Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are a number of cosponsors to this amendment. The amendment I offer is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which directs the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Defense, and the Congressional Budget Office to develop a common estimate of outlays under the fiscal year 1999 defense budget. The modification of my amendment adds a corresponding sense-of-the-Senate section which urges OMB, CBO, and the Secretaries of nondefense agencies to also develop common estimates for the 1999 outlays for the nondefense discretionary programs. I believe this amendment is one that is needed. It is a sense of the Senate, but it directs, as far as the Office of Management and Budget and CBO and the Defense Department, to find a common ground before we start marking up either the authorization bill or the appropriations bill. It has been cosponsored by both sides. I believe it will be accepted. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am offering a Sense-of-the-Senate Amendment which urges the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Defense, and the Congressional Budget Office to develop a common estimate of outlays under the fiscal year 1997 Defense budget. Last year, the Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997-- putting the Federal Government on a path to living within its means. The act specified the budget authority and outlay levels for the Defense Department for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The Department of Defense is a $250 billion organization--an organization which needs stability to run effectively. The Defense Department relied on last year's Budget Act to build its fiscal year 1999 budget. Currently, the fiscal year 1999 budget submitted by the Defense Department, and scored using OMB rates, complies with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. OMB and the Defense Department built their outlay rates based on the specific spending plans of each DOD program and based upon the policy changes contained in the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget. In many cases, the Defense Department increased outlay rates over last year's levels. DOD also adjusted working capital fund policies, and billing rates, to generate positive balances and keep these funds solvent. Mr. President, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which I chair, has for the last 3 years, transferred cash into the working capital funds and directed DOD to change its billing rates and policies. The Defense Department has done what the Congress asked. However, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that outlays under the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget will exceed the limit imposed by the budget agreement, as well as the OMB quality estimate, by $3.7 billion. These differences are based on statistical analyses and projections of the future based on the past. While this may all be theoretically interesting, it has severe implications for the Defense Department. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee would have to totally restructure the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget to reduce outlays by $3.7 billion. We would have to cut military personnel funding unexpectedly forcing thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen out of the force structure. We would have to cut operation and maintenance funds--funds which keep our troops trained and ready, which pay to day-to-day bills for our bases, and which repair the aging equipment relied upon by our military personnel. Lastly, we could turn to the procurement and research and development accounts--cutting $2-$10 of budget authority for every dollar in outlays we must save. This would bring modernization to a virtual halt and increase the cost of the remaining, less efficient programs. These cuts would not serve the Senate, and Defense Department, or the Nation well. I understand that there may be new and more detailed information on the Defense Department's budget policies and execution plans-- information that the Congressional Budget Office did not consider. It is essential that there be a common agreement on the outlay estimate of the Defense budget--an agreement that does not punish DOD based on a disagreement over statistical predictions and historical interpolation. My amendment urges that everyone work toward this common agreement-- an agreement which I hope will allow us adequate flexibility to maintain balance in the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2253, and I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. The chairman is right. We have added the nondefense portion. It deals, however, just with the discretionary accounts, both defense and nondefense discretionary. It is a matter that Appropriations must have resolved.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I saw the report that the Dow is about ready to hit 9,000. If we do not act, as has been proposed in the IMF, the country better get ready for a slide. This is a very serious matter where I come from, and I urge the Senate to approve this amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered, Madam President.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Kansas 3 minutes and the Senator from Florida 2 minutes. Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I did not hear the Senator.

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

Mr. STEVENS. That comment, coming from the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, is an honor. I want to assure the Senate we would not have been able to move on this bill without the cooperation of Senator Byrd and the minority staff. I will come back later with the thanks to all concerned on this matter, but I am grateful to my good friend.

Mr. STEVENS. I do.

Mr. STEVENS. Let me thank all Members for their cooperation and assistance in connection with this bill. I, again, say that these are vital subjects to our democracy, and it is imperative that we proceed as rapidly as possible. And I appreciate the Senate giving us the authority to move immediately, when we receive either bill from the House, to go to conference with the House.

Mr. STEVENS. A rollcall vote on the conference report. That is the commitment we have made.

Mr. STEVENS. We do not have the bill here. And this enables us to go to conference on either bill immediately. The final vote on this bill will occur in a conference report in each instance.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the bill now be placed back on the calendar until such time as the Senate receives from the House the House companion bill. I further ask unanimous consent that once the Senate receives the House companion bill, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 1768, as amended, be inserted, and the bill be read for the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and S. 1768 be placed back on the calendar. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives the House companion bill to the IMF supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of the IMF title in this bill be inserted, and the bill be advanced to third reading and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without further action or debate. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that in both cases the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all occurring without further action or debate.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my colleague has stated the problem. Actually, if we do not adopt his amendment, the budget is more out of balance than it is if we do, because the sale of this oil at a time when the market is so low, which is the current mandate, would cause revenue to be so low that there would be a loss, as I said, to the overall budget process and it would be greater than this emergency amendment which provides the money for the SPR without selling the oil. I have had no objection to this amendment. I think we may face a substantial battle in the other body to justify this, but I believe we should accept it. And I know of no problem on the other side of the aisle, either. So I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator very much.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his consideration of this situation here today and for the process that he is starting. We welcome that approach to this problem. That was the Cleland amendment that was listed on the list. We now are ready for two other Senators who, I believe, will come soon to present their amendments. We still believe we will have a vote sometime around 2 o'clock. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I do have an amendment authored by my distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, which I send this to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.