benefits of Federal programs. It is not a general program for the population as a whole. I say to the Senate, I understand the Senator's approach and I respect it, but I believe and our committee believes that there are instances where activities, which originated on military bases or caused by military occupation of specific portions of land within the individual States, do affect the local population and that those obligations of the Federal Government should be met with defense funds. The basic problem, though--I go back to the beginning--we did not cut from other accounts in order to get the moneys to shift to other appropriations bills. For instance, we have shifted a substantial amount of money now through what we call the deficiency subcommittee-- which was a subcommittee created specifically for that purpose--moneys from these accounts from the Department of Defense into the agriculture appropriations bill, but the way it was done does not reduce the amount of money that will be spent by the Department of Defense in the year 2000. A portion of the moneys really are carried over to be spent in the year 2000 rather than being spent in 1999, and that is what we intended when we asked the Congress to approve that supplemental appropriations bill. I hope the Senate will agree with us and will oppose this amendment and defeat it. It is a significant vote for us to determine. Members will note the reports in the papers and in the media concerning the meetings that are taking place in the House of Representatives. They are deciding on an approach quite similar to ours to reduce the amount of money that will be spent through the fiscal year 2000 process and carry over some of the funds from 1999 to meet the obligations in the year 2000. I think that is a legitimate way to use the money that is available to us and will enable us hopefully to stay under the caps in treating all of the bills that have to be passed by our committee. Thirteen separate bills have to be brought to this floor, and ours is the only committee which faces a point of order under the Budget Act if we exceed the caps. We are trying our best to live with that Budget Act. I think we will. There is still a serious gap in money, but we will find that money somewhere within the agencies, either by reducing carryover funds or by eliminating funds that are now no longer high priority so we can meet the obligations of the year 2000 with the funds that will be available under the budget agreement. If we cannot do that, we will come to the Senate in September, and we will have to work out a way to solve our problem. Right now, our goal--and I think it is a bipartisan goal--is to live with the Budget Act, stay within the caps, yet meet our obligations. What we have done in this bill is the initial key to opening up the door down that long corridor to comply with the Budget Act. I urge the Senate to disapprove the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. I yield to my friend if he has any comments to make.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for Senators Lott and Cochran, and I ask that it be qualified and set aside.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Again, Mr. President, for the benefit of all Senators, after 2:30, no further amendments in the first degree will be in order; is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk for Senator Shelby, and I ask that it be numbered and qualified.

Mr. STEVENS. Could we wait until after 2:30? We are trying to get these in by the deadline, and then I will be happy to listen to the Senator's comments.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Hawaii have any amendments? Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk for the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and ask that it be qualified.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the regular order.

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

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. We have several other amendments we are trying to get agreed to. I plead with Members of the Senate to bring forth the amendments so we may study them and know the amendments that we will debate later today. It is my hope we will finish this bill this evening. Let me state for the information of Members of the Senate, this is not a military construction bill. This is the defense bill. Military construction items will be in a separate bill. That bill will be marked up by the Senate tomorrow. Members who have amendments concerning military construction at home or abroad should present those to the subcommittee for consideration at markup tomorrow. We have had some suggested amendments to this bill; we do not want those to come to this bill. This is not within the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee. We will be forced to oppose any amendment that is offered that deals with military construction. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. These amendments have been cleared on both sides. I ask they be considered en bloc, passed and adopted en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a portion of the managers' package that we have been working on. I will delineate each amendment, send them to the desk, and ask they be considered en bloc. The first is an amendment of Senator Inhofe pertaining to the Starstreak missile. The next is an amendment of Senator Mack, $6 million for advanced-track acquisition; another amendment of Senator Mack, $3 million electronic propulsion systems; Senator Mack, $5 million for the tropical remote sensing radar; an amendment of Senator Burns, $6 million for pollution/waste systems, research and development; Senator McConnell, $13 million for the MK-45, and $19 million for the Close In Weapon System. I have an amendment for $1.5 million for the Pallet-Loading System; Senator Bennett, $1 million for the alternative missile engine; Senator Hollings, $3 million for the Environmental Pollution Preventive Initiative; Senator Reid, $4.5 million for hot gas decontamination projects; Senator Lieberman, $2 million for the Medical Informatics; Senator Reid, $2.8 million for the K-Band Test Obscuration Pairing System; Senator Kerrey, $2 million for recombinant vaccine research; Senator Lautenberg, an Army firefighting equipment amendment; Senator Biden, $3 million for advanced composite materials processing; Senator Domenici, $5 million for Army warfare analysis; Senator Domenici, $7.5 million for shield imaging; Senators Wyden and Smith, $4 million for laser fusion; an amendment of mine for $20 million for supersonic noise reduction; Senator Leahy, JCETS reporting requirement; Senator Shelby, $5 million for the DAU pilot program; Senator Inouye, an amendment for training by the Center of Excellence for Disaster Management. As I indicated, these amendments are part of the managers' group and I ask they be considered en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will discuss this matter later, but I will say that the Senator's amendment is consistent with my understanding of the purposes for which we passed the 1999 supplemental. The moneys in that supplemental were for assistance to the refugees and for conducting the air war. It is my understanding that there was no money for the ground war, no money for the subsequent force--whatever it may be--that follows after the cessation of hostilities in that area. As the Senator stated, it would be for the long-term reconstruction and not for the temporary things that might be done to assist the Kosovo refugees to go back to their former homes. I think that will be probably something that will have to have money immediately, once we have a cessation of hostilities, which I pray will be very soon. I think this ought to be a marker that we put down that we want to see how these costs are going to be met in this area after the hostilities cease. The economy of the European Union now is greater than ours. Their employment picture is even better than ours. I don't see any reason why there should be an assumption that we will carry on at the past level of expenditures. There is no question that the expenditures made in the war so far are overwhelmingly U.S. expenditures. I do not deny the participation of the NATO allies in the activities, but their costs are infinitesimal compared to ours when you view the long line that our supplies have to follow to get there and the cost of maintaining our forces there as compared to those who go home every night, in terms of the participants from the European Union. I hope the Senate will take a very careful look at the Senator's suggestion. I want to make sure that it does not impede the activities of our forces to really provide for their own protection, as well as the facilities that will be needed by our people if they move into the area immediately after the cessation of hostilities. But I do think when we get to a long-range concept, a new Marshall Plan for this area, it is something that the Congress must be involved in, and the taxpayers must know what our share is going to be before we commence such activities. I urge the Senator to lay his amendment aside.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House of Representatives the companion bill to S. 1122, the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration thereof; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1122, as passed, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the House bill, as amended, be read for the third time and passed; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; and that the foregoing occur without any intervening action or debate. I further ask unanimous consent that S. 1122 not be engrossed and that it remain at the desk pending receipt of the House companion bill, and that upon passage of the House bill, as amended, the passage of S. 1122 be vitiated and the bill be indefinitely postponed.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are working on a managers' package. We have several amendments that we believe the Senate should include in such a package. I urge Members who have identified amendments they intend to offer to consult with my friend from Hawaii, myself, and our staffs to see if we can't enlarge this package and take care of a series of items that are really not controversial during the time that we have a vehicle. As I have stated before, all amendments to this bill in the first degree must be introduced by 2:30 this afternoon. We stand ready to work with any Member on an amendment. This would be a good time for anyone who has an amendment that is controversial to come and offer it. So far, no one has volunteered to undertake that task. But pending a Member wishing to offer an amendment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to send to the desk a series of amendments which provide adjustments in the bill brought about by a review made by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. These amendments allocate funds in a different manner under the bill. The first change is an increase in funds for the Army Test Range Facilities Program. The second readjusts one account in the Navy, and moves $51.84 million into the Joint War Fighting Experimental Program, and leaves it under the control of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs reporting to the defense committees of the House and the Senate. The third will appropriate funds to meet the authorization bill's provision of funds to assist the Red Cross in providing Armed Forces emergency services. The fourth is to deal with the addition of $10 million from cockpit modifications to the U2. I send them to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.