Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this amendment earmarks $2 million for a project that was inserted into the Defense authorization bill by amendment in this last week's consideration. We ask for its consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, again, I will state to the Senate we are awaiting any amendments that may be offered to this bill, the Defense appropriations bill for 1998. And if we do not soon have one, we will take that as an indication that there are no amendments and move to third reading. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are still awaiting the arrival of Senators who have indicated they may have amendments to offer. I ask that the Senate stand in recess until 4 p.m.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside so that we may proceed with the program already outlined by the leadership.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is not a small amount that is in the bill which is before us. As this amendment points out, there is almost $10 billion in the request of the President for U.S. military expenditures pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization obligations. I do believe that it is important for us to know to what extent that will be increased by virtue of the cost of action that is proposed due to the enlargement process as far as NATO is concerned. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I apologize to the reading clerk for not having it drafted properly to start with. But I do ask that these changes be made so that the amendment is as read by the reading clerk. It is an amendment that is a direction to the Department of Defense to provide the Congress with two specific reports. First, the amounts necessary, by appropriations account, for all anticipated costs to the United States for the admission of three new members to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and that report to cover the current budget cycle of fiscal year 1998 through 2002. Second, a report on any new commitments or obligations entered into or assumed by our Nation in association with the admission of these new members of the alliance, including--it is not limited to--but including deployment of U.S. personnel, the provisions of defense articles or equipment, training activities, and modification and construction of military facilities. I am one who has still strong reservations about the determination to add new members to NATO. I am not opposed to NATO. I have been a firm supporter of NATO. On the other hand, we are doing some studies now on the history of the expansion of NATO and how United States participation in deployment of forces there has just constantly increased. We, I think, need to know now what the obligation is that we have undertaken and really what will be the costs of this obligation in connection with the expansion of NATO. This really is, I think, a fairly restrictive list of things that we should have. But, clearly, we should have this information before we proceed with any consideration of ratification of any agreements that have been entered into by the United States in connection with this expansion of NATO. It is, I think, one of the strange coincidences of history that NATO was entered into--and I will present the documentation on this later-- with the firm assurance by the then Secretary of State Dean Atchison to the Senate that would be no obligation at all for the deployment of forces to Europe by virtue of the North Atlantic Treaty that was entered into by the United States at the very beginning of this organization, the NATO organization. I want to be right upfront about it, that this information may convince Members to go one way or the other concerning the matters that will be presented to us later. But I don't know of anyone who could object to asking for this information for the use of the Congress, and particularly for the use of those of us who have the duty to find and allocate the money to maintain our national defense forces to assure the capability to defend this country. I am pleased that my friend from Hawaii has cosponsored this amendment in that spirit. This is just seeking information. It will in no way inhibit the administration--either the Department of Defense or the President--in their current course. But I do, as I said, still maintain reservations about that course because of what I perceive to be the costs of that course and its impact on our future ability to maintain our own defense. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Appropriations Committee staff be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this bill, S. 1005, and also for a legislative fellow on detail to our committee: Steve Cortese, Dona Pate, Jay Kimmitt, Justin Weddle, Michelle Randolph, Mazie Mattson, Mary Marshall, Gary Reese, Susan Hogan, John Young, Sid Ashworth, Kelly Hartline, Charlie Houy, Emelie East, and Mike Morris.

Mr. STEVENS. It includes the request for the minority. Mr. President, we are now considering the Defense Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1998. This is the first of the 1998 appropriations bills that will come before the Senate. I am pleased that we can commence this year's work with the focus on national security. To date, the Appropriations Committee has reported three bills to the Senate; defense, foreign operations, and energy and water. Tomorrow, our committee will report three additional bills; we believe the legislative branch; Treasury, general Government; and Commerce, State, Justice. On Thursday, the committee will report the Transportation, Agriculture, military construction, and HUD-VA and NASA bills. That is our hope. In all, if we can do that, the committee will have reported 12 of the 13 bills prior to the August recess. The District of Columbia bill will await action by the Governmental Affairs Committee on the administration's plan to change the Federal payment program for the District of Columbia. I state at the outset that this schedule is possible because of the bipartisan approach that Senator Robert Byrd and I have developed as we have worked together not only now but over the years and the cooperation between our staffs on all these bills. I urge the Senate to maintain that bipartisan approach to this appropriations process. We have sought and the leader has pledged to assist in obtaining floor time to move these bills to conference this month. We will not be able to meet our October 1 deadline to complete action on these spending bills unless we move them expeditiously here on the floor and get them to a conference committee prior to the time we leave in August so that all of our and the staff work related to the conferences may be completed during that period and our staffs also have time to take some needed leave then, too. This bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee to the Senate by a unanimous vote of 28 to 0. That again reflects the bipartisan approach that my colleague and friend, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, and I have tried to maintain with regard to this subcommittee. This bill is within the 602(b) allocation for the Defense Subcommittee. It provides $247 billion in spending authority for 1998. That is an increase of $3.25 billion over the President's request and $3.1 billion over the 1997 appropriations, but it is consistent with the allocation under the budget agreement which was reached with the President. The 602(b) allocation for the Defense Subcommittee is $1.1 billion below that provided to the House subcommittee. Consistent with the budget agreement, our Appropriations Committee allocated a larger share of the defense 050 function for defense nuclear energy programs. That is under the energy and water bill chaired by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici]. Those items are funded in the energy and water development bill that the Senate will consider immediately after this bill. At the request of Senator Inouye and myself, the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations recommended a balanced bill to the full committee, and we believe that it addresses key funding needs for personnel, readiness, and modernization at the Department of Defense. This bill and our report have been available to all Senators since Friday morning of last week. I will not describe the bill in detail but will touch on a few of the key items. Our bill fully funds the authorized end strength for the military personnel for 1998, including the 2.8-percent pay raise. We have added $380 million for real property maintenance, with $100 million set aside for refurbishing Army barracks. We have increased funding for the request for environmental restoration, particularly at formerly used defense sites. And $1.9 billion is provided for overseas contingency operations in Southwest Asia and Bosnia, and $261 million is added to correct a second consecutive failure by the Department of Defense to adequately fund military health care programs. We have adequately funded it to the extent that we have money to do so. We have added $437 million to the budget request to meet the minimum spending needs of the Army National Guard. I want to take just a moment, Mr. President, to thank all of my colleagues who joined with Senator Bond, Senator Ford, Senator Inouye, and myself to sponsor legislation last week to elevate the rank and status of the Chief of the National Guard. The adoption of that legislation as an amendment to S. 936, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998, will help ensure that the National Guard's needs will be met during the formulation of the Department's budget and not solely by the intervention of Congress. I am going to repeat that. It has taken the intervention of Congress each year to try to get the Guard the money it needs to perform its job. I believe this amendment will go a long way toward changing that status. I ask unanimous consent that the list of cosponsors for the National Guard amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Senator Inouye and I have listened closely to the priorities identified by the service chiefs in reviewing the modernization accounts. And $3.8 billion has been provided over the budget request to address aviation, shipbuilding, munitions, and support equipment needs in the procurement accounts. Our bill includes an additional $616 million for research and development and includes an increase of $474 million for national missile defense and $175 million for additional breast cancer research. The bill includes nearly $700 million for counterdrug missions, and includes funds for the Gulf States initiative, and authority for the National Guard to spend an additional $50 million for counterdrug missions during fiscal year 1998. Consistent with the President's request, the bill provides $300 million for support of the defense missions undertaken by the Coast Guard. The bill before the Senate reflects 11 hearings undertaken by this subcommittee since February, reviewing all aspects of our defense program. Additionally, many priorities identified in this bill reflect visits by Members to defense bases here at home and abroad. This year we have taken three committee delegations overseas to evaluate how this money should be spent. In January we visited Israel, Egypt, Jordan, the Gaza, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Italy, and Bosnia. In March, we met with senior Russian military leaders in Khabarosvk, Sakalin, and Vladivostok and held talks with senior officials of the North Korean Government in Pyongyang. We also visited South Korea prior to that visit. Last month, we went to Brussels and met with the Secretary-General of NATO and senior United States commanders to better understand the situation in Bosnia and the potential costs to the United States taxpayer of NATO expansion. Through these experiences, many of us have drawn a strong impression that we are spending too much overseas, Mr. President, with too little oversight by Congress of commitments made by our regional U.S. commanders whom we call the CINC's. Senator Inouye and I have discussed these concerns at length with the Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen. In response to our efforts, DOD is taking steps to reduce forces in Southwest Asia and in the vicinity of Bosnia. Secretary Cohen informed us just prior to the markup of this bill in the full committee that the Department will reduce overseas Joint Chiefs of Staff exercises in 1998 and will reduce the size of joint and unified headquarters overseas. As a result of these consultations, the committee adopted modest reductions to the budget for programs in these areas. We are indebted to Secretary Cohen for his cooperation with us. I will say I think this bill reflects the relationship he has developed not only with Senator Inouye and myself but with all members of the Defense Subcommittee. Beyond these operations, the committee has also pressed for greater financial oversight of the regional CINC operation. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joe Ralston, has led this effort to increase financial limits and visibility on the deployment decisions that are made by the CINC's. Mr. President, it is my judgment that no military officer has the unilateral right to commit U.S. forces and taxpayer dollars overseas without the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the President of the United States, and the concurrence of Congress, and, specifically, to spend money, it is required there be express appropriations of funds for that purpose. I am talking about increasing deployment overseas of U.S. forces and increasing and expending from taxpayer dollars by CINC operations. This committee will not hesitate to reduce the funding available to the Department and severely limit the Department's spending and flexibility unless further progress is made in this area. I want to make certain we have no desire to interfere with the President's role as Commander in Chief, nor do we have difficulty with the role played by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But military officers in command in the field cannot obligate our Nation to long-term overseas expenditures or deployments--they have been doing so, Mr. President, and that must come to an end. That is what is increasing the defense budget. Decisions made in the field without proper knowledge being transmitted to Congress on the commitments that are being made abroad, long-term commitments--in one instance, we were told it was a 20- to 50-year deployment that construction was being planned on, and not one word had been said to Congress about a deployment of that length. Mr. President, there are many other issues in the bill that I could speak about at this time. It is time for me to yield to my distinguished comanager of this bill, my good friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this will restore $60 million to the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Program. We call it the Nunn-Lugar Program. It will fully fund the program. We had reduced $60 million in accordance with the Senate Armed Services Committee's original reduction. During debate on the floor last week of the Armed Services bill, this item was increased. Since it is the only one that was really a substantial increase, we seek to have this adopted. We have no jurisdiction over Department of Energy funds, and we have used different offsets to restore this $60 million, but we seek to have this amendment adopted because it is a major difference between the Armed Services bill and this bill represented by our committee.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to state to the Senate that while we have been told there are some possible amendments, I have not been informed of any Senator's intent, for sure, to offer an amendment. I do want to tell the Senate I intend to move to go to third reading if there are not amendments brought to us and offered for debate. We have a very long program for appropriations this week and we hope to finish three, maybe four, maybe even five of the bills this week. If this bill is not going to be the subject of amendments today, we should know that soon. We are obligated to go to debate on the cloture motion at 6 o'clock, but we could, if the Senators would bring their amendments over here prior to that time, finish the debate on significant amendments and vote on them after the consideration of the cloture motion or as soon as the vote on cloture is over, and enable us to move to another appropriation tomorrow. It is our hope that Senators will present their amendments now. It is hard to get people to listen, but I hope they will listen because I am going to move to go to third reading if we do not have substantive amendments presented here before that time comes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the two of us wish to emphasize to the Senate that this bill came out of our committee by unanimous vote. It has been a long time since that happened. But we have personally reviewed the requests from every Member of the Senate presented to our committee and we have done our best to allocate the moneys that were available. Not all of those requests were satisfied, I am sad to state. But under the circumstances, I do not expect substantial disagreement with this bill. But if there is any disagreement, we would like to know it now because we do intend to move forward to other bills, if we can. The energy and water bill is ready to come before the Senate as soon as this one is over. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thurmond, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary be authorized to correct errors in the engrossment of the act, S. 936, the Defense authorization bill for the fiscal year 1998, which I send to the desk.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, a point of order. Will the Senator yield for a point of order?

Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw it.

Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw the point of order. The Senator is not going to take long.